Let's get technical

For all the major talking points at the World Cup this summer, there was not a bigger one than the need for technology to assist the match officials. On one afternoon at the tournament (June 27th) there were two horrendous decisions which affected the course of the matches - and neither decision was a close one, the officials in question just made two terrible mistakes.
In England's encounter with Germany, a shot from Frank Lampard clearly bounced a yard or two behind Manuel Neuer's line with the score at 2-1 to the Germans, but the Uruguayan referee and linesmen didn't give a goal as the ball bounced up into Neuer's hands, and the game continued. Later that night, in the other second round encounter of the day, Mexico were seemingly hard done by Argentina's opening goal. A headed pass from Lionel Messi found Carlos Tevez a yard ahead of any Mexican player, including the goalkeeper, leaving the Manchester City striker free to head the ball into the empty net. Only the rules state there must be at least two players between the attacker and the goals - again, the decision wasn't even close.
For the first example, FIFA President Sepp Blatter was present in Cape Town to see the mistake by Jorge Larrionda, and the inquest into video technology started all over again. The arguments against the implementation are illogical, and show how archaic world football's governing body really is. To only a slight extent is there validity in the argument that video technology will slow down the pace of the game and take away the free-flowing nature of football. That is why we all love the game so much, but a decision can be made by people watching the videos can make a decision in a matter of seconds and relay the information to the referee in the event of a contentious incident, while the game can continue until it needs to be brought back (if that is the case). And when there's a contentious or downright awful decision, the officials are usually surrounded by angry players, managers, coaches or sometimes fans! This hardly makes football free-flowing, does it?
But the effect of the impact of the game is not the major problem for the powers-that-be. Blatter and his colleagues face a difficulty balancing act between keeping the traditions of the game and modernisation - and it is that middle ground that they are striving for. There is also the debate that the power shouldn't be taken away from the referees. This is true to an extent, but surely it's more important to get the decisions right to ensure the right result. In the game between Mexico and Argentina, the incident involving Tevez was instantly put up on the big screen in the stadium. This only adds to the controversial nature of video technology, and where the line should be drawn - if the incident is in the stadium for players, fans and managers alike to see, why not the referees and officials, the individuals who really count?
If there is to be video technology, it will be the Hawk-Eye system which has been so successful in cricket and tennis. Back in 2008, FIFA dismissed Hawk-Eye as not right for football. The argument seemed to be that they were looking for something that would get decisions right 100% of the time. That would be extremely unlikely, even with video assistance, and this just makes it look like the governing body is looking for an excuse. After all, match officials don't get decisions right 100% of the time, do they? Not even close! There will be mistakes - there have been some high profile close calls in cricket and tennis. A successful LBW appeal by Indian spinner Anil Kumble against Andrew Symonds appeared debatable to the naked eye, while there was a close call in the 2008 Wimbledon men's singles final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, a ball that appeared out was called in by 1mm. But the system does have a margin of error of 3.6mm, which is extraordinarily accurate, and has improved the decision making in both these games. The inventors of the device, Dr Paul Hawkins and David Sherry, certainly think it is the direction football should be heading in. The system was first used in cricket in a Test Match between England and Pakistan in 2001. With the speed some bowlers bowl at (well over 90 miles-per-hour), Hawk-eye has been crucial in assisting in close LBW and stumping calls, as well as catches. The same can be said of tennis (who first introduced it in 2005) with even the majority of female players serving over 100 mph in the modern game, and with such small margins involved. The rules of any sport are arbitrary - but others have modernised. While football claims to be the great standard bearers for sport, but with their reluctance to improve the game, football will remain stuck in the dark ages. We see so many different replays from so many different angles, so it seems folly not to use this to impart this ability to aid the referees.
There are, of course, reasons against any kind of technology. As much as we all wish the right decisions would be made, part of the allure is the debate into bad refereeing decisions - and technology would take this away. It is human nature to make mistakes, and players make mistakes on a regular basis, some costly (giving away a penalty, a misplaced pass) and some not so costly (a misplaced pass, a mistimed tackle in an area of the pitch that isn't likely to lead to a goal). By taking the responsibility for decision making away from the officials, then you are taking away the human element, and making the process robotic. And where do you draw the line - once goal-line technology has been introduced, do you use video technology to look at penalty incidents, offsides, fouls, corners and throw-ins? There are some hard question for FIFA officials, but that is what they are paid to do - make the big decisions for the good of the game, if that is at all possible. And hopefully get them right!
Goal-line technology, at the very least, seems inevitable - it has to be. After all, the dugouts, fans, stadiums and TV stations have the footage, so why make the referees lives harder than they already are? Surely the most important thing is to get the right result and ensure fair place - and in part, video technology would achieve this aim. The only question for debate is how far FIFA go. The other alternative which has been tried is placing an official on both goal-lines for contentious 'did the ball cross the line, didn't it' scenarios. This was tried in the Europa League for a period last season, with moderate success. This would make a fifth and sixth official, and where do you stop? There may be initial teething problems, but eventually they will make improve decision-making. FIFA needs to have a good understanding of how the technology works to get the best out of it - be it Hawkeye or another format - so it is important to introduce technology gradually. I think never rushed is the phrase that fits best, and hopefully FIFA will take heed of the examples of cricket, rugby and tennis to improve the integrity of the game.