FIFA are too reluctant to change

James Olley
11 Mar 2010

The latest setback to goal-line technology smacks once again of FIFA's present status as an outdated governing body stoically opposed to the evolution of football and society.

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) voted against the implementation of cameras on the goal-lines and the use of video replays by a vote of 6-2 last weekend.

Although the IFAB is comprised of the four British football associations, FIFA holds the remaining four votes and their steadfast refusal to embrace change reared itself with a vengeance once more.

The notion, uttered by many managers this week, is that a massive game must be decided by a mistake that could be easily corrected by technology is an implicit acknowledgment that FIFA have become little more than a reactionary figure with a frustrating president whose eccentricities have made them a laughing stock in certain quarters.

Sepp Blatter has not always been against such technology. Last week saw the 124th Annual General Meeting of the IFAB and the issue has been raised on several occasions in recent years.

Such was the momentum behind the idea in 2006 that Blatter said in November that year: “I am sure that at the end of 2007 when we play the World Club Cup then we will have goal-line technology.”

Yet that tournament came and passed and by March 2008, Blatter rejected the proposal again, insisting the technology was only “95 per cent accurate” and therefore unreliable – an argument used again in the aftermath of their latest decision.

The truth is that FIFA are simply reluctant to change the game beyond piecemeal - and often annoying – reform such as the back-pass rule, complicating the offside law and remember the baffling automatic red card for a challenge from behind that threatened to make a farce of the 1998 World Cup?

Bringing in technology would represent a radical shift in the footballing landscape that FIFA have proved themselves incapable of making – their botched attempt to deal with diving that ended in Arsenal striker Eduardo's being banned and then cleared last year provides yet further evidence.

This is not to argue that goal-line technology would be an unqualified success but the case for its introduction is overwhelmingly compelling.

The claim that a system involving Hawk-Eye' – presently employed in other sports such as cricket and tennis – is not 100 per cent accurate is farcical as a reason to deny its use.

When was the last time a human referee was anything close to 100 per cent accurate? Problems with the referral system in cricket have stemmed largely from the International Cricket Council's insistence that the host broadcaster foots the bill for the technology it uses, meaning Hotspot has not been used in instances where other methods have not proved conclusive.

Football must not make the same mistake – perhaps FIFA are equally unwilling to stump up the requisite cash, but they publicly claim to value the human error element to the game that expensive technology could erode.

But in terms of a goal-line decision, all it would do is condense the speculation, the argument and the damage it could do to a referee's reputation over the course of subsequent weeks into a matter of seconds when a conclusive replay was provided and the correct decision made.

For those who argue the delays it would cause to the game – anyone who has Sky television will know that in the time it takes for Rory Delap to deliver a throw-in, two replays could be shown to those concerned.

Were a goal-line official at either end of the pitch to be introduced – as has been suggested by the IFAB – the capacity for human error is reduced but still exists, yet imagine the ire towards an official were he to fail to spot the one thing he was on the pitch to spot.

It is argued that in tennis, not all matches are able to use the Hawk-Eye system yet players have accepted that only the biggest matches at the grandest tournaments carry such technology, as would lower league football clubs.

A ball with a micro-chip at its centre – such as the one proposed by adidas and German company Cairos – is probably the future but feels a leap too far for those abhorred by any automation of the beautiful game.

So why not install either cameras on the goal-line or a Hawk-Eye system – just for goal decisions – at the major venue in each country, in our case, Wembley?

Then, the capacity for error in the biggest matches – FA Cup semi-finals, the Carling Cup final, play-offs and England's tournament qualifiers – would be reduced.

The Premier League would doubtlessly be unhappy but it is in knockout competitions where the legitimacy of a single goal is more likely to decide the outcome rather than a 38-game competition.

Any shortcomings would theoretically be ironed out over time as technology advances and competition drives down the price to a level for wider implantation.

It is hardly a conclusive solution but, for an organisation who claim their mission statement is to “Develop the game, touch the world, build a better future”, this would be a decent step in that direction.