BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Would technology improve football?

12:44 UK time, Monday, 28 June 2010

Mistakes made by officials in Sunday's World Cup ties have sparked a renewed debate about goal-line technology (GLT). Could such technology help the game?

Makers of ball tracking systems say England's disallowed World Cup goal underlined the need technology in the game. Hawk-Eye and Cairos, who make rival GLT systems, say FIFA needs to rethink its current position.

Fifa has consistently refused to entertain the idea of using GLT saying the system is not accurate enough and is too expensive. Fifa also say this technology would impact on the "universality of the game" - i.e that the game played in the World Cup has the same rules as a Sunday League game in Bradford.

But not everyone agrees. There have been numerous calls from players, managers and coaches for a number of years, prompted by a number of controversial refereeing decisions.

Do you think that goal-line technology should be used in the game? Or would it detract from the universality of football? How do you think the use of technology affects other sports?

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.


Page 1 of 4

  • Comment number 1.

    Would technology improve football

    NO - not one little bit. Improving football is the job of managers and players. If they are plonkers then the product will be rubbish.

    Anyone disagree?

    Bit of technology may reduce mistakes but a rubbish performance is still a rubbish performance.

  • Comment number 2.

    If football was about sport, instead of money and overpaid primadonnas who fall over whining for a penalty when someone goes within six feet of them, then they'd have put in rugby-style video referees years ago. Sadly football is no longer about sport and fair play, so FIFA will fight hard to avoid using technology.

  • Comment number 3.

    Not much of a football fan, but surely it makes sense? We would see less debate over 'ghost-goals' like Frank Lampard's yesterday, but more importantly (for me), we might finally end the ridiculous spectacle of millionaire athletes soaring through the air and acting as though they've just had their teeth pulled after gently brushing by an opposition player...

  • Comment number 4.

    Let's get some perspective on this. Ireland lost out on the opportunity to be at the World Cup Finals because a French player cheated and handled the ball. Now, compare this to England failing to have a goal recognised when the other team outplayed them anyway.
    Whilst I agree that it seems insane for football to continue to ignore the advantages of modern technology (in Rugby, it is used for only top level matches) In my opinion, the referee's control of the match is enhanced by his ability to review and ensure fairness. However, anyone who ever played a team sport is familiar with the fact that mistakes will be made, some to your advantage, some against. If you allow something like this to excuse giving up, then you are not worthy of the win.

  • Comment number 5.

    "Fifa has raised a number of issues about GLT, saying the system is not accurate enough, is too expensive and would affect the "universality of the game", in that World Cup matches would not have the same rules as a Sunday League game in Bradford."

    Funny, in a Sunday League game in Bradford, the ball crossing the line indicates a goal has been scored (unless the player was Judged to of been offside or a infringement was judged to of been committed) yet in the world cup a goal crossing the line doesn't always mean a goal, or indeed a ball doesn't even need to cross the line and ref can just award a goal. Hell if the ref wants to when one team scores he can award the goal to the other team, after all, the refs decision is final.

  • Comment number 6.

    I didn't think it took away from the game of rugby.

    I think the football industry should certainly consider it - especially when so much money can be at stake based on the final match result especially at premiership level.

  • Comment number 7.

    Whilst I have every sympathy with the idea that we don't want to disrupt the flow of the game surely it is more important to remove glaring errors? It would be simple to introduce a referral system (as is used successfully in hockey) where, if you think a decision is wrong, you can call for a video referral. Some details would need to be ironed out, such as whether just the captain can call for the referral and whether you have to wait for a stoppage to call for it. If both teams have 1 referral per match, which you lose if you make an incorrect challenge and retain if you make a correct one, then some obvious mistakes can be taken out. By only having 1 per team it would be rarely used and would waste very little time. Also having that way of properly challenging a decision might reduce the amount of arguing with officials.

  • Comment number 8.

    Incidents like the England goal and the Argentinian offside later on really bring the whole thing into disrepute. When referees make minor errors the FIFA argument has some legs but when they are this wrong and yet within minutes on a video screen we can see how wrong it is quite terrible. The challenge system in tennis makes sense and works well and does not have to be used in Sunday league tennis either so lets just move on and get this right now.

  • Comment number 9.

    Would technology improve football?

    Yes, but Germany would still have won - they were simply much better than England.

    And reading some of the comments from certain England players this morning who seem to think their performance was 'mainly positive' a healthy grounding in reality would also be heplful.

  • Comment number 10.

    Full field cmaeras should be in placew just the same as they are for rugby. Officials don't want this simply because the prima dona's that play football would spend more time banned from the games than they would actually playing, due to their fake foul and injury claims, and the total incompetance of refferees and linesmen would be shown up for one and all.
    Critics claim it will slow the game down too much, but surely, if the players are penalised for false claims and dirty play the gamees will then get faster and better. The bottom line is neither officials nor players want to be seen for the useless ornaments that they really are.

  • Comment number 11.

    A very poor decision by the match officials in one game at the World Cup is not a good reason to lurch towards new technology with all the paraphernalia that comes with it. The problem I have with this decision is that it was obvious the ball had crossed the line from the ball's trajectory the moment it hit the crossbar. Any experienced officials would have watched the body language of the German keeper and known that the ball was in (watch in slow motion and see what he does).

    I'd also like to know if FIFA plan to introduce post match citations against players (the German goalkeeper was guilty of unsportsmanlike behaviour) which will be much more effective in getting Respect taken seriously instead of being another 'soundbite'.

  • Comment number 12.

    Since that England goal was very clearly in the net and the Linesman couldn't see it I think that goal technology should definitely be allowed.

    OK granted 1 extra wouldn't have made a difference in that England/Germany game but imagine all the other unfair match results that have occurred due to the rule that prevents the use of goal technology.

