Nothing makes a football fan mad like a linesman waving his flag in the air for a player who “was miles onside, lino! Put your specs on you t**t”
Nothing can rattle a man’s cage more than a yellow card for diving after “an absolutely blatant foul, ref!”
Nobody can get under a supporter’s skin like a referee who missed a ball crossing the line…as some in the past, including me, have found out.
Referees must live in fear sometimes after getting key decisions wrong. I know I wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of the wrath of 40,000 fans in the stadium, let alone the hatred of a couple of million up and down the country. It’s a job I certainly wouldn’t want to do.
So, they are still human after all right? We all make mistakes, right? So do the officials need a little bit of help when it comes to making those key decisions?
The subject of goal-line technology has become one of the most hotly discussed topics in world football today. In the past few years, as technology has developed, calls for major reviews of the refereeing system involving cameras on the goal-line or micro-chips in footballs have been plenty.
In recent times, technology has been introduced increasingly into sport as world governing bodies seek to make their respective games fairer.
One of the first of these technologies to be developed was created in the UK in 2001 by engineers at Roke Manor Research Limited of
Romsey, Hampshire. The system – called Hawk-Eye – was first used in cricket in a Test match between England and Pakistan at Lord’s in 2001. Its primary use was to determine the trajectory of the flight of the balls on television but has since been introduced into many more areas of the sport, including the disputing of umpires’ decisions.
A similar system has since become commonplace in tennis where players can contest decisions taken by the umpire or any of the line-judges who have decided whether the ball was in or out. The system works on a challenge basis where each player is awarded three challenges and a player may challenge any decision. If they are right, they keep the challenge, but if they are wrong, they lose a challenge - to avoid abuse of the system.
Some sports also operate a referral system whereby players or the referee may ask for a video referee (watching a monitor from within the ground) to review the incident using slow motion or computerised simulation. This is the case in rugby where the referee on the pitch may ask for a decision to be referred to the video referee, usually to determine whether or not a try has been scored.
A similar system has been suggested for football, where a camera would be installed on the goal-line and the referee would be able to review incidents he is unsure about with a fifth referee.
There have been two systems developed for use in football. The first came from Hawk-Eye – the same system used in cricket, tennis and snooker and involves a camera-based system placed strategically around the pitch. The other was developed by Cairos and involves a microchip being inserted into the ball which can determine the exact position of the ball at any time – perfect for deciding whether it has crossed the goal-line or not.
However, both these systems have been rejected by both the Fédération Internationale de Football Associations (FIFA) – the world governing body of football – and The International Football Association Board (IFAB) – an independent body which determines the laws of the game.
Many fans, players, managers and referees alike are in support of some kind of system being introduced. It would wipe out the majority of the mistakes, more importantly the major mistakes, and make for a much fairer game.
Football fans are notoriously hard to please, however, and many England fans who complained about Frank Lampard’s disallowed goal against Germany in this summer’s World Cup may have forgotten that one of the goals scored in the famous 1966 victory was not actually a goal. There is a major argument to consider here – that there will always be controversy within the sport and, if they cut it out, would it be the same game that we have come to know and love?
FIFA president Sepp Blatter, accused by many of bias against England, asks a similar question of English fans.
“It is obvious that after the experience so far in this World Cup it would be a nonsense not to reopen the file of technology at the business meeting of the International FA Board in July.
“Personally I deplore it when you see evident referee mistakes but it's not the end of a competition or the end of football, this can happen.
“It happened in 1966 and then 44 years later – though it was not quite the same," Blatter said. "I apologised to England and Mexico. The English said thank you and accepted that you can win [some] and you lose [some], and the Mexicans bowed their head and accepted it.
“We will come out with a new model in November on how to improve high-level referees.
“We will start with a new concept of how to improve match control. I cannot disclose more of what we are doing but something has to be changed.”
The game of football is celebrated for the high tempo at which it is played – especially in the English leagues – and some fans argue that any technology introduced would slow the game down and create something of a ‘stop-start’ nature evident in rugby and cricket, while the referees wait for decisions.
FIFA and IFAB have always said, that if any technology was to be used, it must be a split second result in the decision being made and so developers were encouraged to design something which could deliver these kind of results.
In October 2010, a statement from IFAB read: “The indication of whether a goal has been scored must be immediate and automatically confirmed within one second."
Oliver Braun, marketing director for Cairos – which developed the microchip-based technology – has seen the company create a prototype which complies with this idea, only to have it rejected.
He said: “It's frustrating for us because we have developed this system over so many years. IFAB encouraged us to develop the system.
“They set up some criteria and said if they were met they would go with the technology. For them to come back and say in principle they don't want to use any technology, that's frustrating.
“If they said that before it would have saved a lot of time, effort and money.
“The solution to these incidents is here - it's not an issue that the technology isn't working. The technology is working, but they don't want to use it.”
