Goal-line Technology - The Debate Rages On

Geoff Hurst's second goal in England's victorious World Cup Final of 1966, Pedro Mendez's long range pot-shot spilt by the red-faced Roy Carroll at Old Trafford the lino failed to pick up on. Reading's frankly ridiculous goal at Watford last year, Freddie Sears' effort that hit the stanchion and bounced back out at Ashton gate which sparked outrage from the ever-lovable Neil Warnock...goals change games and history (or not in some cases!).

Bad refereeing decisions are one thing (I'll get to why I think our referees aren't up to standard and why that is at a later time), but whether or not the whole of a football has crossed a white line or not is black and white (green if I'm being particularly anal), is it not? Football is the greatest game on the planet, but as the quality (and pace as a result) of the game increases, the technology being used continues to lag seriously behind. Cricket has Hawkeye, an excellent proven system for judging the flight of the ball and whether or not it would have hit the stumps in LBW appeals, rugby has video-refs and football has...stupid-looking walky talky headsets as modelled expertly by Mr Pedantic himself, Rob Styles.

Various pundits, managers, officials and governing bodies alike have agreed that in the 21st Century, these poor levels of accuracy and lack of common sense through implementation of new systems are unacceptable. Even England's chief of the Professional Game Match Officials Board Keith Hackett has called for technology to be introduced, saying: "I think the major issue centres around the fact that for a number of years PGMOB have been calling for goal-line technology to be introduced. In fairness the Premier League worked with Hawkeye to achieve a product that the Premier League wanted to put into an operation as an experiment with the full support of the Football League, FA, LMA and PFA. All the parties were in favour, but at the international board meeting in Gleneagles a year ago, FIFA and Sepp Blatter decided the experiment could not go ahead."

Hackett's comments with regards to FIFA are concerning given that the game's governing body are supposed to be the ones with football's best interests at heart, and unfortunately this appears to be nothing new - just ask Guus Hiddink. Hiddink of course recently spent a period in charge at Chelsea and saw his then employers denied a clear goal against Juventus in the Champions League by a lack of technology. Hiddink stated that "technology must be used on this - then there won't be a dispute, it's a yes or no. We did it with Phillips in my very early days at PSV in the 80's and it worked really well. But the people who were deciding didn't want to know and that was 20 years ago. Now I think the technology is so perfect that, for me, it must be done."

So wait a minute, Phillips tried to develop this a 5th of a century ago back in the days when Manchester United fans thought that Sir Alex Ferguson was useless, Margaret Thatcher was in power and the Berlin Wall still stood yet during a period where so much change (much of it good) has happened, FIFA have chosen to remain in the stone age? I find this rather absurd and frankly extremely concerning when I come to the realisation that these clowns are entrusted with the future of the game.

Right, mini-rant over...so which technology or new systems should be used?

Potential Systems

Extra officials: UEFA have trialled the addition of two extra officials (one at either goal) in the Europa League (UEFA Cup for those who can't keep up with the annual faffing around, re-naming and re-formatting process Michel Platini seems to have become obsessed with). The idea is that this will solve the problem whereby a linesman is unable to keep up with play in order to make a decision if there's a long shot (a la Mendez at Old Trafford) which crosses the line.

This is all well and good in my opinion, but just as referees can make mistakes and fail to see what's right in front of them (hey, we can't all see everything and be perfect), this system is still open to human error and the officials still only have a split second to make a decision in some cases. What people tend to forget is that the WHOLE ball has to be over the goal-line, not some or most of it, and this is often harder than it seems to pick out, especially at high speed. You have to allow for things such as goalkeepers diving and in some cases obstructing the officials' view of the ball - I was watching an NHL game the other night (granted, an ice hockey puck is a lot smaller and harder to spot, but the principle is still there) and there was an instance where the goalie fell on top of the puck. Even though it appeared that he'd saved the goal and this was deemed to be the case, it was still impossible to tell 100% as his pad was covering the puck and it could have been at the top (outside the goal) of his pad or the bottom (in the goal).