  • Comment number 13.

    Yes, I'm sure there's an app that would have played better than England in the world cup

  • Comment number 14.

    The biggest improvement to football would be for the so called Superstars/The Golden Generation/World Class players to learn how to master the finer arts & skills of the game, let alone the commitment & dedication to the National Team.
    Football is one of the few games that most men have played, at various levels, over a number of years & therefore can speak with some knowledge.
    One does not have to be an exponent of the skill at the highest levels in order to appreciate those that do. That would like saying that unless you're a Michelin starred chef, you can't appreciate good food - ridiculous but that's what some of the pundits would have us believe.
    Reliable,accurate GLT can only be good, what harm can it do if it removes the doubt from vital decisions like the one yesterday.All the myriad other decisions would still be at the official's discretion & judgement, retaining the opportunity for less important controversy which adds a little spice to the game.
    With regard to the "universality" (whatever that means), does anyone seriously believe that a World Cup game & a Sunday League game in Bradford are referee'd to the same degree of rigour.
    So, bring it on

  • Comment number 15.

    Technology is successfully used in Tennis and Cricket. Why not football? As someone else said, it won't make the players play any better but at least outrageous refereeing blunders might be corrected ( not just Lampard's goal - what about Kaka's sending off?)

  • Comment number 16.

    In this case, yes.

    The game should be decided by the players. Not by the referee's dodgy eyesight or a linesman's blocked point of view.

  • Comment number 17.

    When you play that badly I don't think any amount of technology will help! (sorry... couldn't help that)

    I do think there should be a video ref though not just for goal line issue. It's becomeing more common in other sports, why not footy?

  • Comment number 18.

    Yes technology would improve the refereeing of matches. There is a point to be drawn, but I cannot imagine a referee not being happy to be able to refer a doubtful decision to the fourth offical. Cricket, Tennis and Rugby all have a measure o technology in their sports, which given the profesional nature and very financially driven rewards on offer, is no bad thing.
    In many respects FIFA is back in the Stone Age on this subject, and some of the decisions from this World Cup must surely get them to open their eyes on this subject.
    However I think I will scream if I hear any one of our flouncy useless excuses footballers blame the Lampard goal error in any way for their abject performance.
    They played terribly going in to the tournament, also in the group stage and reached rock bottom against a decent but not exactly world beating German side.
    I really do hope the the squad gives a full public apology to the nation, and not a load of pathetic self justifying excuses.

  • Comment number 19.

    I realise the standard of the England team was around the level of a 'Sunday league game in Bradford' but FIFA needs to accept that the expectations of the Paying Public are for first class games with first class officials, and accurate results.
    The video judge in Rugby has reduced disputed results and has quickly become part of the game. Citing the cost as a reason not to improve the game is stupid, you could as well claim that using well watered mowed grass pitches takes the game beyond the normal level, or having a net, or even boots.

  • Comment number 20.

    If the technology exists (and it does)then it should be used at all football games. Where were the officials at that game, they're supposed to be in touch with the referee at all times, they could have overuled him. The stakes in football are now too high for it not to be used, the results are almost instantaneous, so there'd be little or no interuption to the game. The games full of cheats that can only be caught on camera, you know the ones, they fall as if being hit by a blunderbus yet not been touched. So yes use it on the goal-line and to weed out the cheats.

  • Comment number 21.

    It has improved Rugby, Tennis and Cricket so why not football?

    Opponents of its introduction - FIFA included - cite the fact that football should be allowed to flow and not lose its continuity. Sadly, by not allowing retrospective punishment of those responsible for diving and faking injury FIFA has given the lie to this argument.

    Introduce the use of technology only for incidents where the technology can tell us whether a goal should be awarded or disallowed. Based on the two incidents yesterday it would only take a couple of seconds for the 4th official to make these calls. This is significantly less time than it takes Drogba to recover after an opponent breathes on him.

  • Comment number 22.

    The technology exists to assist football referees, so why not use it? Cameras litter every game, so it is not beyond the wit of man to implement a system that would remove blatant scandals such as Sunday's debacle (which would not have changed England's fortunes - they were useless anyway). If it can be used to good effect in rugby, cricket & tennis, then why not football. The time has come.

  • Comment number 23.

    Of course it could improve things.

    I find it incredible that it hasn't been used already. It seems such an obvious move.

    Sticking with the ref and 2 linesmen is ok but for slighly more controversial decisions, use a 4th referee on the sideline with a tv screen who can watch the replay from one of the many cameras... (shouldn't take more than a few seconds)

    A decision the on pitch referee makes can be backed up or even overruled by the ref on the sideline in certain cases.

    On pitch referees can still be used for the basic game... to keep it moving etc.

    Additional benefits to this are ... that the 'fouls' could be watched after the game.

    Any player caught falling over on purpose to get a free kick could be fined X hundred/thousand and persistence (as they can all afford the fines far too easily so fines may not be a deterrent) could lead to periods without pay and match bans.

    That should stop them all falling over and clutching their shins (which ironically is the only part of the body that has any protection) for 5 minutes and writhing in so much pain that they look like a steamtoller had crushed their leg.

  • Comment number 24.

    But don't you find it amusing when a referee is telling it how he saw it, when on the large screen he was actually wrong. It's a joke!!!!

  • Comment number 25.

    I remember when Shearer was the captain and he was a real sports person, but then the likes of Beckham got involved and the players cared more about being chavy celebs than real sports people, where Beckham was too tired to last the whole time on the pitch from his wife's celeb world cup parties to get in magazines. England will never win anything unless it gets away from types like that, who care more about making money off pitch, despite being paid lots for football and winning nothing. It might have really been 4-2 but it's good they got knocked out before really embarrassing themselves against a team like Argentina.

