The Fallacies of the Assumptions Behind the Arguments for Goal-Line Technology in Soccer

Abstract

Lately, a number of referee decisions appear to have reignited the debate over the need to bring more in-game officiating technology into soccer. The fallacies behind the arguments for the inclusion of technology to aid game officials can be narrowed down to those behind current arguments for or against goal-line technology. Both the proponents and opponents of these arguments appear to overemphasise the role of referees to the point of claiming that if refereeing errors could be eliminated in goal-line situations, then the most deserving team would most of the time be expected to win the contest. While we firmly believe that the game of soccer would benefit immensely from infallible officiating, we intend to show that these arguments are founded upon a number of inconspicuous assumptions. First, they assume that goal-line situations can be shown to affect the outcomes of games more than all other game situations. This can easily be shown to be a myth, since goals can be scored from all areas of the playing field. In addition, winning a soccer game, obviously, involves more than just scoring goals. Second, these arguments seem to support the view that referee decisions affect the outcomes of games more than decisions made by players, coaches and managers. This is merely a myth, since one can show that, in light of Cesar Torres's insights, referee involvement in game is limited to regulating situations that demand that the game be restored to its constitutive actualisation. Third, most arguments for goal-line technology tend to support the erroneous view that technology can actually eliminate most ‘crucial’ human mistakes from sport and, thus, ensure fairness of game outcomes. Such a myth can easily be refuted by reference to numerous cases of inconclusive slow-motion video replays in soccer. Therefore, this paper aims at arguing that, instead of reinforcing the scapegoating of referees and overemphasising the importance of isolated referee decisions to the point of attributing victory or defeat to these ‘crucial’ decisions, both sides of the goal-line technology debate need to put forth compelling arguments which go beyond the current misguided search for referee infallibility.

Últimamente, un cierto número de decisiones arbitrales parecen haber reiniciado el debate sobre la necesidad de implementar más tecnología arbitral de juego en el fútbol. Las falacias detrás de los argumentos para incluir la tecnología para ayudar a los árbitros pueden ser reducidas a aquellas que discuten a favor o en contra de la tecnología de la línea de gol. Ambos, proponentes y oponentes de estos argumentos, parecen poner demasiado énfasis en el papel que juegan los árbitros, llegando a reivindicar que si los errores arbitrales pudiesen ser eliminados en situaciones de línea de gol, entonces podría esperarse que el equipo más merecedor ganaría la competición. Mientras que creemos firmemente que el juego del fútbol se beneficiaría inmensamente de un arbitraje infallible, pretendemos demostrar que estos argumentos se basan en cierto número de discretas presunciones. Primero, asumen que puede demostrarse que las situaciones de línea de gol influencian los resultados de los partidos más que el resto de situaciones del juego. Es fácil demostrar que esto es un mito, ya que los goles pueden marcarse desde cualquier lugar del campo de juego. Además, el ganar un partido de fútbol obviamente requiere más que el marcar goles. Segundo, estos argumentos parecen apoyar el punto de vista de que las decisiones arbitrales afectan los resultados de los partidos más que las decisiones tomadas por los jugadores, entrenadores, y directores técnicos. Esto es meramente un mito, ya que puede demostrarse, en vista de las perspicacias de Cesar Torres, que la involucración de los árbitros en el juego está limitada a situaciones en las que hay que regular el juego para que sea devuelto a su actualización constitutiva. Tercero, la mayoría de los argumentos en favor de la tecnología de la línea de gol tienden a apoyar la posición errónea de que la tecnología puede eliminar de verdad la mayoría de los errores humanos más “cruciales”, y así asegurar justicia en cuanto a los resultados de los partidos. Tal mito puede ser facilmente rechazado, basta hacer referencia a los numerosos casos inconclusos de repetición a cámara lenta en el fútbol. Por lo tanto, este artículo tiene como objectivo el argumentar que en lugar de apoyar el hecho de echar la culpa a los árbitros y poner demasiado énfasis en la importancia de decisiones arbitrales aisladas al punto de atribuir la victoria o la derrota a estas decisiones “cruciales”, ambas partes del debate sobre tecnología de la línea de gol tienen que sacar a relucir argumentos convincentes que vayan más allá de la búsqueda de infalibilidad arbitral hoy día.

