A Bridge Too Far

Enough!

At this point I am opining FIFA is losing its collective mind with the news they are actually considering video replays for matches.

Ah, have no fear you may say as it sounds innocent enough.

It is just being studied ... they say.

Simply a proposal ... some muse.

Why oh why are they doing this? It is clear enough they are unwilling to trust their own referees with the advent of GLT and have the ability to retroactively dole out punishment for incidents caught on tape that the match committee feels warrants additional action (this later practice I agree with).

Why, when GLT has been proven 100% effective in tests conducted by FIFA, used in various competitions, and is about to be used in all World Cup matches this year (assuming the stadia are competed) do we need more?

What is FIFA after?

Well ... here are some thoughts on this topic.

First, is a big fat I told you so. I somehow knew that once the camel's nose was under the tent, FIFA could not help itself. Take a look at what I wrote back on July 6th 2012 on the topic. I saw it then and am scared to death of it now.

Second, FIFA has no faith in its GLT system. It went to the lowest bidder after all. GoalControl has yet to be proven in any actual significant action and am willing to bet when really tested, it has not, and will not, perform well. PR videos of the "testing" are hilarious and I hope are not representative about what was actually done.

Third, FIFA really wants replay, and in fact it will swallow GLT whole. FIFA I opine is not happy with Goal, Offside, and Penalty decisions. I'll throw it out here that any replay decision will include all (3) of these.

How it gets implemented is anyones guess, but in any case it will be a disaster as you are going to have to stop the match either for the review, or the action that comes from the review.

Take the NFL or MLB as examples. In these cases, a review can be easily worked into the flow of the game itself as there are natural starts and stops all the time. Here it makes the most sense (I still hate it though).

Of all the other sports with reply the NHL may be the closest analog where they can look at a goal which was awarded that may not have counted for a variety of reasons (e.g. kicking the puck in the net). This, assuming I buy replay at all, makes the most sense ... but wait ... FIFA now has GLT that is 100% effective ... why are we changing course?

I think we are changing course folks as soon we will see either a booth referee looking at incidents, or a challenge type of system like the NFL and now MLB (thanks a lot Bud) where a limited number of challenges are allowed in a particular period of time.

It is unworkable in soccer as the game is too fluid for such drivel. That what makes it a beautiful game, and with continued tinkering how FIFA is going to ruin it.

Official FIFA Apps Announcement ... But Stay for the Comments

FIFA launches official apps for iOS and Android

With the 2014 World Cup Final Draw only days away, FIFA has launched official apps for both iOS and Android. Available now, the app provides live score updates for "85 of the world’s top leagues" (including MLS in the United States) according to FIFA. Thankfully it offers news, standings, statistics, and photos / video for even more teams: in total, 197 leagues across the globe are included. Users can expect news on "hundreds of competitions, thousands of goals and over a million minutes of football every single week," FIFA says. ...

See the whole announcement here, courtesy of The Verge.

Kicking Back Comments: Yawn. No surprise on this. This app is mediocre at best right now.

What is spectacular however, are the comments in response to the article. My favorite is below. I have never seen a coach go Super Saiyan before ... plenty of players and even a referee or two. Never a coach.

Some priceless stuff in there worth looking at.

We are the Borg ...

... come on, say it with me.

For any like me who are fans of Star Trek, we know the Borg as a ruthless culture that assimilates everything in its path. They usually entered with a greeting as shown from the below video.

I had this palpable thought that referees are going in this direction when I saw the video from the 2013 MLS all star game, seen below.



So lets take a quick tally:

• Beeper flags to get signals from ARs - check.
• Headset to communicate with ARs and Alternate official - check.
• Stereo microphone to record sound during the match - check.
• Headset camera to record video during the match - check.
• Goal line technology to indicate when a ball crosses the goal line - check (soon).

This is crazy folks ... are we referees, or are we simply puppets for all this technology?

Seriously though, do we really need all of this to manage a match?