  • Comment number 26.

    So we are talking about Lampard's none goal. Point is the german goalkeeper and the german defenders knew it was a goal. Without singling out Germany, is it not a shame that there are no gentlemen with integrity in football?

  • Comment number 27.

    Technology will not improve the game, but it will take away the decisions that cause such controversy.

    In 1995 South Africa scored a try against France in the Semi Final and again in the final of the Rugby World Cup. Neither were given because the referee could not be certain. It did not have a major impact because it did not change the overall result of the matches. After the tournament the IRB introduced the TMO. Now when a human being cannot be certain, another looks at what happened in slow motion and the correct decision is made. Sometimes it is harsh, such as the disallowed try for Mark Cueto in the 2007 Final. But the right decision is made 99 times out of 100.

    In 1986 there was cheating from Maradonna, France got into the tournament with a blatant hand ball against the Irish after Blatter and his cronies gerrymandered the process of the play offs to try and get France to the finals in the first place. Argentina scored another dodgy goal yesterday and the Engalnd goal is not even worthy of comment it was so wrong.

    In his infinate wisdom the so called world representative of the global game says the cost implication of this technology being introduced is too expensive. This from a man who had some sort of tchnology in place to spot 32 Dutch girls all wearing the same outfit and kicking them out of a game and watching a world cup in a country that has the highest disparity between rich and poor in the world that has spend something like £3 Billion on the direct cost of the event, not to mention the indirect costs of improved infrastructure. Yet every camera picked up that Lampard had scored a goal yesterday. So the technology was there effectively for free.

    The technology does not need to be introduced at Hackney Marshes on a Sunday, but in games where the difference between winning and losing can mean millions of Pounds in income and the the difference between a new contract or the sack for the manager. In this country it would be the Premier League, Championship, League 1 and 2 and maybe the conference, and obviously the World Cup and European Championships and the European club competitions.

    Once again in rugby the match officials are wired up to each other and both decisions yesterday would have taken a TMO seconds to confirm via the headset to the referee.

    Would England have lost, probably. They were so poor in the whole tournament they deserved to loose, but would they have been caught on the break if the score was 2-2 from a corner, probably not because they did not have to score to get level and therfore attack the set pieces so positively.

    You have the ultimate disregard for the general fans when FIFA send out a man and refuses to answer a question on goal technology 9 times in 18 minutes today. People in ivory towers spring to mind.

    Will they introduce it, probably not because Blatter and FIFA seem to shun any good governance of the game that comes from rugby. At the end of the day they are both just sports, but the prawn sandwhich brigade running football don't see it like that.

  • Comment number 28.

    Getting rid of Blatter would improve football .

    But this should not be used as an excuse for Englands dire performance in this world cup. We have not won a world cup knock out match against any of the top teams since 1966 that is a disgrace and the fault lays with the FA instead of investing in the complex at Burton to bring youngsters through they are more interested in wembley with its ploughed field for playing on the prawn sandwich brigade which fill most of seats at big matches .

  • Comment number 29.

    It's a sad day when the people in authority refuse to accept the inadequacy of decision making in sport.

    The technology has existed for a long time to solve the problems of bad decision making in sport, it's only the "dinosaurs" who make the decisions who cannot look forward and we know what happened to them.


  • Comment number 30.

    Absolutely YES! Rugby has employed the fourth official supported by TV entirely successfully and Association Football should do the same, primarily in 2 areas. (1) In cases of ruling whether or not a ball has crossed the goal line into goal and (2) in cases of deciding whether or not a player is off side when he scores a goal. To referee these instances, play should be stopped when the ball goes into the goal; the referee should then make the 'TV sign' to the 4th official and wait for a ruling or reply to his question, and then the referee makes his decision - just as in Rugby. That way, yesterday evening, one goal would have been allowed (to level the scores) and another would have been disallowed. (Although I believe in both cases, the match victors would have been the same). With millions of pounds and reputations at stake, there is no alternative.

  • Comment number 31.

    It doesn't have to be some new goal-line technology.
    Good old-fashioned telly showed us that Lampard scored and Tevez was offside (not to mention Germany's first goal having TWO players offside from the goal kick).

    The TV replays at this world cup have been good and quick. If the fourth (or even a fifth) official has access to them, decisions can be made in a matter of seconds. It doesn't have to be done for every contentious moment - just the really major ones (which is generally less than one a game).

  • Comment number 32.

    With reference to the Blatter matter, he stated that fans like the controversies that arise because of inadequate refereeing of the game. The result is that matches, leagues and tournaments can and are won by cheating, fouling and diving. Now if he is right and if that is really what the majority of people who watch soccer really want, then so be it.
    Unfortunately I am old enough to remember when soccer was a sport, not an entertainment business and I still take exception to so called 'professional fouls' where an inadequate player often fells an opponent who is displaying superior skills and is allowed to get away with it.
    I am also old enough to remember the 'Kent Walton' wrestling matches on TV at weekends that passed as a sport but was in fact a series of highly rehearsed events more akin to ballet dancing than sport but highly skilled nevertheless.. Hordes of ladies, mostly the blue rinse variety, used to go frantic whilst watching it.
    I think it sad that Blatter and his cronies are happy to see soccer slowly equate to such events. Get rid of him and bring back the sport element to the game. Then it might actually be correct to call it 'beautiful'!

  • Comment number 33.

    More Technology? Never! Less is the answer. What do replays actually do other than show that referees, who are trying their best, make mistakes?
    Other than show that assistant referees do their best in very pressurised conditions and that they are human?
    Other than show us that footballers cheat on a daily basis?

    I see no reason for replays. How ever did we cope before they existed!!

  • Comment number 34.

