One flew out of the cuckoo clock
Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 11:57AM by guest-blogger Tricky
There is altruism that ‘those who seek power, are those that you would least like to see wield it’. It would seemingly apply, fairly universally to many people in the world, from the lowliest MP and then working up the food chain from thereon in.
As president of FIFA, Sepp Blatter wields power over a sport that is holds and captivates a populous around the globe, as such his influence on people probably puts him only one step behind President Obama (and consequently perhaps a step ahead of Mr Brown).
For his part, Michel Platini (the Brown to Blatter’s Obama status to continue the analogy) appears like a wanton lapdog, trying to help his master in any way possible to avert the need for this ‘evil’ that is technology, by suggesting that it is extra officials is the way forward.
So when it comes to goal line technology what was the reason initially for its dismissal? Well, according to Blatter it ‘took too long to reach a decision’ and was ‘not sufficiently accurate’ having been tested on only a ‘third tier’ league game. As with all megalomaniacs when dismissing something, everything they have stated to oppose an idea is ‘true’, and as such becomes ‘fact’ very quickly.
Now I’d like to raise a point here, the reasons initially given for dismissing it were ‘wrong’ and ‘incorrect’, accordingly Hawkeye innovations (manufacturers of the system that ‘worked’) made an open letter just a gentle hint to nudge the President in the right direction:
It is a fairly lengthy letter but the summary goes as follows:
Dear Mr Blatter,
You are wrong, wrong diddly wrong, wrong, and we can prove it with science. Please don’t ignore us just because we’re nerds,
love and kisses,
the nerds.
So why wasn’t it snatched upon by our beloved press, and reported ahead of other such headline newsworthy items that day as “Rooney stubs toe, but should be OK for world cup next summer” or “Tiger set to appear as Santa for local school, but will stop at three ho’s”?
Who wants to watch the re-run of the 2005 FA Cup Final?
A cynic of course would point out that, as Hawkeye have a vested interest, they would say what they have, but these guys are nerds who deal in 3-D planes and processing power, their idea of a vested interest goes as far as trying to blag free tickets to the ‘gadget show live’.
But even still, to dismiss a proven technology that works and could assist the game in making crucial decisions, that is wanted by managers and league presidents from all over, by what? Replacing it with extra officials, who between three of them can’t make the correct decision 100% of the time in 90 minutes, and you want to add another two? Surely it is an illogical conclusion to have come to.
On the surface it appears that we have put the inmates in charge of the asylum, which all sounds entertaining and a thoroughly decent watch. Just sit back and watch the nutters make up rules in disbelief, after all it has always been that way so why change it now.
But as football is not the only place where such ridiculous conclusions exist the question needs to be asked: Does it really matter?
It is at this point I’d like to, just fleetingly mention Pedro Mendes, now for some he was a solid footballers who unfortunately was playing second fiddle to a certain Mr Carrick (who’s own story is now well documented), but he was too good to be a bench warmer and so he departed, and when Carrick followed he was possibly one of those we ‘wish we hadn’t sold’.
However given the pre-amble, I very much doubt that any of you are, by now, thinking of anything other than ‘the goal that never was’. Well, I’m afraid we don’t have the trademark on it though, as any Birmingham fan will tell you amongst others, but it is perhaps the most often cited example of where goal line technology would have assisted.
And this perhaps is the point, history will recall that the game in question finished 0-0, time will pass and that is it.
The fans will however remember the actual physical pain for every single replay like another nail pinned to a ‘Voodoo Jol’ (tm) with the curse ‘thou shall not win against a top 4 club’ repeated over and over. Stunning us, mesmerising us, each time pleading with the linesman that ‘this time’ he might get it right. It was a point of discussion then and five years latter it still is today.
And it is not an isolated incident, as only the other day I was privy to conversation on how ‘Gareth Bale is the best left back since Cyril Knowles’. Now I have to say I have not had the privilege of ever seeing Cyril, but the point is that it is the fans that remember games, and incidents and feelings and emotions. Whereas history does not, it remembers only results, and victories, and increasingly Annual reports.
So does getting the right result matter? It may not make it fairer in some regards, i.e. Dominance in possession for 90 minutes will not automatically lead to the ‘right team’ winning, as per the 2005 FA cup. Some would say that there is so much money tied up in getting the ‘right result’ that it does matter and significantly so.
