Goal-line technology is great, but in-game use of technology needs to stop there

With the news this week that football has finally embraced goal line technology, it has inevitably raised questions about whether this is just the start of the implementation of technology into the game. However, a lot of worries about the invasion of technology are misplaced and other supposed uses for it are completely impractical. Goal line technology works because it can be defined as 100% true or false. The ball is either over the line for a goal, or it isn’t. There isn’t a human element to it, there can’t be differences of opinion. This means that it can be put in to place quickly and efficiently, and will eliminate error. The same cannot be said of other suggested uses.

Why can’t it be used for offside? Offside is the next most contentious issue after goal line decisions and it is often bracketed to be the same. But it isn’t. A lot of the time a player will be offside clearly. The line across the pitch that TV companies use could be shown to a referee after a goal and he could make a decision right. Or how about a laser system that automatically tells a referee when someone is offside?

The problem is, this still involves the human element. All it does is slow the game down. If a laser indicates that a striker is behind the defence it doesn’t take in to account the ‘active’ rules. Is a striker active if he is over the other side of the field? Of course not, but it would be hard to teach a technological application to judge that.

Why can’t it be used for penalties? This really is an entirely objective decision for a referee to make. Even if theoretically a referee was shown a replay of a penalty decision, via some kind of manager challenge like in the NFL, he might well interpret them differently to others. You only need to look at the furore caused over any controversial penalty. If you ask 100 neutral football fans about any given incident they will probably see it as a penalty or no penalty at a 50:50 rate. This is even the case between referees.

So how could it be possible to program something to make decisions? It wouldn’t. Could referees be shown a replay based on a challenge? Not really. What if he made the right decision in the first place and then changes it to what is considered to be the wrong decision?

Why couldn’t it be used for red cards? Again, the issue here is objectivity. You could see a tackle which a referee gives a red card for, it’s challenged, and then he over turns it. What if he shouldn’t have? Look at the McManaman tackle the other week. Even when Halsey saw the replay, he didn’t think it was a red card despite the general outrage. Do two tackles look the same when at full speed and slowed down?

The other problem is the speed with which these decisions can be made. How long will it take a referee to go over to a screen and watch a replay? Probably not too long, but how do you stop the play? Can a challenge only be issued after a red card is given or can you challenge if you think one should have been given? If the latter, the problem is that the challenge would stop the flow of the play and if it is unsuccessful, how do you then restart? What happens for example, if a team is through on goal and a manager throws a challenge flag which means the game has to be immediately stopped and the supposed red card offence looked at? If it’s not a red card then the manager gains an advantage.

Challenge flags for offside, penalties and red cards couldn’t work because they could be used tactically which would completely invalidate the point of using technology.

Goal line technology is an excellent innovation but it is a completely black or white issue. It is either a goal or not and the game doesn’t have to be stopped to analyse it. With controversial issues that require a human input into the decisions, there are too many logistical and applicational problems to make sense. So let’s enjoy the new technology, but leave it there.