    Every other major sport has come to the conclusion that when a decision does not delay continuation of a game IE a dead ball situation or when a player may be given out.The few seconds it takes to look at a recording is worth getting the decision right.
    This would avoid all the stupid and predictable comments regarding well it happened to x team in 1900 and frozen to death as if that made an incorrect decision more acceptable.

    Refs are human (well most of them) and make human mistakes , give them a hand and then the pundits and over paid football prima-Donna's will have to find something else to whinge about!

  • Comment number 35.

    I think England's non-goal and Argentina's offside are all the evidence we need to justify the use of video technology should the officials deem it necessary.

    I would also like to see a tennis/cricket style "challenge" brought in whereby a team could challenge certain decisions (goals/offsides/corners etc) and have the video referee investigate. They should be allowed 3 in a game and, if they wrongly challenge they should lose 1 challenge. Anyone disputing with officials after 3 challenges should be given a yellow card.

    Finally, I think it would stop a lot of problems if all yellow cards were accompanied by a 10 minute sin bin period for the offender.

  • Comment number 36.

    Interesting to hear of this response from the FIFA representative today:

    "Maingot added that Fifa will be cracking down on World Cup match action being shown on stadium giant screens after replays of Tevez's disputed goal against Mexico sparked arguments on the pitch."

    So, let's not solve the real problem, let's hide it.

    With my tongue firmly in my cheek I suggested to FIFA today that they should not allow television cameras to show matches at all. That way, the people who pay their wages (i.e. fans) can have total faith in the decisions of the officials.

  • Comment number 37.

    This question is not about the performance of the england team (that's another issue), but the decision making process regarding the game play.

    Video technology does not take the job away from the referee as FIFA claim. In fact, it makes them better equipped to make the right decision, which should be a priority when so much is as stake.

    That's not going to happen, because FIFA are quite happy with the status quo, because it generates more debate and controversy which they make more money out of, which is all anything is about these days with these people.

  • Comment number 38.

    No way, it would reduce a free flowing game to a spectacle on par with american football - only a matter of time before there were adverts after every 30 seconds play. Can you imagine a commercial break for every foul to be analysed?

    Although an answer may be to follow the example set be rugby and allow video ref for points decisions.

  • Comment number 39.

    Would technology improve football? Of cause it will. It won't, however, improve the quality of our under achieving footballers only they and the coaching staff can do that.

  • Comment number 40.

    All the technology in the world wouldn't improve the way England play! We might have been awarded the second goal but we would still have lost the match.

    The England players are too old, too unfit, too out of form and too lacking in motivation.

    Get a new manager, preferably English, and get a new squad of players together who have never played for England before. The current crowd of wasters couldn't win an argument!

  • Comment number 41.

    Fifa also say this technology would impact on the "universality of the game" - i.e that the game played in the World Cup has the same rules as a Sunday League game in Bradford.

    Why then have FIFA allowed EUFA to experiment with two additional assistant referees in Europa Cup games ?

    And why doesn't my grandson get booked for taking his shirt off to celebrate scoring a goal in the local youth league ?

  • Comment number 42.

    Technology can only improve decision making. It is down to the players (NOT the manager) to improve the game itself.

  • Comment number 43.

    FIFA really do have to come of age an consider seriously introducing technology into football. Regrettably gentlemen like Blatter will resist because they are of an age where the referee's decision is paramount and should go unquestioned.

    With the advent of a multi-million business football needs to reconsider.

    I would suggest the English Premier League trial for one season a similar method adopted by Rugby League whereby the referee can call on a "man in the stand" who has a tv in front of him to assess an incident.

    There would be no demeaning of the referee's position as it would be him and him alone who would decide to call for a replay.

  • Comment number 44.

    What good is technology when you have deluded idiots like Mr Blatter in charge. Talk about arrogant reactionary. He thinks he is more important than the game. If he and his cronies cannot see the damage that incompetence as displayed in yesterday's games does to football, then it is past time for them to move on. In Blatter's case, that time passed many moons ago.

  • Comment number 45.

    I can't agree with the sentiment that it would have changed the game, the England team have played poorly throughout the competition and deserved to have been home after the first game.
    Other sports have accepted the need to use a video referee or similar. A quick check with a video referee in this case would have confirmed a goal. This is similar to the video referee in Rugby who is used to determine difficult to see tries.

    If the rest of the world, Wales and Ireland are happy enough to continue with a flawed competition then perhaps we should just remove ourselves from it entirely. This would do two things, first save money and embarassment for us, but more importantly state that we are prepared to stand up for fairness in a way we always used to.
    If there is no video referee for the next world cup we should plain refuse to enter, simple, without us it won't be a 'world cup' either.

  • Comment number 46.

    Dear editor,regarding the ball crossing the goal line as the ball clearly did for england against germany,has anybody suggested that the area just behind the line be angled downwards say 30 degrees so that if the ball is over the line then it will bounce back into the net and stay there,rather than come out and cause the controvesy it has and fifa would not have to bring in the technology which they are reluctant to do!What do you think?

  • Comment number 47.

    Look generally if its a goal / not a goal (allowed / disallowed) the ball is either a) In the goal keepers hand, b) In the net, or c) off the pitch. So its not really a case of stopping play, just blow a whistle and tell the keeper to hold onto the ball or in Sundays case return the ball to the keeper (as he was too quick to get it back in play)and then make an informed decision. As for saying the new technology is in accurate ! rubbish ! comapared to the ref's eyesight I'd back it every time.. FIFA get into the 21 Century and give us the right decisions if only in Euro nad WC matched - Ok lets not do technology, but at least get a bloke to sit in line with the goal line and make the decisions (I'd pay him)... wake up FIFA

  • Comment number 48.

