Share
Sam Shead
Reporter
The goal of the game
Marko Devic’s shot on goal went entirely over the line when Ukraine played their final group game of the Euro 2012 tournament against England on Tuesday. Whether or not Devic was offside is another matter.
The fact is the five officials on the pitch allowed play to go on after the ball had passed the line. England fans, including myself, wiped their brows and grinned through gritted teeth while Ukrainians held their arms up in uproar.
There were loud cries once again for goal-line technology to be introduced and eliminate the human error that has plagued many high-profile footballing occasions. It would seem that the vast majority of the footballing community are now in favour of introducing goal-line technology, despite some people openly admitting they enjoy debating referee’s decisions.
One of the issues with introducing the technology is that it won’t be available to all due to its cost. However, sports such as tennis and cricket haven’t come up against too much opposition from those who don’t have access to the technology.
Matt Smith, a centre forward for League One team Oldham Athletic, shares the opinion of many professional footballers. He replied to a tweet of mine on Twitter, saying: ‘I think it’s so important we see it. It’d clear up a lot of controversy. Be great to see it in the PL & then filter down the leagues.’
Meanwhile, Jon Corke, a sports trader at Paddy Power Bookmakers told The Engineer he is definitely in favour of the technology as it would aid fairness, increase customer satisfaction, and reduce the number of disputes on good will payouts.
Fortunately, the International Association Football Board (IFAB) has been testing two goal-line technologies. They are set to announce their final decision on their approval in Kiev on July 5, following the Euro 2012 final.
The two shortlisted technologies are the Basingstoke-based Hawk-Eye system and the German developed GoalRef. Both are described in detail in a news story ran by The Engineer when it was first revealed they had been shortlisted.
Steve Haake, head of sports engineering at Sheffield Hallam University, said in an email: ‘The Hawk-Eye system is slower and would be media friendly, with 3D trajectories and images to show on screen and prove to the audience that the ball was over the line.’
However, critics might argue that it will slow the game down, as a time-out is needed to get the answer while the data is processed.
Meanwhile, Haake saidGoalRef would be a far more instantaneous system capable of producing a quick yes/no decision but without the supporting video evidence to convince fans.
Euro 2012 will have to go on without goal-line technology but hopefully major tournaments of the future, such as the eagerly anticipated 2014 World Cup in Brazil, will bring in Hawk-Eye or GoalRef and no longer be blighted — or enlivened — by referee-induced errors.
Readers' comments (8)
Gerard Dupin | 22 Jun 2012 12:16 pm
Platini and co are completely stupid not to use video like in rugby !
The Croatians have been eliminated while the player who scored was offside !
And there was a penalty which was not given in favour of Croatians just before.
This is just plain stupid !
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
GINO VERCESI | 22 Jun 2012 12:21 pm
the GOL is absolutely valid since the ball passed clearly the white line and the position of the referee for the end line at the very moment of the ball passing the white line,is in clear wrong position :it is very well demonstrated his head at the very moment is in wrong position since towards the internal of the field instead of the due position at the right of the door stand. It means when a referee wants to take a decision again it depends if the referee is honestly acting or not,so...let's go for telecamera check where more than one people can have a look......
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Nicol | 22 Jun 2012 1:53 pm
Why do they not use available technology and have a double loop in the goalposts with a small transmitter within the ball. That way a ball travelling into the goal woud be identified as against on coming out. They could also embed as many cameras as they wished into the goalposts to give total coverage of the line.
I cannot see that type of system costing megamoney!! you could buy the bits at any high street radio parts retailer.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
GINO VERCESI | 22 Jun 2012 6:48 pm
I do agree with Gerard Dupin :
the Croatians have been eliminated while the Spanish player who scored was offside
...but that fact has not been duly enphasised.....why.... ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dan Gibbs | 23 Jun 2012 5:42 pm
'Hawkeye' with video play back or 'GoalRef' without,
the old adage comes to mind, Justice must not only be done, it must be SEEN to be done.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23 Jun 2012 6:34 pm
Platini was in favor of technology in 1990. It would have helped for example eliminating the goal Maradonna scored with his hand. Everyone was for technology at the time (20 years ago). Don't put things in the football, it will not be durable or reliable
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 Jun 2012 11:59 am
What we have here are well thought out engineering solutions to a problem; its now up to the FA, FIFA et al to work out how to use it. As a footy fan, I'm not convinced. Why only roll this out in the Premier League? What if a promotion chasing side from the Championship misses out on ascending to the Prem due to a goal that never was? The tech has to be rolled out through all professional leagues as, in theory, they all can move upwards to the Prem, with the riches it brings. And what of cup competitions, such as the FA Cup where again, in theory, a team of part-timers can potentially make the final? And why stop at the goal line? There are way more dodgy offside decisions that see teams miss out on points. Bringing this in on the goal line is fine in theory but it really hasn't been thought out properly by the footballing authorities.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27 Jun 2012 1:35 pm
Most of the sport is so downright dull nowadays- take the mass tedium of Euro 2012 as an example- that this sort of controversy is the only thing that livens it up. As another example, Formula 1 has progressed to the stae where racing is virtually non-existent, and arbitrary mechanisms have to be introduced to allow places to change-it should not be dignified with the term "overtaking", and the only "excitement" as to the results comes from wondering what drivers will be favoured by the governing body and allowed to keep their points. Athletics has to keep changing the rules on false starts to get any interest in sprints at all, and assiduously avoids technologies that could resolve the problem and cure any problems over photo finishes.
In many sports, it is only the controversy that keeps any interest going at all, so they have a vested interest in not solving the Engineering problems, because at the System level they'e not problems.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment