Video Technology For Soccer? Wakey, Wakey FIFA!

Technology

Years ago when they need to see is what happening to your heart, they insert a tube with camera through your thigh to get there. This is not only intrusive and painful but very costly. The reason why they did that was because that was the best way to do it with the technology available at the time. Today, a MRI scan can take pictures of your heart and read it like a road map via satellite showing where is your CTE, PIE, KPE or AYE and it costs a tenth of the previous method with zero pain. Who wouldn't want to embrace this right? Well FIFA wouldn't.

Reasons

The reasons why FIFA or those who object to video technology are: football involves controversy, it is too costly to implement, soccer is not perfect, there has to be emotions and drama, halting play to verify causes delays (players are already using delay tactics) and whatever and they are all lame. FIFA General Secretary said "videos are definitely not on the table but two additional assistants to support referees to make decision-making easier and have more eyes o help him". I think this person has never played soccer. Sometimes, when people talk you know something about them. It's like no, no, no MRI scan please give us the other method used when dinosaurs were roaming Sentosa. You can have an additional ten pairs of eyes but before you could even say J-a-b-u-l-a-n-i or rub your eyes, the ball would still have hit the crossbar, crossed the goal line by a yard and bounced out without any difference by means of detection with the naked human eyes. Are FIFA afraid that it may lead to calls for players to have a microchip inserted so referees can discern who are the cheats when they dive without being touched?

We could argue that had Lampard's goal counted the score would have been tied at 2-2 no doubt providing a different ball game after half-time as England do not have to throw men forward to be susceptible to counters but the better team won. What happens if it counted we will never know. This is not important. It wasn't just England's goal where everyone there saw it except those who matters. How do you think the referee felt when he saw the replay himself? It is not just England. What about Tevez's goal for Argentina versus Mexico and Fabiano goal for Brazil versus the Ivory Coast which was a hand ball? Did you forget the one Thierry Henry created with his hands for France to beat Ireland and qualified? Italy got an equaliser versus Slovakia which looked suspiciously wrong when it was ruled offside. Mexico scored one that was offside against France. Another line that was given was even more laughable - that is from the pinnacle of the World Cup, professional club soccer to the schoolboy games or those from the backyard in your neighbourhood, all things must be the same so no video technology. But don't the bigwigs know that only the rules need to be the same and this is not a rule but an aid to discharge justice and fair play?

Other Sports

They have such aids in ice hockey with goal line buzz, tennis, athletes, swimming, etc. How does one know when Usain Bolt win by a nostril hair? Thy use it in cricket and rugby too in some ways. No team deserved to be denied a goal when it is a goal and vice versa when they were awarded one when it is not. Now tell me again why you wanted more inept human eyes when you have first class technology available?

Cheats

Video technologies relief referees of unnecessary pressures and on decision which they could never make like those of handballs or goal line decisions. When unsure, allow play to be halted for a moment and all that is needed is for the fourth official to verify using video technology for the referee to make a clear and confirmed decision.

Honesty is a rare commodity in these modern times. I was only touched once when I saw Robbie Fowler (Liverpool) being awarded a penalty and Fowler appealed to the referee stating that he was not fouled and it should not be a penalty. The referee awarded it anyway and when Fowler stepped up to take it, he merely pass the ball to the goalkeeper instead of scoring. This great act of sportsmanship has been unmatched since.

In today's win at all costs world, the world rewards cheats. Of course it is easy to say this. The team that benefited from such a decision error would be happy to let it be while the other team will feel aggrieved and left fuming. German goalie Manuel Neuer was reported that he saw and knew the ball had crossed the line but when he noticed that the match officials were none the wiser he pretended that it was in normal play. Now he is announcing to the world that yes he had cheated, he knew the truth but had hidden it. If a person did not go out to cheat but by hiding the truth is that tantamount to cheating or preventing justice and fair play. Sadly, a thing that Thierry Henry did too. There is no point to ask the Irish about France and Henry or the English about Germany and Neuer for it is far better for the French and Germans fans to state it.

Do not blame the referees or linesmen. Forget about blaming players. All these things could happen and will continue to happen until video technology has been introduced. I will then recommend to FIFA to make the game truly more exciting with a new section called "Call Your Bluff". Every time, there is a controversial situation, the referee will halt play and call for video technology to replay and get a result through a fourth official. Once he knew the result, the referee will then walk up to the gaolie who argued that it didn't cross the line or the striker who used his hands and asked him: "Hey punk, I know you are thinking whether I have anymore cards left and if this is your lucky day. Make my day." If he admits it no problem. If he lied and the video show otherwise, then flash at him. Banish players who waste time for 10 minutes and banish those who dive for 20 minutes.

How About This New Rule?

Why bother to carry out an unfurled fair play flag for all to see when you can't enforced it and worse have not shown the slightest intention? To simplify the issue without introducing video technology, I have another suggestion - simply tweak the rule so that a goal is not a goal even if the ball crosses the line. It doesn't matter. A goal is only to be awarded if the ball touches the net and just set a distance from the goal post to the net for it is easier to see the net bulging than the ball crossing the line. Golfers sometimes putt a ball into a hole only to have it popping up back onto the green after encircling the perimeter of the hole after rimming it. I used to tell them that in soccer it would have been a goal as the ball crosses the line but unfortunately we are playing golf so we need to hear the tin cup. Try this out for soccer, you can thank me later.