    If FIFA think that Sunday League football is the same as World Cup football then no wonder they cant get it right.
    Anyway if video refs. are available to Sunday League why shouldn't they use them?
    And finally the argument about the cost of the technology is the biggest joke of all. It would be less than a drop in the Ocean of the money generated by and riding on the cup.

  • Comment number 49.

    I love the way FIFA say that goal-line technology is "not accurate enough". Of course referees and linesmen are far more accurate as demonstrated in the England and Mexico matches. It would be a very shrewd move by the FA to introduce video technology into the Premier League in an attempt to appease some criticism following England's exit. Maybe then others would follow suit - someone needs to start the ball rolling though...

  • Comment number 50.

    If the technology works, then it'll make the game fairer in that goals would only be awarded if they were "legal", and not the result of an offside, handball, blind referee etc. Given the amount of money that's at stake during these tournaments, you'd think every effort would be made to ensure fairness.

    Seems FIFA don't see it that way.

  • Comment number 51.

    Goal line technology - or preferably, a Rugby-style TMO (television match official) - is long overdue.

    The blinkered traditionalists who oppose reform in the game - in other words, FIFA - make the same tired old arguments, and every one of them is easy to shoot down.

    1) They will argue that because the technology can't be put in place at all levels of the game, it shouldn't be put in place at any level. That's frankly nonsense. Rugby union doesn't have the TMO at the lower levels of the game, but that hasn't stopped them implementing a robust system at the levels which do have it.

    2) They will argue it takes a human element out of the game. Again, unless "human element" is a euphemism for raging incompetence, that's nonsense. And in the instance of the Rugby TMO, a human still makes the final decision. No problem about removing the human element there. (by now, aren't FIFA even just the tiniest bit embarrased that Rugby and cricket - 2 sports unfairly slandered as stuffy and conservative - are light years ahead in reforming their application of the laws of the game?)

    3) They will argue the game is too dynamic, you can't keep breaking it up with referrals to a TMO. This claim is also nonsense. The modern game is already constantly getting broken up by stoppages for treatment for injuries, both real and imaginary. The TMO is hardly likely to add to this.

    4) They talk about function creep; saying that if it started with goal line technology then soon every decision anywhere on the pitch would be getting reviewed. This is a slippery slope fallacy that doesn't stand up to scrutiny when other sports' TMO operations are examined. Function creep has not happened in Rugby union. Neither has it happened in ice hockey. And even if a more liberal remit was given to the TMO, it would still be strapped down with restrictions like American football, where coaches are permitted only 2 challenges per game and every challenge that is rejected costs them one of their timeouts.

    It's time for FIFA to stop hiding behind long since debunked myths and face up to their responsibilities as the governing body of the most popular team sport that has ever existed. Otherwise, it's time for regime change.

  • Comment number 52.

    Football technology will only confuse the game even more.

    This HYS sounds a bit like sour grapes tbh.

  • Comment number 53.

    I remember hearding one of the arguments against GLT
    "That football should be the same regardless of where you play it"

    Well, that's great Mr Blatter (IIRC) but it's utter tosh.

    In a school play ground the goal height is what ever you decide it is, and due to the low height of the "posts" whether the ball was in the goal or not is up for serious debate.

    I use the scottish terms here as I am unsure of the equivalent levels in the english pyramid: In the Amateur and Junior level games normally there is 1 referee and the lines are only flagged for the ball gonig out by a representative of the teams. I've only ever seen offside called in a Junior match where there have been linesmen, and they are usually cup finals, high importance games at the top of the top divisions and friendlies against Senior teams.

    Once you get into the lower levels of Senior football league (I don't know what officiating levels are used in the HFL, EoSFl and SoSFL) you are finally get a ref and 2 lines men, and this remains for national level matches unti lthe top division where there is a 4th official and maybe a referee observer in the stands.

    That's a trip from 1 referee to 5 within the Scottish game, then in the Europa cup suddenly you have 5 referees on the pitch looking for issues, 1 in the dug out and who knows howmany observers in the stands.

    Hawkeye on the goal lines would be essentialyl the same as having a ref behind each goal, it's just an automated system rather than human, and could probably be installed on the day of matches in competitions who have decided they want it to be used.

    Still I have yet to see a non-goal as bad as the one Les Motram failed to notice at Fir Park when Dundee United clearly had the ball ni the back of the next, and one of the partick players picks the ball up and hands it to the keeper.

    With the level it's likely to be used at the referee could get an audio message from the GLT saying "Ball crossed the line", it's not shouting GOAL at the crowd jsut quietly informing the ref that the ball was wholly over the line, it's still up to him whether he or his assistants saw any infringements. And could still chalk it off if he thought there was something wrong.

  • Comment number 54.

    If someone pointed out to FIFA that all their greedy directors could probably make a fortune from the bidding and franchise process to establish the technology, they would agree it tomorrow.

  • Comment number 55.

    Also, comment number 32 by Merv Rogers has beautifully summed up what I think about how the modern game is run, and sadly the professional wrestling analogy is quite apt.

  • Comment number 56.

    Every other sport (criket, rugby, tennis, F1 etc. etc.) uses a combination of technology and extra officials to monitor things.

    There's certainly a case for 2 goal officials, but really with video technology the 4th official should be able to check on any dubious goals with ease (al la rugby).

    At worst the video won't show a clear picture and we are where we are now, but more often it will show exactly what happened and then there is no argument.

  • Comment number 57.

    YES, YES, YES!!!
    It should also be used for close offsides. This would in fact speed up the game as the move could continue and ONLY be called back for TV replays IF a goal is scored. Otherwise play on...
    All the same inane arguments against technology use in other sports have been proven to been wrong.
    At the moment the refs are probably getting 80% right. With technology there will still be the odd error but isn't it better to have 97% right than 80%?
    I can't believe any sensible person would think otherwise.