A third disadvantage of UEFA's trialled system involves its influence on play itself. Recently I was lucky enough to watch a game at Wembley in the top tier and some may be aware that they have a camera there which is suspended from the roof. Obviously it has nothing to do whatsoever with the outcome of the game, it is just there to observe and record, but when the ball was played from one end to another, I (and others around me, I made sure I wasn't cracking up!) often got distracted by it as it often appeared as if there was a defender playing someone onside or an attacker who was unmarked. The relevance of this is that the extra officials on the pitch are at the side of the goal and this could throw the goalkeeper and defenders a bit as they might be drawn to their movement with officials moving in and out of their blind spots. It is for these three reasons that I don't believe that UEFA'S new method is the best way to move forwards.

Video Technology: As I mentioned to begin with, sports such as rugby deploy a video ref system whereby the game is stopped when contentious incidents take place and video evidence is examined during a short delay in play, before a decision is made. The idea in football would be for the referee (or alternatively an official in the stands) to look at a camera angle from level with the goalposts and determine whether or not the ball had crossed the line.

To begin with this would seem to be an excellent idea - referees being given perfect evidence with which to extract a decision from...but is this really perfect? The ice hockey 'was it? wasn't it?' debate springs to mind here and often on TV, pundits take a look at 3 or 4 different angles of an incident and are still arguing among themselves as to whether or not it was a goal. Football is a brilliant sport to watch, and much of that is due to the way in which it tends to flow as a spectacle and I feel that this has the potential to affect it. Large delays in play could kill momentum as teams push for a late goal and give defenders chance to rest and detract from the action, dampening the 'live experience' for supporters in the process.

Thinking further into the future, I also fear that the introduction of video replays now could escalate into it being used for EVERY slightly contentious incident such as mistimed tackles, offsides and so forth, which would completely kill the game in my eyes. Games could potentially take hours upon hours to complete and that's even assuming that the appropriate time is added on. As it is referees appear to struggle with regards to timekeeping and I would worry that we'd lose even more time in terms of the ball being 'in play' if this was introduced without proper consideration and control devices.

I guess that means another no from me then!

Computer Chips/Adidas Teamgeist 2: This is perhaps the most interesting thing I have investigated. Basically FIFA and other footballing bodies had looked into the idea of a computer chip system whereby chips would be inserted into the goalposts and also different parts of a football. The idea is that if all the chips in the ball pass through the 'field' between the two goalposts then all of the ball must be over the line, meaning that a goal must have occurred. I suppose you could look at it sort of like the laser beam anti-theft traps in films (Ocean's Eleven springs to mind here) where an alarm is triggered if an object passes through them, except the only things able to set the alarm off here would be the chips in the ball. A more detailed explanation can be found here.

This technology was trialled at the World Club Championships in 2007 and was thought to be FIFA's preferred approach to solving the goal-line issue - Adidas were working in partnership with scientists and FIFA to develop this further in order to ensure it was 100% accurate and workable, but FIFA then moved away from the idea last year. This was a decision which was opposed by many top level clubs across Europe who voiced their concern that this could spell the end for goal-line technology and also that it would be a step backwards.

To me it seems very strange that FIFA have invested a lot of money, time and effort into an idea which seemed very promising and easy to implement at the expense of putting more bodies onto a football pitch, leading to the potential for over-complication. One point which football's governing body raised was that the Teamgeist 2 technology with goalposts might not be financially viable at the grass roots level of our game (but is the five-man officials system viable either given the decline in the number of referees as it is?!). I personally find this rather bewildering as you don't see video refs for park rugby or Hawkeye being used for Sunday league cricket, yet either sport does not seem to have collapsed!

The difference of course at the top level is the money at stake with millions and millions of Pounds being decided over split seconds, which surely increases the need for something to be done? Of course it's upsetting coming into work on a Monday morning having lost to your mates thanks to a dodgy decision, but could you imagine being denied a place in history or a new house by such a thing, (some people might call it a disgrace and even go as far as launching a tirade at a TV camera, but I personally think that's a bit much) isn't it a bit different?