Zuletzt gab es eine Reihe von Schiedsrichterentscheidungen, die die Debatte um die Notwendigkeit, im Fußballspiel mehr „Technologie“ einzusetzen, entfacht hat. Die Argumentationsschwächen, bezogen auf die Technologien, die den Schiedsrichter unterstützen, können auf die aktuelle Pro- und Kontra-Argumentation der Torlinientechnologie reduziert werden. Befürworter und Gegner betonen zu sehr – so erscheint es – die Rolle der Schiedsrichter. Wenn man die Fehler von Schiedsrichtern in Torliniensituationen eliminieren könnte, dann könne man erwarten, dass die bessere Mannschaft den Wettkampf gewinne. Obwohl wir fest daran glauben, dass das Fußballspiel stark von fehlerlosem Pfeifen profitieren würde, wollen wir zeigen, dass diese Argumente auf eine Reihe von irrtümlichen Annahmen gegründet sind. Erstens, es wird davon ausgegangen, dass die Torlinientechnologie als Mythos entlarvt werden kann, weil Tore von jedem Bereich des Feldes geschossen werden können. Des Weiteren braucht man, um ein Fußballspiel zu gewinnen, offensichtlich mehr als nur Tore. Zweitens erscheinen diese Argumente die Meinung zu unterstützen, dass Schiedsrichterentscheidungen Spielergebnisse beeinflussen können, zumindest mehr als Entscheidungen und Aktionen von Spielern und Trainern. Das ist schlichtweg ein Mythos, da man angesichts der Erkenntnisse von Cesar Torres zeigen kann, dass die Möglichkeiten der Schiedsrichter auf regulierende Situationen begrenzt sind, d. h., sie greifen ein zur Wiederherstellung des Spiels bei Übertretung konstitutiver Regeln. Drittens neigen viele Argumente für die Torlinientechnik zur irrtümlichen Annahme, dass Technologie viele „essenzielle“ menschliche Fehler im Sport beheben und so fairere Spielergebnisse gewährleistet werden könne. Solch ein Mythos kann einfach anhand der zahlreichen Fälle von uneindeutigen Slow-Motion-Wiederholungsvideos im Fußball widerlegt werden. Deshalb versuche ich in dieser Arbeit dafür zu argumentieren, dass die beiden Seiten der Torlinientechnologiedebatte überzeugende Argumente vorlegen sollten, die über die aktuelle fehlgeleitete Suche nach Schiedsrichterunfehlbarkeit hinausgehen, d. h. nicht die Schiedsrichter zunehmend zu Sündenböcken zu machen und somit die einzelnen Schiedsrichterentscheidungen nicht mehr überzubewerten.

Récemment, un certain nombre de décisions d’arbitrage semblent avoir relancé le débat sur la nécessité d'apporter davantage de technologies officiant dans le football. Les arrière-pensées derrière les arguments en faveur de l'intégration de la technologie pour aider les arbitres des matches peuvent être résumées à celles qui se trouvent derrière les arguments actuels en faveur ou en défaveur de la technologie sur la ligne de but. Or tant les partisans que les adversaires de ces arguments semblent trop insister sur le rôle des arbitres, au point de prétendre que, si les erreurs d'arbitrage pouvaient être éliminées dans les situations de ligne de but, l'équipe la plus méritante pourrait s'attendre la plupart du temps à gagner le match. Bien que nous croyions fermement que le jeu de football bénéficierait grandement d’un arbitrage infaillible, nous avons l'intention de montrer que ces arguments sont fondés sur un certain nombre d'hypothèses contestables. Tout d'abord, ils supposent que l’on est en mesure de démontrer que la situation de ligne de but peut davantage affecter les résultats des matches que toutes les autres situations de jeu. Il est facilement démontrable que cela est un mythe, puisque les buts peuvent être marqués dans toutes les situations d’égalité des chances. En outre, remporter un match de football compte évidemment plus que de marquer des buts. Deuxièmement, ces arguments semblent soutenir l'idée que les décisions des arbitres affectent les résultats des matches plus que les décisions prises par les joueurs, les entraîneurs et les dirigeants. Il s'agit simplement d'un mythe, car il est possible de montrer, à la lumière des avancées de Cesar Torres, que la participation de l'arbitre dans le match se limite à réglementer des situations exigeant que le jeu soit restauré dans son actualisation constitutive. Troisièmement, la plupart des arguments en faveur de la technologie de la ligne de but tendent à confirmer l'idée erronée que la technologie peut réellement éliminer la plupart des erreurs humaines « cruciales» du sport et peut, par conséquent, assurer l'équité des résultats des matches. Un tel mythe peut être facilement réfuté en référence à de nombreux cas d’enregistrements vidéo au ralenti qui s’avèrent non concluants dans le cas du football. Par conséquent, le présent article vise à soutenir que, au lieu de renforcer les boucs émissaires que sont les arbitres en surestimant l'importance de leurs décisions et en les isolant au point d'attribuer la victoire ou la défaite à partir de leurs «décisions cruciales», les deux faces du débat sur la technologie de la ligne de but doivent présenter des arguments convaincants pour aller au-delà de la recherche actuelle, erronée, d’une infaillibilité de l’arbitre.