  • Comment number 58.

    Electronics are fine - but is there not a simple disciplinary issue of "Simulation" here?

    The German keeper fished the ball out of his own net and pretended it hadn't crossed the line.

    At the very least FIFA could punish him for simulation as they did Ronaldhino sense?

    It won't change the match result but it will focus the issue on cheating which is surely what referees are there to deal with?

  • Comment number 59.

    "I'd also like to know if FIFA plan to introduce post match citations against players (the German goalkeeper was guilty of unsportsmanlike behaviour) which will be much more effective in getting Respect taken seriously instead of being another 'soundbite'...." says Mortice Rigger.

    If this happened, all the major leagues in the world would be 5-a-side within days. I'd be surprised if most footballers can even spell respect let alone know what it means.

  • Comment number 60.

    Please, have some common sense. All these hawk-eye, fancy tech solutions are complete overkill.
    It just needs a 5th official to be able to check the replay and relay the decision to the referee. A referee can make the call to go to the fifth official on contentious goal decisions only.
    Rugby games have had this option for ages. Why does Fifa have to be so bloody minded about it!?

  • Comment number 61.

    My TV already has the technology to improve football. It's a special button which causes the channel to change when football appears on the screen.

  • Comment number 62.

    Technology has proved beneficial when line disputes are called into question eg. tennis, yes, & only questions arising out of line decisions.
    However, no technology would have helped overcome England's woeful performance yesterday! They would not have overcome the German team in the end given all their psychological vulnerability!

  • Comment number 63.

    You only have to look at how pure Rugby is to know the answer!
    Poor refereeing and diving players have ruined football.
    Nowadays its sleazier than a night in Amsterdam!

  • Comment number 64.

    It would stop football being a farce, although Sepp wouldn't be happy as he wouldn't be able to tell refs to make marginal decisions go his preferred route, whichever that may be.

    Motivating england footballers to make an effort when it counts is more difficult though.

    I say drop football and start watching motorbike racing, true sport !

  • Comment number 65.

    Technology is already used in football now.
    The refs already have wireless headsets, i dont see any fifa official complaining about that. They already have digital subs boards, and I bet their watch is digital too.
    Technology is all about making life easier, ref's today are already under incredible pressure to perform, goal line technology would instantly stop players crowding around the ref and causing trouble.
    Fifa has no valid excuse to now explore the idea, atleast on a trial basis with lower leagues.

  • Comment number 66.

    Cameras cannot be bribed or make decisions in favour of FIFAs commercial interests. So I can't understand why Sepp Blatter would be against them

  • Comment number 67.

    So FIFA says that technology is "too expensive", whilst players get paid over £100,000 per WEEK?!
    And what about the hundreds of feet of video display technology around the pitch to display advertising - why is that not "too expensive" as well?

    I think we can clearly see that the greed of people involved in professional football appears to match that of bankers. Shame on them!

  • Comment number 68.

    It is time to stop Blattering on about this.
    In a game that is often settled by just one goal, as opposed to Rugby Tennis and Cricket, which award multiples of singularly less important points, it is vital professional football adopts some system as a matter of urgency.
    I know how enraged I and my fellow spectators were at this injustice. Heaven knows what it did to the England team. Our confidence had been growing and we had gotten back at them. This wasn't just any old game. It was personal, made more so by Beckenbauer's irritating sound bites, made more so because our manager didn't speak English as well as the German in order to respond, ala Alex Ferguson or Mourhino.
    So please don't anyone tell me that decision didn't alter this game...of course it did.
    How so....we were punished mercilessly by each of only a handful of mistakes. This was in part because we were pushing forward too hard and had become over anxious as all teams do when time starts to tick away.
    Of course this ridiculous decision affected the game and it should not have been allowed to.
    I hope and pray that the Germans suffer the same fate against Argentina who then go on to twist the knife of fate by

  • Comment number 69.

    It would be useful to end uncetain incidents during matches but when do you stop the action?

    Yesterday Germany almost went up the other end and scored a goal after the Lampard shot..

    I heard somebody say FIFA think its too expensive to introuduce...surely that is a joke because football is awash with money ofcourse.

    Mostly to the overpaid players I accept and their agents.

    Hence the lack of passion or ability seen during this World cup...

  • Comment number 70.

    There can be no excuses for technology not being used these days in football. Just because FIFA have stated in the past that it is unfair on lower leagues where they can't afford the technology is total rubbish.

    Tennis and Rugby have it at the higher levels and they have feeder structures where technology isn't used.

    Cameras, as demonstrated yesterday, are already fitted into goal nets which means chips in balls etc are unnecessary. Cameras are all round the ground as well in many lower league games as well these days. It would take seconds to review an offside decision, a question mark over the ball crossing the line etc.

    The higher profile the match the more costly (£ wise, league position etc.) the mistakes potentially are. Tennis and Rugby haven't suffered as a result of technology being introduced so why would football?

  • Comment number 71.

    There have been many comments about the "none goal". Didn't something similar happen in the 1966 game against the Germans, only that time it was the Germans that lost out? Waht goes around comes around. Apart from that that bunch of Prima Donnas were usles. They have had a couple of star players but what you need at the world cup is a "TEAM" not a bunch of overpaid underachieving prima donna celebs. Send them all into the big brother house and start afresh. It would also be an advantage to the FA and SFA if they used similar rules to the Germans, ie no more than 5 non EU players per game and if you have more than 5 non EU players in the team the resat of them have to be amatures and not paid. That would improve the Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish teams, and next time our Brittish teams might stand a better chance. I recently saw a documentary about Rangers and Celtic here in Glasgow, hardly any of the players could speak English.

