Sepp Blatter doesn't even deserve the term "Luddite"

The Luddites resisted the introduction of mechanised technology in factories in the 19th Century because it would do a lot of skilled labourers out of their jobs. But Sepp Blatter doesn't seem to have any such principle behind his resistance to the introduction of technology into the game of football (soccer for the USAians out there).

Yesterday, two goals at the FIFA World Cup - one that was given and shouldn't have been, the other not given when it should - highlighted how this pigheaded approach harms the sport.

The first goal, which should have been given and wasn't, came in England's match against Germany in the last-16. Germany eventually won 4-1 so arguably it didn't affect the overall result of the game, but it came at a crucial point: England were suddenly on a surge and had come back from 2-0 to 2-1; a second goal would level the scores and give them the feeling they could fight it out. That goal duly came when Frank Lampard banged the ball against the underside of the German crossbar, it bounced down, back up, and then out of the goal.

Millions must have reacted as I did, believing that it had bounced behind the line - in the words of the laws of association football, that "the whole of the ball had crossed the whole of the line" - but the German goalkeeper played the ball downfield as if nothing had happened. And the referee allowed play to continue. No goal given. Within seconds, the TV networks had replays showing exactly where the ball had landed, and the ball was far enough over the line that you could have fitted another ball between it and the goal line and THAT ball would have scored as well! It wasn't even close! Goal line technology to determine the moment when the ball has crossed the whole of the line is available. Whether it's based on TV replays (as in NFL or rugby) or the famous Hawk-eye, a tracking software first used for sports in cricket commentary to analyse LBW decisions, now a regular part of tennis adjudication (where again, it determines whether a ball has landed on or over the line) - the technology exists and could be used at international level at least (one of Blatter's objections is that it would be "too expensive" to install "worldwide").

The second goal was Argentina's first goal against Mexico. Here, initially the player was onside and powerfully struck the ball at the Mexican goal, but it bounced off something (I unremember whether it was the crossbar or the goalkeeper) and came out to a teammate. By this stage, the striker was in an offside position, as replays showed, so when the ball was played back to the striker, that should have been called an offside offence. Instead, the striker got a second chance and this time put the ball in the net.

Some people question in this instance whether you could use technology in the form of replays (Hawk-eye would not be much use here) to assist with offside decisions, because play could continue if no goal was scored, so you don't have any time in which to assess the evidence. But using replays where a contentious goal has been scored I think is certainly possible, because at that point you have a discontinuity in play whatever happens: if there is a goal then play has stopped to return the ball to the centre spot; if there is an offside then play has stopped to allow the free kick to be taken from the point of the offence. If play has stopped, and it takes only a few seconds to "rewind" the video (it's digital now, so it's not rewinding really) and play it in slow motion, then why not take the time to make sure the call is correct? The referee would have the final call in whether or not to go to the replays to check it out (or could, as in the NFL, have his own replay booth to check it himself). Details for how that would work would have to be thrashed out somewhere (for instance, whether decisions are checked on a team captain's challenge system, or whether only the referee decides whether it's needed after consulting with hir assistants) but the fact remains, it can be done.

There is a question about, "Oh, where do we draw the line in using technology?" but I think it's clear that getting goal decisions right is important. If a goal is allowed or disallowed can make a crucial difference to a match (and both English and Mexican fans I am sure are protesting that it did in their case!) so making sure the decision is as accurate as possible should be a priority. The commonest points of contention in adjudging whether a goal was scored are, "Was he offside?" and, "Did the whole of the ball cross the whole of the line?" The technology exists to give refs a helping hand in getting it right more often, at the top level of the game, when the stakes are highest. We don't need technology to be used for anything else, just for the goal/not a goal scenarios that have been highlighted so clearly by the two games played yesterday. And there is still a huge human element to refereeing a game: no computer can ever determine accurately whether a foul has been committed when football is allowed to be a contact sport, and no computer could ever determine intent or the line between a warning and an official caution (yellow card) - or between a yellow and a red. (Yes, I know video game football simulations do make adjudications but these are based on algorithms and random generators, not on real life facts). Just give the referees the tools to do their job better!

It ought to be in the very best interests of the sport's governing body to ensure that this is rolled out as far as possible. Yesterday, football as a whole looked stupid and farcical because of the bad decisions that were made and that could have been avoided. Football seemingly remains the only major sport that does not use technology in some way to make its officials' jobs easier. Cricket, rugby (both codes), tennis, athletics (heck, the photo finish has been a staple for donkey's years there!) - even snooker has used TV replays for the repositioning of balls after a "miss" foul! The NFL has the replay booth as mentioned, and coach challenges to make sure contentious decisions are called correctly.

***

Incidentally, on my Football Manager Live, I noticed that a match was being officiated by "Ms Lundy" - it's nice to see they recognise that there are female referees at league level and incldued a few in their simulations! Now, this is the first time I've noticed it in 250-odd matches, but mostly I don't notice the referee in the games anyway, so it doesn't mean that only one in 250 games has a female ref in the sims!