Debate: Technology and Football
Posted on 03. Sep, 2010 by Dominic Campbell in Debate
The date was the 22nd of June 1986 and England travelled to Mexico City to take on the might of Argentina. The crowd’s were filled with excitement and the England fans, as they so often are, were filled with a great deal of optimism ahead of the game. If they had known what was going to happen, I’m sure 99% would have stayed at home. Yes, I am indeed talking about the controversial ‘Hand of God’ incident which saw Diego Maradona punch the ball over the head of Peter Shilton. A cheat goal.
The second goal though, was sheer class and had England been able to stop the Argentine in his tracks, they may well have been able to take the game all the way. However, just like so many other games, the chances squandered were a big part of their loss…
Wednesday November 18, 2009. Ireland took on France in part two of their qualifying battle. The game was delicately poised withan aggregate score of 1 a piece. Ireland were pushing to get an all important goal. There was a slight feeling that either a moment of brilliance, or an error would win the game. True to footballing form it was a bit of both, Thierry Henry handled a ball that was allowed to bounce in the six yard area, before squaring it for Gallas to nod in. A cheat goal.
However, had Ireland taken their chances, they would not have found themselves in that position. The first thing you are taught as a defender is to never let the ball bounce. This is what they did and was punished for it.
Sunday June 27, 2010. England failed to finish top of their group and consequently were punished for it. Germany was the team who awaited them in the last 16 of the World Cup. There was a slight sense of optimism as all England fans expected the team to step into gear against their rivals, but with30-minutes gone, disaster struck; England were two down. Then, as if by magic, Matthew Upson managed to bring a goal back via his face before Frank Lampard scored in superb fashion.
Or so he thought. The goal wasn’t given and England went on to lose the game 4 – 1. Had it finished 2 – 1, then England would have had a right to be so peeved about it, but the final scoreline reflected Englands entire World Cup campaign.
TWENTY THREE YEARS - That’s what separated the first event from the second and third, yet times haven’t changed in the slightest. Many believe that football should stay they way it is, while many believe technology should be introduced.
So then, with robots in Japan, computers that can predict the weather and rockets that can take man to the moon, is it time to start using technology in football?
If I was to give a short answer, it would be no. But that wouldn’t explain my reasoning at all. Call me an old fashioned 24-year-old, but I enjoy the excitement that a split second decision brings. Referee’s and linesmen have both got a split second to make that vital decision, yes they get it wrong, but every team has benefited from this, just like every team have also fallen victim to it at some point or another.
Ireland played Georgia and was awarded a controversialpenalty that turned the game around. This wasn’t actually a penalty, yet the Irish didn’t complain. The complaints only really began when the tables were turned.
Again, in 1966 England scored a vital goal that didn’t actually cross the line, yet that seems forgotten. I think football has a way of evening itself out; it just takes a bit longer sometimes.
I think we run the risk of mechanising the sport if we use video footage. I’m all in favour for another referee, but for the love of god, don’t introduce video replay’s. What would be next? Robots taking to the field of play and replacing the players?
Personally I love the heart ache that comes hand in hand with jubilation when a split second decision goes our way, or doesn’t. Besides… What would the papers have left to write about if all the controversy is taken out of the game.
I think the only answer is to come down hard on those who cheat. Lengthy bans, hefty fines etc. If you cheat, expect to be banned for 7 or 8 games and fined your wages. The same should go for referee’s, you mess up then pay the pied piper.
Latest Posts
- Martinez & Rodgers Set for Reds Interviews, AVB Open to Talks
- Irish Upstart Joins Reds
- Why Stewart Downing is in the England Squad
- Steve Clarke Remains at Liverpool (Update)
- FSG Begin Search for Dalglish Replacement
- Kenny Dalglish on Liverpool Departure
- Why Kenny Will Always be King
- Kenny Dalglish Leaves Liverpool
- Skrtel Quells Departure Rumours
- Reds Named in England Euro 2012 Squad







Aida_A
03. Sep, 2010
I agree with you. There is certain excitement when all is decided by chance.
Though I actually liked the idea about the mechanism that signals when the ball crosses the line. Like in tennis, when the ball touches the net, there is a beep that the referee hears.
But, on the other hand, it’s gonna be pricey – at least so I’ve heard.
longfong
03. Sep, 2010
I like the idea too. It isn’t a price concern for premier league clubs. The reason FIFA doesn’t go for it is they have the idea in their heads that football needs to be exactly the same at all levels of the game.
longfong
03. Sep, 2010
I don’t know what you have against robot players. Striker-bot 100101011 would be a perfect backup for Fernando.
Peter Crouch will look like a visionary….
commonsense
04. Sep, 2010
goal line technology sounds good but id agree with the rest staying human….&does you think if refs woz robots,the italians would still find a way to bribe them?
longfong
05. Sep, 2010
There’s not a doubt it my mind it would happen. Berlusconi would be all over it before you could say souvenir.