So maybe Blatter is in fact doing us a favour, by allowing us to banter, and argue and discuss the painful truths of ‘what might have been’. So well done Sepp, you weird megalomaniac chocolate eating cuckoo clock making nutter, for allowing us to talk bollocks rather than having to work all the time.
Right I’m heading off for my fishing trip now, with the rest of the loonies. Anyone care to join me?
Reader Comments (35)
Don't see the problem of having someone, an official, in the stands or wherever who instantly - no need for actual rugby or cricket style stoppages - to tell the ref via his earphones whether it was in or out. They could have two officials in the stands coming to an agreement. No big deal. Simple solution.
I remember the Mendes goal only too well. It was my birthday!
I also happened to see a certain mr Carrol at a club a few years after fortunately I was sober enough to not give him The slap he deserved for ruining my big day
So 2 extra officials for every match all needing to be trained and paid. This technology once intalled would in the long term be a much cheaper and more accurate system imo. It works perfectly well in both rugby and cricket and the games are not effected because of their use. No fans of either sport has said too many negative comments with reference to this technology. It works, its accurate you could limit its uses to did or didnt it cross the line desicions only. It would be an AID to referees, everyone says how difficult a job it is, we have something that is proven to aid and help umpires/referees but because of one dickhead - Blatter, we wont make use of it. What exactly is his agenda I would like to know and how the f*ck does he keep getting elected every time? Same for Platinn the egotistical French nutter who really ought to be booked into Broadmoor imo as I am convinced he is criminally insane and poses a danger and threat to all brits the twat. Just my very humble opinion that. :-)
great read and ever so cynical , the guest bloggers are living up to the expectations
I was gutted at the FIFA decision but on the other hand it did not suprise me coming from an archaic man on the power trip off a lifetime
And i also do not comprehend why the clubs , officials, players, press and fans are not revolting against this kind of anti democratic non factual reign of terror Blatter (and the man from Brasil before him) impose on our beloved game ...
Scared ? Probably , dumbstruck ? Likely
My suiss friend once said to me about Blatter , we suiss are a proud nation known for its values and impartiality. Proud of our Nation and it's occasional heroes
And therefore we would have wished that Blatter was an Austrian.
Goal line technology would make it alot harder for the ref to 'fix' a match. Likewise video replays.
It's not going to come in because then all decisions would be definitively resolved.
As it is, referees are human (barely) and fallible. So there is a degree allowable for mistakes and errors.
Also the majority of these would always be in favour of the bigger teams.
Which suits Uefa/FIFA perfectly.
God forbid decisions like Maradona 86, Mendes 05 or Henry 09 be overturned.
Fix a match, make up for incompetence and basic human error - but also remove talking points as the article highlights. I think I'd have left it how it is.
This blog keeps on getting better and better.
Goal line tech? For goal line decisions? Yes. For everything else? No. FIFA know if they allow it for one thing then there will be pressure to allow it for all major decision making. Where do you draw the line? If a player beats the offside and scores and its disallowed? Penalty decisions? Sending offs? All these will slow the game down.
The argument that technology would cause delays in the game always makes me laugh. What utter nonsense. The video ref decided an incident is contentious (on his own) and so watches it again. If he feels the ref got it wrong, he radios him, and he pulls the game back 10-15 seconds.
It's ludicrously simple. That way, if the ref's not sure, he just lets the game on, effectively deferring the decision to the video ref.
Here's another argument that made me laugh so hard I did a little poop:
"It has to be the same throughout the whole of football. So because non-league football couldn't afford to use it, the Premier League shouldn't either."
WHAT????!?!!!??
So presumably there should be no photo-finish technology available at the Olympics because my son's school can't afford it for Sports Day?
The big football federations (England, Spain, Italy) need to threaten a breakaway or something until Blatter resigns. Jesus, a dinosaur that buries its head in the sand. What's next?
LOL at the gooners/spammers who seem to think this is somehow damning. You lot that desperate for a bite?
Bye bye.
And I posted this in the wrong place. Wouldn't have happened if there was better technology in place.
Logic in football? No chance. We can all dream about the perfect game of football but for a purist that will always be with 3 officials and the forgiving nature of the terraces.
