Receive an email alert as soon as Mark Daniell publishes new articles. Enter your email address below:

Other articles written by Mark Daniell

GhostGoalBusters!

By Mark Daniell

20/06/2012

Come on, which one of you wasn’t secretly chuffed about that ghost goal? Which one of you wasn’t waffling on afterwards about goalline technology and a bit of luck going our way and Platini’s foibles? The best thing about it of course is that it comes a few weeks before the technological review, thereby putting paid to all those luddites who claim it hardly ever happens and so should be ignored.

I’ve been pretty convinced for a while that goalline technology will be part of football in the immediate future, but then seasons come and go, and with some impressive procrastination from the fogies at FIFA, nothing happens.

Of course the circumstances of last night’s goal probably serve as much as an argument against the technology as in favour. The forward player was clearly offside when the chance started, something which hadn’t been picked up by the ref but was obvious upon review. When replaying the ghost goal, should the third umpire review the offside decision as well? You could say it’s up to the ref on the pitch to state specifically what he wants reviewed, but surely the whole point of the technology is to eliminate all mistakes. In this case, therefore, in spite of being over the line the goal would be ruled out as offside. But then, if that’s the case, why not review all offside decisions? And by extension all decisions in general? Fifty-fifies, throw-ins, balls-to-hand? (Have I constructed this entire paragraph just so that I can use that plural? Maybe. Anyway, we’re nearing the end.) We’d end up like American Football, permanently stopping and starting.

Of course that’s not the argument Platini puts forward. His argument is twofold: On the one hand, goalline technology is expensive and so would put lesser clubs at a disadvantage; on the other, human error is part of life, and so should be embraced as part of the drama of football. As an intelligent reader, you can no doubt see how both these arguments are so crappy they barely merit debating. But we’re going to do it anyway: Firstly, having goalline technology doesn’t give any team an advantage, it just means that the result is more accurate. (Besides, paying for more referees must bring the same discrepancy between international and lesser league football.) And secondly, football has a rulebook that makes it fair: if you win, you win on merit; life, in contrast, isn’t fair, otherwise there’d be no such circumstance in which you could exit the birth canal and Boom! You’re a Kennedy.

The real reason we haven’t got goalline technology is that we haven’t got a cool enough name for it yet. GoalRef is lame and Hawkeye is dated (although it was cool at the time). Initially I thought next month’s pitch would have a better chance with the GhostGoalBuster!™ (theme tune? check. Logo? check. Tagline? “Ghost goal? Busted!”) But sadly, it just doesn’t translate.

Then it hit me. Multi-lingual, instantly recognisable, and a sure-fire way to get approval? Next month the team behind Hawkeye should present FIFA with The Blatter™. The last line in the football rulebook. Remember, in the world of international politics, sycophancy always trumps reason.

(Thanks to Pete Reynolds)

Comments (6)

1. Nick | 20/06/2012
Yes - The Blatter. Sepp would be happy to have something named after him, and he might just leave his post for good!
2. Matthew | 20/06/2012
Marky for president of FIFA.
3. Jaime | 20/06/2012
Nothing to do with the article, but I m spanish and worried about these constantly unconstant french.Can some one tell them their the best in the world, they loose everytime they believe it!
4. Simon W | 20/06/2012
My view is absolutely we should have goal-line technology (is anyone else apart from Blatter still saying otherwise?) and I'd be happy that either it's used purely for the decision 'was it over the line or not?', OR also checking at the same time (as play has now stopped to check whether it was over the line or not) to then also check whether there were any infringements in the immediate build up - however I think it should only be triggered by a goal-line 'was it over or not' check, rather than checking for offsides or other reasons all the time.

I really wouldn't be surprised if good ole Blatter (not!) used the excuse that goal-line tech wouldn't have helped in this case due to the offside in the build up (would be typical of the man - and then of course he would still say that therefore on balance that we shouldn't introduce it), but Mr B, two wrongs don't make a right!
5. Mark | 20/06/2012
a compromise then... it's the obvious solution, and only an egomaniac believes they're so right they're above compromise. which explains a bit...

and jaime, you want to be careful of those frenchies...
6. Barnypok | 02/04/2017
pS1jTz http://www.LnAJ7K8QSpkiStk3sLL0hQP6MO2wQ8gO.com
Your name:
Comments:
 
 

Landlord

Thought for the day

Quiz

Pub trivia

Lists

Pieces of eight

Contribute

Do you want to write for
The Mouse & Keys?