Source: Team_Talk
Technology debate rears ugly head again
OK, so in the grand scheme of things there have been more alarming blunders, such as the one made by Sweden's Martin Hansson, who was one of the few people in the northern hemisphere not to spot Thierry Henry's deliberate handball in November which led directly to the French goal which means the Republic of Ireland will not be at this summer's World Cup in South Africa.[LNB]Or officials such as Stuart Attwell and Nigel Bannister. Remember them?[LNB]You should because they could be the subject of pub quiz questions for the rest of this century. Bannister was the linesman whose signal to Attwell prompted him to rule the ball had gone into the net for a goal to Reading during their 2-2 draw with Watford at Vicarage Road in September 2008.[LNB]In reality the ball had bounced four or five feet wide of the post and harmlessly over the by-line as millions of television viewers were soon to witness.[LNB]That so-called 'ghost goal' made a nonsense of the world's most popular sport and a laughing stock out of two honest but clearly myopically-challenged match officials.[LNB]So what did the game's rulers do to help referees on Saturday when they met in Zurich? Sweet FA. Instead they voted against goal-line video technology and made it clear they viewed any use of technology in football in much the same way Dracula views crosses.[LNB]In effect they told referees: 'Carry on with the cock-ups. Carry on with arguably the most difficult job in sport without any help from us'.[LNB]As head-in-the-sand, see-only-what-you-want-to-see decision-making goes, that takes some beating.[LNB]Haven't football's rulers been watching cricket and rugby and tennis these past two decades, sports which have embraced video technology to enhance their games?[LNB]Haven't they witnessed the increasing abuse of football referees in a game which is quicker and where decisions are trickier than they have ever been?[LNB]The FAs of England and Scotland are absolved from criticism. They both voted for technology, only to be voted down by the Luddites of the football world.[LNB]By men such as Jonathan Ford, chief executive of the FA of Wales, who said: "The human element of the game is the critical element of it. The debate they had with the goal in the 1966 final - that's still being talked about in pubs and that's the beauty of the game."[LNB]Actually, that's exactly where Mr Ford and his supporters are - in the past. In a different world when hundreds of jobs and millions of pounds did not hinge on a single goal which might determine promotion or relegation or a nation's presence at a World Cup.[LNB]There is too much riding on wrong decisions these days to dismiss technology as if it were an irritant.[LNB]True, idealistically you could see where the International Football Association Board were coming from when they voted against any further experiments with technology.[LNB]They want to protect the fluid nature of the sport. They fear an endless round of stop-start challenges.[LNB]"They are saying why should we have technology in a game where the main part should be humans - players and referees?" explained FIFA general secretary Jerome Valcke.[LNB]If players and spectators respected that stance then he would be right. But they do not. Instead they abuse and intimidate and ridicule referees such as Hansson and Attwell, and much better ones besides, at will.[LNB]Referees needed help. Instead, football let them down.[LNB][LNB]