I am for hawk eye but no other technology. Hawkeye is black and white, the ball is either over the line or not....simples.
Everything else is open to interpretation - offside, tackles, dives. Sometimes 2 different camera angles lead to different conclusions when a foul or dive occurs. If it is open to interpretation then you may as well let the ref interpret what he sees.
As for off side, the sort of pitch side technology required for that would be crazy and almost impossible to use at anything other than the highest profile games/teams.
I wish to see some of the romance of football remain, people still take about the 1966 goal, the Mendes goal, Maradonna's hand etc and to some extent these are part of football folke law. If it becomes 100% clinical then it is purely 100% results driven and will lose some of its soul.
Overall, things balance up. You get some offside decisions, you miss out on others. You get the odd dodgey penalty but not stone wall pens, these happen all the time. Every team can point to a penalty they should have had and one they were lucky to get, same with off side. ...but with goal line stuff, it happens rarely and can have a massive impact on a game. It can be easily and instantly addressed, no need for interpretation or lengthy delays. Hawkeye tells you withinin 1 second.....why not goal the whole hog and have a buzzer and flashing lights on the goal that go off when a goal is scored, and some idiot in the crowd, playing an organ.
A bit off the subject i know...but when are we playing man city away? i dont remember us playing that game, and the fixture isnt on any of the websites....either im going blind or this is some kind of government conspiracy.....
Who really stands to gain here? I don't buy that it's the big clubs because 1 goal every couple of years or so is not going to influence where they finish. That's too cynical. I do think though that it greatly holds out the potential of bias and corruption and that always comes down to money. The betting conglomerates, FIFA, the leagues, that's who stands to lose. There's no doubt that France being in the World Cup is much better for FIFA than Ireland. Ticket sales, advertising revenue, television revenue are all going to be better with French participation versus Irish in South Africa versus, say, the United States. The question that begs to be answered is: What's the danger of getting the decision right? I'm not talking fouls, offsides etc, but goals. Is it not incumbent, in a game with so few goals, that ones that count be good? Where's the harm? Brings integrity in to the game. An official, or even a crew, cannot give or refuse a goal without it being subject to an instantaneous review. Did the ball cross the line, or not? Simple really, and the time factor is negligible. Players run around for 30 seconds to two minutes after a goal is scored to celebrate, plenty of time for a television reviewer to see if the ball crossed the line. Probably 98% of goals wouldn't be reviewed as they are obvious, so it'll be fairly rare. Another official on the pitch can resolve issues behind the play and be an extra set of eyes for spotting fouls, but I fail to see how those eyes are going to definitively determine whether, as an example, the Birmingham goal against Pompey the other day, was good or not. Technology is used in tennis, cricket, rugby, american football, NHL, NBA, american baseball, figure skating, gymnastics, the olympics without any significant uproar or disturbance. So, why does FIFA not want to do everything possible to get it right? Smacks of corruption and backroom dealings to me. The next question is, for whose benefit? That will unequivocally answer the first question. COYS
Great article; an absolute 10!
Another absolute thing is that Swiss are ignorant weirdos whose thinking is centuries behind the rest of the world. The latest “rose” from this shithole peddling false and corrupt tradition is Blatter. I didn’t expect of spineless pretty buttboy Platini to have any positive impact on the game and its officiating either.
"So maybe Blatter is in fact doing us a favour, by allowing us to banter, and argue and discuss the painful truths of ‘what might have been’"...not really, once the fact has been established (i.e within seconds of the incident) we spend a few minutes slating officials then get back to the usual banter of why Dawson feels the need to lump the ball to Couch or why Jermaine Jenas still exists.
Ed,
Go on bbc/sport/premiership website, sellect Tottenham and then Fictures. There you would find full schedule of Spurs games.
beetleblues , have you had an unpleasant swiss holiday or something ?
Summary?
belgian spur,
I didn't think that my opinion would have any significant and would even be noticed. But since you asked me a question I will answer it. As could be easily concluded from your Q, people often make blanket personal opinion based on their personal (in most cases insolated) experience (such as a holiday/tourist visit). I never visited Swiss (and not looking forward to do so). I’m a political junky who never understood their political stands (e.g. women right to vote, ignorant immigration policies toward the rest of world, etc). Never fancied sick conservatism, ans as far as I’m concerned, they can continue to stick cowbell up their azz and yodel.
beetleblues: Ed is right, BBC or Spurs.com do not show the Man City match at all. Not even as a placeholder with no date. I can only assume that they are arranging a date for it.