The Verdict

I think FIFA are seriously missing a trick by holding back on the computer chip/magnetic technology. This could potentially eliminate the problem once and for all and wouldn't delay the game at all - surely it would be the perfect solution for everyone involved? The only doubt I would have over this would be the durability of the technology in terms of robustness given how hard a football can be struck (a Roberto Carlos free-kick perhaps) - could this knock the chips out of place or damage them? That said, we've managed to put a man on the Moon and invent beer so surely this is achievable?

Once again I look forward to hearing your comments...

So, Who Should Host The FIFA World Cup 2018?

Right, much has been made of England's bid to stage the 2018 World Cup in the media recently, which has stoked up debate as to whether or not we 'deserve' the tournament with some claiming it's 'our turn'. Others such as FIFA Vice-President Jack Warner remain unconvinced and recently referred to the FA's bid as 'lightweight' much to the dismay of many.

So who is right and who is wrong? I'm sure we each have our own opinions and perhaps the best place to start is by looking at each bidding country...

FIFA World Cup 2018 Bidding Countries

Australia: Australia's bid was confirmed in September 2007 comprising of 16 stadia, some of which can be found here. Perhaps the most notable inclusion and the likely venue for the Final should the Aussies win the right to stage the tournament would be the dramatic 100,000 capacity Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) with its fine history, tradition and facilities.

This is all well and good, but perhaps this is also where Australia's problem lies - the MCG is indeed a cricket ground and while Australia offers plenty in the way of culture, infrastructure, tradition and a love for sport, the question remains as to how much it loves football itself - Australia has hosted the Rugby World Cup, Commonwealth Games and Olympics in recent years, but they are lacking in footballing history and purpose-built stadia. The Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd has pledged to plough £20.36 million into the bid over three years, but will this be efor sport, football (or 'soccer' as they refer to it as they have their own Aussie Rules

Football) seems to lag behind here. The fact that there are only currently 5 stadiums there boasting a capacity in excess of 27,000 is also likely to concern FIFA representatives.

Further details of Australia's bid can be found here.

Belgium & The Netherlands: This is the first of two joint-bids which have been placed for 2018. Of course, these two did a reasonable job of staging UEFA Euro 2000, but the World Cup is arguably a much bigger stage. Japan and Korea were criticised for their lack of cohesion by Sepp Blatter (FIFA President) when they staged World Cup 2002 and this has in part led to concerns being raised about the workability of any joint bid.

Belgium's own FIFA Representative Dr Michel D'Hooghe has moved to counter this argument by saying that "the difference is that FIFA put Japan and Korea together although they aren't really capable of co-organising events, so they actually organised two 'mini-tournaments'. We, and Euro 2000, started together. We always said that we were one candidacy, which I clearly stressed to Blatter. We are not two candidates - we have one candidacy: the Low Countries."

There are certainly no shortage of marketable figures (something which Warner referred to in his recent criticism of England's bid) which have/are able to be used for the Benelux bid with the likes of Ruud Gullit, Dennis Bergkamp, Marco Van Basten, Justine Henin for starters. In particular Holland carries a strong footballing tradition with its flagship club Ajax producing generation after generation of top players.

However, the last decade or so has seen a decline in Dutch and Belgian football with Ajax and Anderlecht (arguably either country's biggest clubs) failing to perform on the European stage. Attendances have fallen and the two leagues have been left behind in terms of sponsorship revenue which has meant that the quality of stadia and facilities have dropped behind those of other nations. A major criticism is the lack of an 80,000 capacity stadium or higher which would be required in order to stage a final and although development has been mooted for Rotterdam, though many sceptics remain. Nevertheless, there is plenty of time and thus scope for planning and construction between now and 2018, although FIFA will be look for assurance - full details of the bid are located on the official website.