I get that some of this, like the camera, is for entertainment purposes, for now. But when will we start using it for "instant replay" or even when it gets much better, real time discipline.

Don't think so? Just wait another 10 years and see what we get. By the 2022 World Cup, I think we will see less human, and more Deus ex machina.

It's funny too, FIFA and other cry, and cry for "less mechanical referees", yet right before our eyes we see the opposite. Just have a look.

We are the Borg ...

Locutus of Borg circa 24th Century

Professional soccer referee circa 2013

Blame the engineers ...

FIFA CONSIDERS SCRAPPING 3-D COVERAGE OF WORLD CUP

RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — FIFA is considering scrapping 3-D broadcasts of the next World Cup, describing ESPN's decision to abandon the format as another setback for the technology.

The sports network said earlier this week that there weren't enough viewers in the United States to make 3-D broadcasts worth the investment, and ESPN's dedicated channel will close by the end of the year. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of the AP.

Kicking Back Comments: I am of course kidding about the title of this post, as it would seem fairly clear that if ESPN made the decision to invest in the technology knowing that only 6% of household can utilize such a stream, and only a small percentage of those would actually watch the World Cup, it is the folks in marketing who wanted to do it in the first place that would seem to have erred.

I would think the question of "does the market want it?" would be answered before "how do we build it?" in this consumer setting.

Then again that might me the engineer in me talking.

Think review is flawless eh ...

Former WMU baseball player Adam Rosales' apparent home run in Wednesday's Athletics vs. Indians game sparks heated controversy

Former Western Michigan University baseball playerAdam Rosales thought he had hit a game-tying home run for the Oakland Athletics in Wednesday's game against the Cleveland Indians, but a ruling by umpires left players, coaches and fans of both teams stunned.

Rosales hit a high, deep ball in the top of the ninth inning with two outs and Oakland trailing 4-3. Umpires initially ruled the hit, which saw the ball appear to ricochet off a railing above the yellow home run line on the outfield wall, was a double. 

See the whole story here, courtesy of MLive.com.

Kicking Back Comments: FIFA take note, this is your future.

Honestly this was a fascinating result (watch the video to show just how clear this was), and I have to believe that will spark further controversy regarding review (in place since 2008), or particular review of this umpires performance.

This is the future however. A goal may or may not have crossed the line ... let's consult the technology.

Nah, we don't believe that, we're staying with what we think it should be.

Get warmed up to this one FIFA, you may see just this case in 2014 as a referee is empowered to overrule the technology if they feel it is incorrect. Folks are already clanging for a revamp of the replay system here, and provide some evidence that such systems are far from infallible.

Are we ready for a pixel by pixel review of every goal ... and is FIFA ready to see its great GLT experiment fail on the world's stage?

Stay Tuned.

1.21 Giga Watts?

Brazil promises speedy internet for fans at 2014 FIFA World Cup

Soccer fans attending next year's World Cup in Brazil will have no problem going online from stadiums, but they might want to use a local cellphone chip to keep their charges low, Brazilian Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo said yesterday.

Each of the 12 stadiums hosting the 32-nation soccer tournament will have two separate 50-gigabyte networks connected to Brazil's fiber optic backbone, he told reporters. "I doubt that the stadiums will use one third of the capacity that we are installing," Bernardo said.

"Not even Mr Jerome Valcke will use up all that capacity, though he could if he makes a lot of explosive statements," the minister said in reference to the general secretary of FIFA, the governing body of global soccer. ...

See the full story here, courtesy of Tech2.

Kicking Back Comments: "Doubt that the stadiums will use one third of the (bandwidth)" eh ....
We'll see ... who's betting with me that there will be bandwidth issue?

For those who were wondering about the title, it is from the 1985 movie Back to the Future, and is a classic.

Tipsy Coachman Theory: Don Garber Version

To understand the theory, takea look at Lee v. Porter, 63 Ga 345, 346 (1879), or Wikipedia for a good summary.