Fans and managers of lower league clubs, however, have voiced concerns that they would not be able to afford the technology and that this would unbalance the game even further with only the teams in the top leagues being able to afford to have such a system implemented.
Raymond Kennedy, president of the Irish Football Association, Northern Ireland, is opposed to the technology.
He said: “If you were to take the FA Cup as an example, that has teams right from the very bottom, and if you were to use [goal-line technology] in that competition you would have to have that installed in many of the smaller grounds.
“I happen to believe that the extra officials, maybe brought in at a latter stage, does much more than goal-line technology. They are there; they will see the fouls that go on in the penalty area.
“We believe our game is played by humans and we want human eyeballs to decide whether it is a goal or not. There will be mistakes; people thrive in the controversy of football.”
In November 2008, France’s Thierry Henry infamously used his arm to keep the ball in play, which ultimately led to France scoring the winning goal against the Republic of Ireland in their World Cup play-off.
Considering Northern Ireland’s rivalry with the Republic, perhaps Kennedy’s view is not so surprising. I wonder if it would be the same if the football boot was on the other foot.
Birmingham City are huge compared with Ramsgate FC but Brum boss Alex Mcleish thinks that technology might help “little club(s)” win trophies:
“I know you can't stop every part of the game but certainly for key decisions in a major competition like the FA Cup your chances of getting to semi-finals and finals are few and far between for a little club like us.”
Some referees are in favour of extra help for the officials on the pitch, saying it would make their jobs easier.
Former Premier League referee Graham Poll, who infamously showed three yellow cards to Josip Simunic at the World Cup in Germany 2006, says: "It's the same as experimenting with things like sin bins, they say ‘Oh that's a rugby idea, we wouldn't do that.’ We have to be different, we're football.
“I've spoken to Dr Paul Hawkins who developed Hawk-Eye and it is clear that technology, which has been tested in Premier League grounds, in Premier League training grounds, to the satisfaction of the Premier League, is available and would help match officials.”
The UK’s top official Howard Webb, who refereed last year’s World Cup final, is also in favour of a system but says he understands fears that the game may change as a result of any technology which is introduced.
“It's got to be worth looking at to make our job on those really crucial decisions that bit easier. I don't think you'll find many referees who say ‘It's not something we want.’
“It's a matter of fact whether or not all of the ball has crossed all of the goal-line between the posts and under the crossbar.
“Bearing in mind that's the entire aim of the sport, to score a goal.
“If we were to have some support - some assistance that was totally accurate and totally reliable and instantaneous - then I guess it's got to be worth looking at."
“We sit here in 2010 and other sports have embraced certain types of technology.
“Football hasn't - but that tells me that's because it's really difficult, without changing the basic way the game is played. That's the fear, which I understand.”
Urs Meier is a former referee who officiated in a Champions League final and a World Cup semi-final but retired amid a storm of acrimony over his decision to rule out a late Sol Campell goal at Euro 2004. He said most referees were in favour:
“You need help. You need a chip in the ball for example. I'm in favour of that. It's the best way out of this discussion. All the referees want technology. I was always in favour.”
So, with so many referees and managers in support of a technology-based refereeing system, and many more who are yet to speak out, the question on many people’s lips is: why are we still waiting for a system to be implemented?
The answer is that only the board members of IFAB and FIFA would be able to answer you that, though it would be nigh impossible to get any of them to tell the truth.
Alternatives to technology are currently being trialled in UEFA’s Champions League and Europa League (formerly known as the UEFA cup). This season’s competition has seen an extra official standing in line with the goal at both ends of the pitch.
The idea was that they would stay there for the whole game and as a result would be in pole position to verify any key decisions the main referee might need to make. However, after seemingly making no difference, they have faced steep criticism – namely from Arsenal Manager Arsene Wenger, who branded the system “useless”.
After seeing his side defeated by Sporting Braga in November 2010, Wenger criticised the trial. With the score at 0-0, Arsenal forward Carlos Vela was clearly brought down in the box, but was booked for diving by the referee.
The Frenchman believed that this was a “turning point” in the game and said: “We have another proof that it is absolutely useless, this system.”
“It is difficult to understand how we did not get a penalty,” he added. “The five referees is not an answer to the problem.”
It’s easy to understand where Wenger is coming from when the fourth and fifth officials are too scared to put their hands up and say “you’re wrong” to the referee.
The system clearly needs reviewing once again and IFAB have got to seriously ask themselves if the technology is available for use (which it plainly is), why is it not being used around the world?
If only limited to use in international competitions – an entire FA of any country will be able to afford a few of the micro-chipped balls – and for use in the major club competitions like the UEFA Europa League and the Champions League.
This is a simple solution to keep the fat cats at major European clubs and board men of football associations around the world happy.
