2010-03-09

Someone should save football from the IFAB

The International FA Board, the (decrepit) body that has the final saying on the rules of football, met last week to, among other things, decide on the use of goal-line technology. The proposed idea was to put sensors on the ball and on the goalposts in order to determine whether or not the ball actually crossed the line, a rather simple measure that doesn't even require cutting-edge technology and that, if adopted, could potentially spare football fans everywhere from a world of controversy. It was a no-brainer, but still those stubborn old farts in Zurich decided to continue their private jihad against novelty and the XXI century.

I never really understood why it was so difficult to modernize football until I learned, a few days ago, how the process works. Apparently, the International Board is composed of eight members: one representative from each of the Football Associations in the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales) and another four from FIFA, who supposedly are representing everybody else. Once a year they meet to discuss possible changes in the laws of the game and to vote on the proposals, which need 3/4 of the votes to pass.

In other words, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales together have the power to veto any change in the rules of football.

Let that sink in for a minute.

I can understand the English having a vote, after all they invented modern football and their Premier League remains one the most prominent club championships in the world. But what are the other three doing there? Wales and Northern Ireland haven't been to a World Cup in ages and have mediocre "national" leagues (I can't even name a team from either association), while Scotland doesn't fare much better. Hell, just look at the amount of time they spend sliding in the mud, beating the shit out of their opponents, instead of scoring. I really don't think they should be telling anyone how the game is supposed to be played.

So is there a reason - other than "things have always been that way" - why those three pseudo-countries should have that kind of power? You have the most popular sport on the planet being held hostage by a bunch of people who can't even play it right. It's like the UN Security Council, but with completely irrelevant permanent members. What the fuck, really. Perhaps they could ask the Falklands to be an alternate, just in case one of those football powerhouses has a cricket or a rugby appointment on the same day.

The saddest part is that the sport desperately needed this breath of fresh air, especially at its higher levels. Modern broadcasting has irrevocably changed the way we watch football and a global audience now can, within seconds, see any play from several different angles in super slow-motion HD. We get see everything that happens on the pitch and, yet, the one guy who is not allowed to take advantage of all that technology is the dude with the whistle. Referees are expected to reach, in a split-second and with very little help, the same level of awareness provided to everyone else by a dozen cameras and, when they inevitably fail, they are crucified by the fans and suspended by their federations. It's brutal and it's not working.

However, in addition to being a geographically unbalanced forum, the International Board is also a particularly conservative entity that looks determined to resist innovations until the bitter end. This trait probably has something to do with the fact that most of its members were alive when football was invented in the 1800's, but can also be linked to the belief that the popularity of the game resides in the simplicity of its rules. All you need is a ball and an open space, and people like it that way - no extra equipment, no unnecessary complications.

While I agree with them that it would be a mistake to mess with such a perfect formula, in this case the proposal didn't involve a change in the rules. They would be exactly the same, still as simple and straightforward as it gets: a goal is scored when the ball crosses the line. Besides, the rule in question is written in absolute terms, so there's no judgment call to be made: either the ball went in or it didn't. The technology would be there just to help determine which one was it. Nothing would be taken away from the referee, the human element of the sport would be left untouched.

But none of that mattered. The dinosaurs of the International Board, ever the guardians of the so-called purity of the game, only really needed an excuse and, in an awful display of biased nitpicking, rejected the idea on the grounds that the sensor wasn't reliable enough. Simply put, they claimed this new technology didn't work on those really really really really close calls, that it wasn't 100% fail-proof, so they decided to scratch it. But here's the thing: would a human being - any human being - be able to do a better job under the same circumstances? Wouldn't the computer's educated guess be, at the very least, every bit as good and accurate as the referee's?

Moreover, even if the technology is somehow flawed, couldn't they still use it as another advisory tool? Wouldn't that solve the problem? Just explain to the referee that there is a margin of error and give him the power to overrule the computer if he thinks he saw something different, like they already do with the linesmen. Or better yet, give the man a moment to look at a replays or something, so he can make up his mind. Football fans love the fact that the game is not filled with interruptions and time-outs, but I'm sure nobody would mind waiting 30 seconds while the referee checks if the goal was in fact a goal.

Just let the man in charge see what everyone else is seeing, how can that be a bad thing? Everybody wins... or do they? I'm not entirely convinced that this systematic and stubborn rejection of goal-line technology isn't part of some evil plot devised by the English, who are just not ready to shut the door on those non-goals in overtime that were so helpful in 1966 (sort of a fail-safe, just in case Rooney doesn't come through). After all, the Brits do control the International Board. Hmmmm... I think I might be onto something here.

No comments:

Post a Comment