Imagine a court case, from either the point of view of the prosecution or the defence. There is a form of evidence available that can win the case. But for some reason, it’s ignored and not used; even though this vital evidence can help and improve the chances of winning. Why would anyone ever not want that? Why not use something readily available that can help? This is a metaphor for the case for video technology in football.
The first point of refusal by opponents to its inclusion in the sport will point to the fact a court case has nothing to do with sport. However, it’s archaic to suggest that the sport should ignore the implementation for technology that could vastly improve an already brilliant game.
A perfect example is goal-line technology. Original opposition to this was that the technology would slow down a game that already has more than its share of delays, thanks to time wasting, long substitutions and the constant diving and faking of injuries which is the greatest detractor of the world game.
Goal-line technology is brilliant and the transition has been smooth. Despite concerns, it has nothing to do with removing referees. Per the official mandate by FIFA, the purpose of it is simple:
“The objective of goal-line technology (GLT) is not to replace the role of the officials, but rather to support them in their decision-making.”
That’s exactly what it does. Whilst a linesman or referee can make a decision on a goalbound ball crossing the line or not, the play continues. It must provide a clear indication as to whether the shot was a goal or not, and the referee still makes the final decision. It is quietly efficient whilst providing definitive support to widely criticised officials.
There is the issue of retrospective punishment for these types of issues, but that is a completely separate argument and not entirely relevant. This is because retrospective action can often be too late, and the damage is done on the pitch. Goals have been conceded, players have been wrongly sent off and points have been lost.
This season unfortunately has seen similar incidents:
- Sergio Aguero’s offside strike against Leicester City in the 3-1 loss at the Etihad.
- Christian Benteke’s offside winner against Bournemouth after Tom Elphick harshly had a goal ruled out.
- John Terry’s blatantly offside equaliser late against Everton at Stamford Bridge.
- Diego Costa’s offside goal which proved to be the winner midweek against Norwich.
- Alberto Moreno was mistakenly ruled offside when Liverpool equalised against Newcastle. They went on to lose the game 2-0.
- Aaron Ramsey had scored against Liverpool in the 0-0 draw but the goal was wrongly ruled offside, losing the Gunners two points.
- An incident between Diego Costa and Gabriel led to the Brazilian being sent off when arguably it should have been neither, or both. Arsenal lost easily 2-0 with 10 men. Costa’s conduct on the day was far more worthy of a red card than Gabriel’s.
- Per Mertesacker was controversially sent off in the reverse fixture at the Emirates after a questionable tackle on Diego Costa (whose involvement in these incidents is no coincidence). Following footage showed the decision may have been wrong with contact incredibly exaggerated (explained brilliantly here).
All these were snap decisions made by referees under intense pressure. This does not even include decisions not given, such as penalties via handballs and bad tackles. Officials are under so much pressure that it is starting to seem as though they would rather make decisions to not award something rather than risk calling it and later being wrong, as penalties are so heavily scrutinised.
There is the claim that play would slow down even further under new technology. Goal-line technology has not done that, why would video technology? In the time players pester the referee over a decision, reviews can be made. In the time it takes players to celebrate a goal, reviews can be made. Worried about time wasting? Try cutting down on goalkeepers wasting anywhere up to 60 seconds on a goal kick, or players using up 30 seconds on a simple throw-in. Being tougher on easy fixes like that would go a long way.
Fans claim that this would remove the human element and luck that football brings. It is easy to say that when the money involved in bad decisions does not affect fans directly. But they do affect the clubs. It can decide league titles, European qualification, basic league position (which in itself costs millions nowadays) and ultimately relegation.
Bad decisions sometimes balance out over the course of the season, but sometimes they don’t. The point that Norwich were denied via a non-call on Diego Costa could see them relegated, likewise with Bournemouth with Christian Benteke’s wrongly awarded goal. Chelsea’s string of possibly fortuitous decisions in their favour could see them finish significantly higher than they should. In such a competitive league with no margin for error, it all adds up.
At the time of writing, FIFA has made the announcement of the trial of video assistant referees in the sport. This is the time step to the next evolution of the world game. It will require intense testing and regimenting to get it right, but it’s an avenue certainly worth exploring. Everyone is already seeing the downside of not having it in the game. There’s simply too much at stake to not utilise what could be done.