KEYWORDS:

• goal-line technology in soccer
• referee scapegoating
• sport ethics education
• sport business education

Notes

In his Higher, Further, Faster … : Is Technology Improving Sport? (2008), Stewart Ross provides an extensive discussion of some of the improvements technology has brought into sport while also exploring at the same time the uneasy relationship which has always existed between technology and sport throughout the history of sport.

Simon (2004, 196–7) raises some of the fundamental issues which arise from the apparent conflicting goals of sport and sport business. He suggests that the proponents of the ‘corruption thesis’ may hold an exaggerated view of the dangers posed by the commercialisation of sport.

In the light of Cesar Torres's distinction between constitutive and regulative game skills, we suggest that a distinction be made between the constitutive state of game and its regulative state. Since the role of the referees is limited to the regulation of breaks to the constitutive state, both intentional and accidental, we suggest that referee game involvement should be proportional to the degree of self-regulation exhibited by the various game participants. This means that referees would only intervene in cases of genuine disagreements among the game participants.

Collins (2010, 138) shows how the introduction of slow-motion television replays ‘destroy[s] the “superior view” advantage of umpires and, in many cases, destroy the “specialist skill” advantage [enjoyed by umpires and referees prior to the introduction of these new technologies] since a good part of the specialist skill is to make the right decision in real time’.

From ‘Goal Line Technology: A Managers Perspective’ posted on the website www.footy-boots.com (accessed May 2009). This website claims to be the property of TH UK Media and to be copyrighted by TH UK Network Ltd., 2009.

These remarks (and the following comment by Martin Jol) are taken from an exclusive survey conducted by the Sunday Telegraph and posted on 22 March 2008 by Andrew Warshaw on the newspaper's website: www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2295110/Clubs-dismiss-Uefa-and-Fifa-goal-line-decision.html (accessed May 2009).

These comments are taken from Andrew Warshaw, ‘Fury as Goal-line Technology Plans Are Shelved’, Sunday Telegraph, 9 March 2008, available at www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/2293953/Fury-as-goal-line-technology-plans-are-shelved.html (accessed May 2009).

Among those companies which have invested heavily in goal-line technology are Adidas and Cairos Technologies, which launched a project called Teamgeist 2, featuring a new intelligent ball, designed to assist the referee's decision in determining when and if the ball has crossed the goal line. Another one of such companies is Hawk-Eye Innovations, which has heavily invested in a computer system designed to accurately track the path of the ball. The technology has been used in tennis and cricket since 2001 and transfer to soccer was believed to be a matter of time only until the FA, FIFA, and IFBA decided that testing has been inconclusive. See www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk for more details about this technology and anecdotal evidence of ‘successful’ testing.

For more details about the Adidas so-called intelligent ball, see www.footy-boots.com.

The referee in Dixon's example is said to be so biased in favour of the home team that, in spite of the proven superiority of the visiting team, he/she succeeds in securing a single-goal victory for the home team by not only disallowing goals scored by the visitors but also by awarding a ‘phantom’ penalty to the home team.

According to Michel Platini, speaking through his EUFA spokesman William Gaillard, because ‘the game is a lot faster now, [and] it is hard to keep up with play all the time’, there is a need to add two assistant officials who would be positioned both behind the goal line and inside the penalty box as extra eyes and ears for the referee. Gaillard adds: ‘They would be just like the linesmen, talking to the ref through a radio system. Some people say it is better for them to stay behind the goal, others that it is better inside the penalty area so that things that go on like pulling and pushing are properly sanctioned.’ These comments are taken from Warshaw, ‘Fury as Goal-line Technology Plans Are Shelved’ (see note 7 above).

These remarks (and the following comment by Kevin Keegan) are taken from Andrew Warshaw's survey of 22 March 2008 (see note 6 above).

These comments are taken from Warshaw, ‘Fury as Goal-line Technology Plans Are Shelved’.

Goalminder inventor Harry Barnes claims that ‘If you take my system, we have eight cameras in each post, eight cameras in the cross bar. You get a definitive shot of the ball crossing the line, straight in line where the camera should be, no error.’ See ‘Fifa at Rochdale FC to Test Goal-Line Cameras’, available at http://www.news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16116528 (accessed June 2012).

On 24 November 2011, the English FA announced through its general secretary, Alex Horne, that ‘the laws governing football are likely to change if one or more of the [nine] systems currently being tested works’. He claimed that ‘Goal-line technology would be a huge boost for the game’ since ‘For years, we've thought this was a good addition to referees’ armoury’. For more details on the FA's position, see ‘Premier League could use goal-line technology in 2012–13 season’, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/15866363.stm (accessed June 2012). However, for various reasons, the English FA has been unable to carry out its promise to use the technology during the 2012–13 season.

These three cases have been deemed by many observers to be the worst examples of referee blunders because they left no doubt about what had happened even without recourse to slow-motion television replays. Unfortunately, those who are believed to have ‘benefited’ from them blamed the referee for their own unsporting behaviours.