England: In October last year it was announced that England were to bid for the 2018 World Cup. England have of course hosted the World Cup on one previous occasion - in the glorious summer of 1966 which saw captain Bobby Moore lift the trophy. However, aside from Euro '96, England has not hosted a major footballing tournament since then, in which will be over half a century by the time 2018 comes around. Much has changed since that time and nothing is more indicative of that fact than the brand spanking new Wembley Stadium which leaves its crumbling old (if historic and much-loved) predecessor firmly in the shade.

Certainly in terms of stadia it would appear that we are there or thereabouts with the following grounds all potential candidates to stage games:

Wembley Stadium (90,000 capacity)

Old Trafford (76,000 capacity)

Emirates Stadium (60,400 capacity)

St James' Park (52,000 capacity)

Stadium of Light (49,000 capacity)

City of Manchester Stadium (48,000 capacity)

Villa Park (42,000 capacity)

Stamford Bridge (42,000 capacity)

Elland Road (40,000 capacity)

GoodisonPark (40,000 capacity)

I have chosen to exclude Anfield from this list as in all probability it will be replaced by the 60,000 Stanley Park Stadium (another able to stage games) and it is also worth noting that Tottenham are planning to build a new 60,000 capacity ground on the existing White Hart Lane site. This would potentially leave us with 9 ready-built and 2 additional expected stadiums well capable of hosting World Cup ties before we even contemplate looking at the vast array of quality stadia we are blessed with below the 40,000-capacity mark.

A question mark with our bid is raised over infrastructure as those of us who travel up and down the country on Saturdays to see our teams play may appreciate! However, with London staging the Olympics in the near future and the improvements which were made at Wembley tube station, are we being a bit over-cautious? After all, our transport links somehow stand up to the needs (just!) over 51,000,000 people in our increasingly-crowded country, so surely we can manage a few hundred thousand more for a month when many are on holiday anyway?

Our favourite Fifa Vice-President Mr Warner also went on to say that as well as being 'lightweight', our bid did not carry enough of a 'media profile', which I find puzzling given the presence of Prince William and also that one of the most famous men on the planet in David Beckham is central to the bid. One needs only to look at what the Premier League rake in in terms of television revenue and to realise that our league is the most watched and recognised in the world to see that quite from lacking a 'media profile', we arguably carry one of the strongest. With teams such as Manchester United going on pre-season tours of Asia and Chelsea jetting off to America in the summer, I would have thought our 'media profile' would be slightly higher than that of competitors Australia which is best known for Shane Warne (this is not in any way a dig at Warne because he's a legend, but he has nothing to do with football).

If you have a few spare minutes then England's 2018 bid website is worth taking a look at.

Indonesia: A surprise candidate perhaps, but Indonesia is not to be dismissed in all of this. Indonesia has a massive population (235,000,000) and also boasts the 88,000 capacity Bung Karno Stadium in Jakarta, which would be capable of staging the Final (it also staged the 2007 Asian Cup Final). Unfortunately it does not have the same levels of quality across the board as some of its competitors, with a reported $1 Billion being touted as the amount needed in order to bring other stadia in line with Fifa's requirements.

That said, the fact that there has only been one previous World Cup staged in Asia (Japan/South Korea 2002) may sweeten the deal as far as Fifa are concerned as they have repeatedly stressed their desire to spread and grow the game as much as they can with the World Cup being their jewel in the crown. Indonesia were indeed the first ever Asian country to feature in a World Cup Finals in 1938.

Infrastructure is another obstacle Indonesia must overcome if they are to be awarded the staging of the Greatest Show on Earth. Great strides must be made here in particular if the bid is to succeed and Indonesia FA Secretary General Nugraha Besoes conceded "this seems like only a dream for us now, but we must dare to dream big." Perhaps a website would be a start!

Japan: Japan may be hampered by the fact that it is only 7 years since they last hosted the tournament, albeit co-operatively with South Korea. Another factor holding Japan back is their lack of an 80,000 capacity ground to stage the final, as with Benelux. Japan recently staged a failed bid for the 2016 Olympics, which would have seen the construction of a new 100,000 seater stadium. This is thought to have put a massive dent into Japan's World Cup plans, even if the 2019 Rugby World Cup has been awarded to them and I would probably rule them out of the race.