  • Comment number 72.

    i lost interest in football when i realised how much footballers get paid for pathetic performances and down right dis-respect for refs and other players let alone the amount of diving that they do. (i think the olympic is there more fitting games)

    they should bring in the 4th offical like in rugby, if a player makes a dirty tackle or is un-sportsmanly towards another the ref sin-bins him and he doesnt argue because he know he actions have been recorded and it is pretty stupid if he DOES argue his case!

    it is nothing but down right dis-graceful and dis-respectful watching a footballer shout and ball and spit at a ref because he got a yellow card for diving! if the ref was able to watch the replay then it would be a totally differant story! SIN-BIN HIM!

    they should introduce this to football it would sort out the real from the fakes! rugby is so much more enjoyable to watch because at the end of the match they only have themselves to blame for losing, they hardly use any excuses

    i.e the guy dived in the 92min to get a penalty!
    or englands excuse for exiting the world cup!!

    the day the 4th offical is introduced to aid the ref on decisions like goals, offside, penaties and dives is the day i might switch the channel over to watch a game of football!!

    but i think i will be waiting a long time!!

  • Comment number 73.

    I would certainly use any technology which is available. I don't understand FIFA's objections. The World Cup is the biggest football tournament on the planet and surely teams and supporters are entitled to expect the refereeing and desision making to be of the highest order.
    I would go further. Have officials of both teams, immediately after matches, view a video recording of the whole game. Any cheating or foul play which the ref missed should be penalised by retrospective yellow or red cards. I'm not suggesting that results should be overturned, but if a few suspensions were handed down to cheats at key points of the big tournaments, then perhaps it would put a stop to some of the diving etc which goes on.

  • Comment number 74.

    Funny isn't it.
    So much has changed in the game incuding the rules. Yet CERTAIN TECHNICAL improvements are deemed no go(al) areas.

    shin pads, boots, timekeeping,the ball....

  • Comment number 75.

    Wouldn't it be easier to simply put an extra referee's assistant near or behind each goal who can help judge these issues? That way penalty area infringements can also have another POV to help the ref decide. The real problem is that the referee and the linesmen are too far away to accurately see especially when the ball is moving so fast. The advantage of this is that there is very little extra cost and it doesn't affect the universality of the game.

  • Comment number 76.

    Of course it would improve the game! And please stop mentioning that it would not have made England win. That is not the point of this discussion, the point is that a ball crossing the line within the rules should ALWAYS be counted as a goal, and if the referee + linesmen cannot see that then there needs to be goal line technology involved.

  • Comment number 77.

    Technology will definitely improve football matches nowadays. We live in a different eras than our forefathers used to, and complications after complications make human frailties appear more so. The sad truth is, nowadays we can not simply rely on human to do human works. If world cup to remain as one of the biggest tournament for the whole world to admire, then technology, will surely help a fairer, more 'just' plays.

  • Comment number 78.

    Two things are needed.
    Firstly, technology has to be used to reduce or hopefully eliminate the raft of ridiculous decisions we see every week from officials.
    Secondly, replays need to be used after the match to determine who cheated and they should be banned.

    FIFA have presided over something which has degenerated to a game of 'fool the referee' rather than the 'beautiful' game that we are always being promised. People who play act like five year olds to get others sent off should themselves be sent off but the referees need help in determining this - they can't see everything.

  • Comment number 79.

    Obviously it would improve football in the same way that it has improved tennis, and the FIFA universality of football argument is rubbish as the Hawk-Eye technology is only available for major tennis tournaments yet tennis hasn't suffered.

    It won't however happen, too many vested interests for that, and too many old and out of touch people running FIFA. Sport is very much about young people, so no one over say 50 should be involved in running sport, let them run the senior tour stuff if they want. Someone like David Beckham should be running the FA / FIFA.

  • Comment number 80.

    If I can see it on TV merely seconds after it happened why can't a 5th official!? Should be trialed at international level!

  • Comment number 81.

    This just has to be a no-brainer if ever there was one.

    Oh, I forgot again. We're talking about football, aren't we?

  • Comment number 82.

    First of all we need a football organisation that is for the fans, FIFA have no interest in the values of the game or who effectively pays for it to exist. Of course technology is required to establish the correct results and actions. Sadly football is governed by cheats and played by many the same. In snooker or golf, penalties are called on the players themselves for minor breach of rules. Why did the german keeper not approach the ref and clearly state the ball crossed the line for a 'goal' Once football can be seen to be totally transparent and spectators can trust the ruling bodies then football will continue on a downward spiral. American football,our Rugby League & Union all use technology with dramatic results that please the fans. Why would anyone not want a cotrrect decision within the rules? FIFA's res;ponse in March was it would be to expensive to introduce technology and the fand would be denied the opportunity to debate decisions. What utter rubbish. Technology could start to be introduced at least for 'live' matches. If Rugby League can afford to use techno,logy then I ams ure that football can do likewise. If salaries of £100,000 per week can be paid to players then there is clearly no financial restriction. FIFA act now and give the fans what they want. It is our game.

  • Comment number 83.

    If FIFA were to use the feeds from all of the broadcast cameras, they would clearly be able to tell if there was a goal or not. A great example of this use is in the NHL, where they receive all of the camera feeds from the broadcasters (who have a camera in the net and directly above the net pointing downwards, amongst the usual ones) and the ref can go on the phone with goal judge officials "upstairs" who can verify it. It doesn't stop the flow of the game anymore than when the flow is stopped for 2 minutes while the players yell at the ref.

    The argument about soccer being played the same from a 6 year old playing to the World Cup is a horrible argument too. It gives more back to the game than it takes since there is a reliability that is added into the game that cannot be cheated by a ref who makes an honest or dishonest mistake. The other thing that football could take from the NHL are some lessons on being a man and being able to take even hard hits without complaint... but that's a whole different story. ;)

  • Comment number 84.

