A spokesman for world football's governing body today refused to answer questions on controversial incidents during Germany's 4-1 victory over England, when Frank Lampard's shot clearly crossed the line but the goal was not given, or Mexico's defeat by Argentina, when Carlos Tevez scored when patently offside.
But despite the growing clamour from players, coaches and some officials for Fifa to re-examine the case for goal-line technology, it is understood it will not be considered again until at least next March.
That is when the International Football Association Board will meet in Newport. And having already ruled out experimenting with rival systems developed by Adidas and Hawk-Eye this March by a margin of 6-2, it is unlikely to be on the agenda.
The eight votes around the board table are made up of the Football Associations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland plus four seats that represent the other 204 members of Fifa.
Trials of goal-line technology were proposed in March by Gordon Smith of the Scottish Football Association, who was backed by the former English FA chief executive Ian Watmore. Both men have now left their roles.
But it was opposed by Northern Ireland, Wales and the Fifa president, Sepp Blatter. Other Fifa executives in the meeting included Michel Platini, the Uefa president who has championed the alternative solution of extra officials behind each goal that was trialled in the Europa League last year, and Fifa's vice-president Julio Grondona.
Blatter, who appeared to be wavering on the topic in the debate that followed Thierry Henry's handball for France against the Republic of Ireland has since come out firmly against it.
Instead, he has repeatedly argued that football must retain its "human face" and claimed that debate over contentious decisions adds to the game. At a subsequent special pre-World Cup meeting of the board, it was decided to allow trials of the five officials to take place around the world. Despite mixed reports from the Europa League trial, it will be introduced to the Champions League next season and is due to be used in the 2012 European Championship.
The international players' union Fifpro today added its voice to calls for technology to be introduced. "We can do it, the football world wants it and yet it is still being thwarted, that is unacceptable," said Tijs Tummers, secretary of Fifpro's technical committee. "The error during the Germany-England match would have been the easiest to avoid. There is not a single convincing argument against the use of goalline technology."
Dr Paul Hawkins, the inventor of the Hawkeye system that is used in cricket and tennis, said that introducing it to rule whether the ball had crossed the line would aid referees rather than undermine them.
"Goalline incidents are the only decisions which are entirely definitive and the answer can be provided to the referee within 0.5 seconds of the incident happening," he said.
"This makes a clear distinction between goalline and other decisions. Referees want goalline technology. It would be there to help them, not to replace them."
Meanwhile Fifa is to remind local organisers not to replay controversial incidents on the big screen after replays of Argentina's disputed first goal against Mexico fuelled arguments on the pitch.
Fifa's policy is for contentious decisions not to be replayed, but a series of controversial incidents have been shown again to the crowd and players during the course of the tournament. Fifa's spokesman Nicolas Maingot said replaying such incidents "should not happen" and would be more tightly controlled at future matches. Asked whether Fifa had become a "laughing stock" in the wake of yesterday's incident at the Free State Stadium, Maingot refused to answer directly.
"Fifa is not working on refereeing after just one case, Fifa is working on refereeing for many years with the confederations and the national associations," he said. "Refereeing is a global part of the game and we will continue to work on this."
Assisting the referee: what are the options?
Goalline technology
Enthusiastically mooted for years by the former Arsenal vice-chairman David Dein, among others, the perennial argument over its introduction has been sparked back into life by the Lampard incident.
For: Two rival systems – the Cairos-Adidas solution that uses a microchip implanted in a ball and Hawkeye – have been shown to work and the latter is already used in other sports. A decision would take less than one second to relay to the referee.
Against: The "universality" argument. Opponents claim it would separate the game as played on the park pitch from that played in stadiums. Fears that it could undermine the concept that the referee's decision is final.
Video replays
In other sports, notably rugby and cricket, the referee or umpire is able to refer contentious decisions to another official monitoring the action on a television screen in the stands.
For: Hugely controversial decisions that alter the course of a match – such as Thierry Henry's handball against the Republic of Ireland – would be picked up almost immediately.
Against: Other sports that use replays have natural breaks in the action and it is not clear how the referee would stop a football match in order to refer a contentious incident, nor how he would restart it. Some offside calls may be so fine that even a video referee would be unable to decide. The argument over universality is even more pertinent here and there are cost implications.
Challenge system
Controversial when introduced to tennis in 2008, it is now largely taken for granted. Players can make up to three unsuccessful challenges per set, and a fourth in a tie break. A challenge system is now also being trialled by field hockey, which already uses video referees. In its version, referrals are only allowed if the previous one was successful.
For: Limits the use of technology to those occasions that where an intervention is felt to be warranted.
Against: Again, it is unclear how the game would be restarted. Could also lead to gamesmanship. Not universally popular with tennis players – Roger Federer is not a fan.
Extra officials
Michel Platini's pet idea for extra officials behind each goal was trialled in last season's Europa League and, after winning the support of Fifa, will be experimented with around the world next season, including the Champions League.
For: Gives the referee an extra pair of eyes, so should catch controversial incidents in the penalty area and goalline incidents. Retains game's "human" element.
Against: Mixed reviews in the Europa League. Has the potential to increase confusion depending on level of communication between officials and extra officials will not see every incident.
Souce:"guardian.co.uk"
Labels:
0 comments:
Post a Comment