As for Technology - I have extreme doubts about it. I feel that if you bring in Hawkeye, it MUST be 100% correct all the time. However, can it detect it correctly if a player obscures the ball? If a player in the way stops it working, then it shouldn't be introduced. Chip in the ball would solve this problem, as it can us GPS, or have chip on the line to refer to. The 4th official on the side could watch game on tv, and have slo-mo replay - but then again, the cameramen must catch the incident - and players may be in the way. My other problem with technology is that I don't want the floodgates to open and we use technology for every decision. This is why I would lean towards the chip in the ball (if feasible), because it wouldn't lead to other technology. On the other hand, it is much easier to do nothing...which is what is happening. Goalline decisions are reasonably rare - the ones in cricket, American football and rugby are more frequent and that's why they use it.
Tony, from the 'Dear Mr Blatter' letter:
"- The hawk-eye system uses 6, not 7, cameras looking at the goalmouth and works in all instances even if many of those cameras are obscured. The whole purpose for having so many cameras is to make it robust in these instances, and the tests conducted confirmed this is the case."
TonyTott & Ed,
I apologize; I missed “beef” in Ed’s question. I thought he was asking where to find schedule of games, and not for a particular game. Sorry for misleading you. It wasn’t intentional.
Hang Platini upside down by the nuts above one goal, do the same with Blatter above the other goal, then see how long it'll take them to give the green light to video technology.
We need to rid the game of these two scum bags. How?
Great subject but very poorly written blog. Not in line with other recent efforts.
Score out of 10 there cheevers?
4/10 from me. too fragmented.
City away game was due to take place last sat but FA cup obviously took priority, yet to be rescheduled but likely to be midweek in April along with A*****l at home if we get through to semi's.
Technology either has to be all in or all out. We can't just have goal line cameras, but we also can't stop the game every 7 minutes to disect every foul / card from 23 difference angles, 17 of which are in super-slo mo (yes, I do only use prime numbers, gives my examples a kind of mathematical invincibility).
Besides, if you think about it, technology has been slinking her velvet tongue in for quite some time already: technology in balls has made them better, lighter, faster and truer; technology in sports science has made players better, fitter, faster and stronger, a trend accelerated by proper professionalism; boots fit better and are lighter, same goes for the rest of the kit; pitches are better maintained and so play better and faster.
Better. Faster. BETTER. FASTER.
And while this has happened, the officiating has continued to rest on the aerobic ability of a duck-running ref and his keg-bellied linesmen to be in the right position to make the correct decision. This was maybe OK 20 years ago when pitches, balls and players were slower and there was far less financial import on every kick, whistle and goal, but not now.
Football MUST move ahead. Football should take the lead back from Cricket and Rugby. Otherwise the allegations of corruption can continue, and I believe, continue to have a validity of sorts.
FIFA should immediately introduce goal line AND off-side technology, and a comprehensive post-game video review. The post game video review allows all officials to take the appropriate time to get the calls right for what is now big business entertainment (can you imagine KPMG auditors rushing through important accounts? No, so why should football officials when similar sums are at stake). Cards can be awarded or rescinded with the same penalty as if they had been awarded on the pitch. It make not get Ireland to South Africa, but it would ensure Henri sits out the group matches.
Anyway, I'm going on too much. Sorry. Bye.
Good shout, Dr Oyvind. I totally agree that introduction of video technology is a must even though I belong to a sliding ruler generation. What you described reminded me on turntable players and vinyl plates. For some inhere that actually remember that time, it was made all kind of improvement to turntable players (all sorts of direct and servo drives for maintaining continuous rpms) and needles (made of crystal, ceramic, gold plated, to improve reproduction). While all this did achieve its goals, vinyl plates industry did nothing, which added to frustration of the final consumers, because the improved equipment was able to picked up and reproduce more scratches from shitty vinyl plates.
the desicion just clarifys in my mind that if there is corruption, it starts at the very top.
Cheevers , i strongly disagree
I enjoyed the read very much and i like the diversity in writing style and point of view that spooky and the guest bloggers offer us
Keep up the good work lads
each to their own.