Are there any Good Arguments Against Goal-Line Technology?

Abstract

Despite frequent calls by players, managers and fans, FIFA's resistance to the implementation of goal-line technology (GLT) has been well documented in national print and online media as well as FIFA's own website. In 2010, FIFA president Sepp Blatter outlined eight reasons why GLT should not be used in football. The reasons given by FIFA can be broadly separated into three categories; those dealing with the nature and value of the game of football, those related to issues of justice, and those concerned with the practical implementation of GLT. This paper intends to evaluate these eight reasons in order to assess whether there are, indeed, any good arguments against GLT in football.

A pesar de los frecuentes llamamientos por parte de los jugadores, directores técnicos e hinchas, la oposición de la FIFA a la hora de implementar la tecnología de la línea de gol (GLT) está bien documentada en la prensa nacional y noticieros electrónicos, así como en la página Web de la misma FIFA. En el 2010, el presidente de la FIFA Sepp Blatter esbozó ocho razones por las que la GLT no debía ser utilizada en el fútbol. Las razones argumentadas por la FIFA pueden ser separadas en tres categorías: aquellas que tienen que ver con la naturaleza y el valor del juego del fútbol; aquellas que involucran temas de justicia; y aquellas que conciernen la posibilidad práctica de implementar la GLT. Este artículo pretende evaluar las ocho razones para asesorar si verazmente hay argumentos buenos contra la GLT en el fútbol.

Trotz der häufigen Anfragen von Spielern, Trainern und Fans ist die Zurückhaltung der FIFA in Bezug auf die Einführung der Torlinientechnologie in den Zeitungen und im Internet, besonders auf der Website der FIFA, dokumentiert. 2010 skizzierte der FIFA-Präsident Sepp Blatter acht Gründe, warum die Torlinientechnik in Fußball keine Verwendung finden sollte. Die Gründe der FIFA können grob in drei Teile untergliedert werden: jene, die sich mit dem Wesen und dem Wert des Fußballspiels beschäftigen, jene, die sich mit den Problemen der Gerechtigkeit beschäftigen, und jene, die sich mit der praktischen Einführung der Torlinientechnologie befassen. Dieser Artikel hat die Absicht, die genannten acht Gründe zu evaluieren, um zu bestimmen, ob es wirklich gute Argumente gegen die Torlinientechnologie im Fußball gibt.

En dépit des fréquents appels de la part des joueurs, dirigeants et supporters, la résistance de la FIFA à la mise en œuvre d’une technologie sur la ligne de but (GLT) a été bien documentée dans la presse écrite nationale et les médias en ligne, ainsi que sur le propre site de la FIFA. En 2010, le président de la FIFA, Sepp Blatter, a décrit huit raisons pour lesquelles la GLT ne doit pas être utilisée en football. Les raisons invoquées par la FIFA peuvent être globalement divisées en trois catégories: celles portant sur la nature et la valeur du jeu de football, celles qui sont liées à des questions de justice, et celles qui s'intéressent à la mise en œuvre pratique de la GLT. Cet article se propose d'évaluer ces huit raisons afin d’apprécier s'il existe, en effet, de réels arguments contre la GLT dans le football.

KEYWORDS:

• goal line
• technology
• FIFA
• football
• justice

Notes

One only needs to search the archives of various media outlets, e.g. BBC News Online, LexisLibrary, FIFA.com, to provide evidence of FIFA's stance.

Although the original link to FIFA's reasons (Blatter 2010) is no longer available, a cached copy is provided in the reference list.

For example, ‘When we can find accurate technology to determine if a ball has crossed the line, in order to settle goal disputes, FIFA will be in total support of it’ (Blatter 2003).

For example, ‘[We] believe that football is a game for human beings and, as such, we should improve the standard of refereeing - and not turn to technology’ (Blatter 2009).

One might think of a game such as futsal, which though bears similarities to, and is a derivative of football, is not football since the constitutive rules differ – for example, the number of players the size of the pitch, the size of the ball, in addition to the fact that it has its own name.

For further analysis on distinguishing between constitutive rules and rules of skill as well as regulative rules and auxiliary rules, see Fraleigh (1984) and Torres (2000).

As this paper is solely concerned with technology that assists with decision-making on the field of play, the terms officiating or adjudicating technology will be used interchangeably.

For instance, whether the batsman ‘nicked’ the ball before being caught by a fielder, or whether the ball would have hit the stumps had the batsman's legs not got in the way.

As kindly pointed out by one of the reviewers for this paper, such discussion highlights two conflicting goods at stake here: whether fairness and justice according to the rules of the game is more important than an internal good of the game, namely its continuity. FIFA, it appears, have opted for the most conservative solution and have prioritised the latter over any real examination of this problem and the issues involved.

Collins calls this ‘epistemological privilege’ since the official is in a unique position to adjudicate what is the case, i.e. whether the ball has crossed the goal line.

This can be seen here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8766605.stm.

It must detect the ball crossing the goal line when it is fired at an open goal from a variety of positions on the pitch.

It must detect the ball crossing the goal line when it is stationary and moved across by another object (e.g. a goalkeeper) or spinning and moved over the goal line, again being held by a moveable sled.