Is the new Goal-Line Technology worth the money?

Goal Line Technology costs a lot of money to implement at the World Cup

The symbiosis between sport and technology has always been a strained one. For sports that are steeped in the mahogany of tradition, such as cricket and football, the introduction of assistive technology to help officiate the game has been criticized deeply, most often for ruining the “flow” of the sport. Furthermore, critics have argued, that the inherent beauty of football lies in the ambiguities of the referee decisions, never-mind that some of these may result in momentous, resonating effects that shackle the lives of the players of the teams as well as those of the fans supporting that team.

It was only in the World Cup 2010 that the FIFA president, Sepp Blatter, changed his mind after witnessing Frank Lampard's disallowed goal against Germany.

“For me as FIFA president, it became evident the moment what happened in South Africa in 2010,” Blatter said. “I have to say ‘Thank you, Lampard.’ I was completely down in South Africa when I saw that it really shocked me; it took me a day to react.”

And so, this year marks the first time FIFA has decided to use the Goal-Line Technology to help referees decide if the ball has passed over the goal-line. A tactful and much needed development, one would argue, for some of the worst referee decisions in the history of the sport have resulted from miscues about whether the ball crossed over the blessed line. The real issue of contention is related to “Law 10” which states that the entire ball must pass-over the goal line for a goal to be declared. The technology claims that it can accurately indicate the scoring of a goal, based on the data it receives from six cameras placed around the goal.

Nonetheless, it is fairly amusing, if not outright hilarious, to watch computerized images of the ball crossing the line in visibly apparent goals. In Netherlands vs Spain, for instance, when the flying Dutchman hammered in a stunning header, we were treated with animated graphics of the ball crossing the goal line with the caption “GOAL”, instead of slow-motion replays of the breath-taking action. Surely, the Goal-Line Technology did little to help adjudicate the legality of a goal so obvious. Even if its contribution was substantial, why show it to the spectators?

Despite the high cost of using this technology, (around $300,000 per stadium + $4000 per game) we have already witnessed some controversial decisions – such as the three extremely close offside plays of the Mexican striker Dos Santos, each of which would have resulted in the scoring of a goal. Would not it be wiser to implement those technologies that facilitate communication amongst linesmen and allow for the capturing of those visuals that help in more accurate declarations of offside? The technology to make offside decisions certainly exists.

Back in the day, even Van Persie was of the opinion that technology should be used to make off-side calls. Rigging the stadium with high-cost gadgets is not the only method to digitize off-side decisions, as he suggests, but simple and cheap hawk-eye cameras on the side-lines can allow the referees to make better decisions without ruining the flow of the game.

A better question to ask, perhaps, is that does the Goal-Line Technology justify its high price? When being tested as a prototype in the FIFA Confederations Cup, the technology was not even used once in the 68 goals that were scored to assist the officials. Yes, it did indicate the decision of a goal 68 times, but it played no role in assisting the referees to make the right call. Why not use the same money to implement offside tracking technology that would not hamper with the flow of the game? Or why not add offside detection technology to the existing tech trove that FIFA has invested so valiantly in?

Last year, a freelance journalist Mark Young decided to investigate the matter. He interviewed football television producers and football veterans to adjudge if such a technology would indeed ruin the flow of the game or would be difficult to install.

"The fourth official can see a real-time replay from TV within seconds and could make the call without affecting the 'flow' of the game," says one of the experts Mark interviewed. Another expert responded to Young’s inquiry of the technical difficulty in installing this technology. "A monitor is simple to set up at midfield. The replay would be ready for the official to see by the time he gets to the monitor."

One can only conclude that it will take a controversial off-side decision in the presence of his majesty, King Blatter, before FIFA decides to adopt the advances for more accurate off-side decisions. Surely, Goal-Line Technology is a very welcome addition to football as it is the first time FIFA has decided to introduce technology in the game.

Nonetheless, it goes without saying that a lot more technological transformations are in order.