Portugal & Spain: For me this is perhaps the fiercest rival bid there is. Portugal did an excellent job in hosting Euro 2004 and we know all about the grandeur of the Nou Camp and the Bernabeu. After a lot of 'will they?/won't they?' on the part of the two respective FA's and FIFA, FIFA President Sepp Blatter confirmed the bid at the beginning of this year.

The two countries have a decent enough infrastructure to stage such a tournament and although alone Portugal might not have had enough high-capacity stadia to make the jump up from European Championships to World Cup, combining with Spain has resulted in potentially one of the strongest World Cup bids for many a year (at least in terms on stadia alone). With Valencia and Atletico Madrid on the verge of moving to new state-of-the-art homes and Espanyol (Barcelona's poorer relations) already having done so having done so, you can see why this could get many people excited. The question is, would the Final be played at the home of Real Madrid or their fierce rivals Barcelona?

This is easily the strongest contender to prevent England from staging the tournament, especially as it would appear to be 'Europe's turn' and their bid would therefore provide a direct challenge through this reasoning. Fifa's main concern (and England's main hope for that matter!) would appear to be the lack of cohesion between the two countries which may come to disagree with each other with regards to who hosts what as the tournament goes on. In addition to this, although some of the aforementioned stadia have been built in the last year or so, the Nou Camp remains quite dated in terms of its facilities and the same could be said of Sevilla and Bilbao's grounds, which would surely be a part of the bid due to their size.

Russia: Vladimir Putin has ordered Russia's Sports Minister to 'prepare a bid for Russia to hold the 2018 World Cup'. Moscow recently did a decent job of hosting the 2008 Champions League Final between Manchester United and Chelsea where John Terry famously slipped, landed on his backside and handed the tournament to United in the penalty shoot-out.

According to the Head of the Russian FA, they are ready to splash around $10 Billion on the tournament should they be awarded it - an outlay which would make Roman Abramovich blush. This would firstly help to ensure that 5 stadia are fit to stage World Cup matches as early as 2013, which could set them apart from the likes of Indonesia. There is no doubt that this huge financial investment could make for a potentially spectacular event if it were to happen.

I would have thought that the first obstacle that Russia may have to overcome in order to win is a geographical one. With Russia being such a vast country in terms of its area, a World Cup becomes increasingly difficult to effectively manage. Teams and fans could have to travel large distances between games, with this having a negative effect on both the quality of football on show and atmosphere. There is also the issue of infrastructure, with roads being better in some places than others.

In addition to this, although security is much improved compared to what it used to be in this country, it is still perhaps not quite what some would like it to be (these views were expressed at the Champions League Final). I think 2018 could come a bit soon for Russia, but there is no doubting its potential and perhaps the same could be said of its website, which looks rather hastily put together.

USA: It has been well-documented that the 1994 World Cup USA broke many records in terms of attendances and revenue, which is bound to have pleased Fifa and all those associated. America is blessed with many great stadiums such and beautiful cities and it has used those to its advantage. The USA are masters in marketing - you only need to see NFL games being played at Wembley and the interest the NBA and NHL generate over here to see that, and this is demonstrated on their bid.

The Americans boast an impressive 27 cities and 32 stadiums which are able and vying to stage World Cup matches should their bid be successful, which completely gulfs their competitors. Facilities are tip-top and infrastructure and accommodation for fans, players and officials alike is outstanding and the envy of the rest of the world. They also have the Obama factor, which is a wave on which many over there appear to be riding at the moment.

The concern I (and perhaps Fifa) may have is whether or not the USA is 'ready' for another World Cup so soon as 2018. What I mean by this is that 1994 was deemed as the dawn of the 'Soccer Revolution' in the States where Pele had failed previously. Now it's 2009 and David Beckham has been in LA playing for the Galaxy for 2 years, yet although there

has been a slight rise in attendances and publicity it has gained, 'soccer' still fights an uphill battle against other sports. Beckham (rightly or wrongly - rightly in my opinion) didn't endear himself to the American faithful by his stint in Milan last winter and the American public may not have forgiven him or possess the hunger for the beautiful game that Sepp Blatter and Fifa are looking for.