    It might reduce the number of mistakes by referees and linesmen, but even if it had been in use in Bloemfontein it would have made no difference to the result. FIFA does however have to acknowledge progress and be less conservative in its views. Football's rules might be the same "whether the World Cup or a Sunday league match in Bradford", the only difference is that thousands of people do not spend a lot of money and travel vast distances to see a local match in Bradford.

  • Comment number 85.

    The off-switch improves it no-end already.

  • Comment number 86.

    "Job Done, Now for the Hun" - huge headline on the Daily Star front page. With disgusting cretins who write and allow stuff like this, and people who actually buy this "news"-paper, is technology really the thing to be concerned about just now? Perhaps rather some form of national psychotherapy? Or a Press Council that acts against this racist, neanderthal, offensive ordure? (See the BBC piece on the national hysteria about England's team).

  • Comment number 87.

    Did someone post a message that had footballers and integrity in the same sentence?

  • Comment number 88.

    There will never be GLT, there's is too much money involved in the game for people to take chances. GLT would probably remove the ability to pre-arrange results.

  • Comment number 89.

    Such technology should have been introduced years ago, but hasn't been because football is governed by tired old self-obsessed male hierarchies.

    May I suggest that when it is introduced it is suitably named?

    My own suggestion, loosely based on that great hero of our times WAll.E, is MOTT.E, which of course stands for Man Of The Terraces - Erudite!

    It is the perfect name, because as he said himself:

    "It looks like a one man show here, although there are two men involved."

  • Comment number 90.

    Other sports seem to cope with technology perfectly well. Is it against the rules in football for the ref to ask to see a replay when it seems clear that everyone else in the world saw the goal? I mean, with digital technology, he could have seen it the minute he requested to do so.

    England didn't play well. Perhaps they might have played a LITTLE better had the goal not been so unfairly disallowed.

    The English players are paid vast sums of money. How much do the ref and other officials get for matching England's poor performance with equally poor decisions? Were they running the wrong way?

  • Comment number 91.

    Will technology improve football? What - do you mean allowing metre-long leg extensions so players can run faster and kick further? Perhaps replacing humans with robots, or use bionic technology...

    Or do you mean using technology to improve refereeing decisions (which it obviously would)? Not quite the same thing is it?

  • Comment number 92.

    I hate football, however I did see part of the England/Germany match on Sunday
    No amount of technology will improve football but it will make it more clear when the ball is over the line.
    All we need is a good team simple....aint it?

  • Comment number 93.

    All of a sudden England are calling for the video refs,it wouldn"t have made any difference to the result,they were rubbish,they have good individual players who did nt perform,they are made to look better than they are playing for their clubs as they are supported by so many foreing players.They are overpaid and pampered and put on a pedastel by the english press and media.It"s 1 all now remember 66.

  • Comment number 94.

    Does football really want to go down the same path as cricket and both rugby codes where incidents referred to the fourth official can take up to five minutes to arrive at a decision? I understand the pressure for gadgetry on the goal line but once one infringement gets the video treatment there will be screams to add others.

    The flow of the game - already stop and start (due mostly to niggling fouls)from my few minutes viewing will deteriorate further.

    It's sometimes better to accept the devil you know. Besides there would be fewer talking points to discuss over a pint and a consequent closure of yet more pubs.

  • Comment number 95.

    Of course GLT should be introduced its long overdue. But it will never happen if Sepp Blatter has his way. The arrogance of this man knows no bounds.
    Also funny that they can put a 4th official in front of the dug outs to make sure the managers etc dont put a foot over the white line but cant do it to signify the ball has crossed the goaline.
    If the Lampard scenario had been for any other country other than England you would have probably had a very different reaction from FIFA.
    Its a pretty well known fact that they and UEFA are anti English.
    Lets hope that by the time of the next World Cup Mr Blatter will be gone and someone with common sense will bring in this technology.

  • Comment number 96.

    Would someone, or someone who knows someone with the knowledge, please start up a website where football fans from all over the world can protest and start a movement to force FIFA to instigate change.
    Preferably this needs to be done by a non-UK person as the same old rubbish about sour grapes will arise. This issue is NOT about England ... it is an issue that needs to be resolved for the good of football!

  • Comment number 97.

    Sven, Fabio, rescue-centre cat... nowt to-do with manager
    Premiere League... should-move to 5-periods [dump 2-halves] with sin-bins; managers-&-officials agree off-the-pitch about goals, fouls...
    Joining-in a kick-a-bout on-the-grass [as-in-1966] far-removed from what is supposed-to-be a professional-game.

  • Comment number 98.

    This has nothing to do with improving football, but it really is a no-brainer.

    Similar technology is employed in other sports at the highest level without having any detrimental effect on these sports at the lower levels. The point that FIFA consistently ignores, for reasons best known to itself, is that it is about ensuring that such critical decisions are correct when the consequences of errors are so catastrophic.

    Blatter really needs to go and be replaced by someone who actually understands the game and how it should be played. Now that would improve football!

  • Comment number 99.

    Camera technology would be great, but what's wrong with putting linesmen on the goal lines as well as the sides.

    It's ridiculous to expect a linesman (I refuse to call him an Assistant Referee because he's not) to be in line with play to spot offsides and, at the same time, on the goal line - he's not superhuman. And surely it's more important to monitor the goal line than the sides of the pitch.

    You don't need cameras. You need 2 extra blokes.

  • Comment number 100.

    Too expensive eh?

    Well what happens to the millions FIFA make every year.

    Presume its not only the footballers that are over paid then...also the people in suits?


Page 1 of 4

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.