The Verdict

Having thought long and hard about this one, I have come to the following conclusions...

England must stage the 2018 World Cup - she has the stadia, infrastructure, public interest, facilities and the tradition which would make for a perfect tournament. Euro '96 was a roaring success from start to finish and with the new grounds which have since been built with a handful to follow, 2018 would promise to be even bigger and better. Portugal & Spain are the closest rival in my eyes, but a joint bid involving a nation which has only recently staged a major tournament would be a mistake in my opinion, especially given the potential for friction between these two proposed joint hosts.

I would also give the USA the right to stage the 2022 World Cup as I think football will grow there over time, perhaps with an influx of more 'superstars' later into their careers. We are seeing more and more American players entering Europe with the likes of Clint Dempsey, Tim Howard and Brad Friedel all plying their trade here, in addition to Freddy Adu at Benfica and Altidore at Villareal (now on loan at Hull), and these are encouraging signs of development. A criticism I have at the moment is that although the stadia there are excellent, there don't seem to be many which are purpose-built for our football - instead they favour the egg-shaped ball. Perhaps the evolution of the MLS could see that change in time - here's to hoping that will be the case.

All FIFA now have to do is read this then and sort it out!

Thoughts anyone?

Introduction

Hello, how are you? I'm Royalee - you may have seen me around on the interweb posting on such prestigious websites as Hobnob Anyone? (the internet forum for Reading FC) sparking shock, horror, disgust, laughter, amusement, derision and hatred, but hopefully and most importantly enjoyable banter and debate.

You may have deduced from this that I am rather keen on my football, and I am. Here I will share my thoughts on various topics throughout the beautiful game and you are free to make what you like of my rantings and ramblings (considered input, topic suggestions and debate will be gratefully accepted, but no name-calling please, it's not big and it's not clever unless I'm doing it). Hell, I may even hold polls and go crazy with pie charts and all manner of graphical bewilderment if this actually takes off!

My Football Experiences

I thought it might be nice to fill you in on my football background as far as being a fan goes - I'll keep this short and sweet...

First match attended: Reading 2-1 Leyton Orient on Saturday October 16th 1993 at Elm Park, it was bloody brilliant and I loved it so much that I've been going ever since and must have gone to approaching 1,000 games watching the mighty Royals - it's been a blast.

Favourite players:

Shaka Hislop: Was between the sticks when I first started watching my team Reading, 6 foot 6 and an imposing yet agile keeper with great reactions. Inspired me to play in goal and went on to play over 200 games in the Premiership after he left us for Newcastle, West Ham and Pompey. Class.

Eric Cantona: I still don't think there has been anyone like him since he retired - Dennis Bergkamp was similar in some ways but he didn't have the same arrogance, fire and eloquence of the great man both on and off the pitch. I bet Dennis wasn't as good at kung-fu either, Cantona'd destroy him! Long live the King.

Romario: The ultimate goalscorer, he was still banging them in at 42 years old, finally retiring last year after amassing well over 300 competitive goals. Everyone goes on about Shearer and Ronaldo (Brazilian) as being the greatest goalscorers of their time, but they didn't get anywhere near his tally. Oh yeah, he scored 55 goals in 70 games for Brazil on the international stage too which I hadn't included -here is him at his best...enjoy.

Diego Maradona: I was too young to see him at his best, but this is utterly ridiculous.

Jimmy Quinn, Jamie Cureton, Dave Kitson and Kevin Doyle: Reading FC goalscoring legends, all of them.

What To Expect

Right, that's enough of that. At the moment I'm in the process of writing a few pieces, beginning with the World Cup 2018 debate. In this I shall take a look at the different bids including England's and tell FIFA what they should be doing as I think this is for the best. If you have any suggestions for articles or topics you would like me to discuss, please write to me at royalee@live.co.uk or just leave a comment on here.

Cheers