This doctrine is a rule of law that upholds, in a higher court, a correct conclusion despite flawed reasoning by the judge in a lower court. In other words, the lower judgment was right, but for the wrong reason.

We are not talking about law per se here folks, but about GLT.

As most know I have railed about my dislike for the the use of GLT on the pitch, as I believe it is an erosion of the referees authority to control a match that has been replaced by automatons. I also do believe that there is no sure fire solution to detecting when a ball crosses the line as even the very expensive technology being put in place, has significant flaws.

For all my foot stomping, FIFA went ahead and implemented it anyway, and we will see it very, very soon.

Enter MLS ...

Take a look at MLS rules out goal-line technology from Fox Sports.

I was thrilled when I saw the headline. After all the Commish is standing up and saying that MLS is not going to march with FIFA on this one. I was thrilled ...

... until I read his reasoning.

He said it was a matter of ''prioritizing how we spend our money.''

Ugh ... It was like that moment that Lucy pulls the football away from Charlie Brown and he falls on his back.

It's too expensive ....

While an absolutely reasonable answer for a financially struggling league, he could have said more .... he SHOULD have said more.

He comes closer with ''... our view has been that we're going to wait and see how it works out. We certainly don't need to be the first league that has it.''

Which was better ... BUT ... why not say something like:

I believe in our referees to get this right and see them working hard in doing so. We can defer a decision based on cost, and not be an early adopter, and a desire to evaluate the need based on the circumstances, MLS stands behind its referees and their decisions.

His silence was deafening, as on the business end, they are happy for the "good" decisions, and quietly look for blood on the "bad" ones.

Managing professional referees in any league is not easy as these folks have to carefully balance the need for development at that level, with the "product" that is being sold.

Fortunately, the MLS refereeing management has some spectacular folks talented in this regard.

So yeah, MLS got it right ... but for the absolutely wrong reason IMHO.

Oh what a day for Twitter!!

... and here I was thinking that my day could not get any better with disgraced NY Representative Anthony Weiner returning to Twitter after a two year hiatus after photographing his private parts and Tweeting them across the globe ...

I was wrong.

Sepp had his Twitter account hacked, and during that time, Tweeted things like:

"It was decided that the president Sepp Blatter is to step down due to corruption charges."

and

"So what if I took money from Qatari prince? I am the family's bread earner"

Classic stuff indeed.

While Sepp was the victim of a genuine hack, and Mr. Weiner was the victim of his own stupidity, the end result is the same in that I will be waiting to see what spews from their respective accounts next.

For the record, it was not me who hacked Sepp, the Syrian Electronic Army has taken responsibility for the incident.

JAFO may have been right

The other day JAFO laid down a stinging rebuke of my GLT analysis and I came to a conclusion that I am a hypocrite.

This is not news by the way, I flop more than a freshly caught fish on the deck of a boat. I often find exceptions to exceptions especially when it comes to something like GLT.

Where I am getting caught is that I am still a traditionalist, but appreciate the technology involved.

Take a look here at Garmin's new set of toys for cyclists.


Pretty freaking cool right?

I dunno ... maybe its pride that drives me away from technology inside the pitch. Then again, as JAFO stated we are training with HR monitors and the like ... while even here I showed a GPS plot of a match I did to demonstrate just how useful the information can be.

I guess what it comes down to is how the technology is going to be used, for good, or not.

JAFO mentioned beeper flags. A good starting point.

What was not mentioned was the flurry of rotten refereeing habits that ensued after their introduction. Eye contact was at an all time low, and on more than one occasion I about had to use one as a club to get a referees attention without actually activating the beeper. This was in MLS too.

Headsets are the same. In this case information overload can come into play. There are times when a moment of silence can help more than someone crackling in your ear about what just happened.

I am still not a fan of GLT, but take JAFO's point more easily now. Where some see it as an aide to officiating, I see it an an opportunity for some to not do their job and let "technology do the work."

If that day comes, we have lost indeed.

Interesting GLT Video

So again I was pursuing the internet superhighway, and still upset about FIFA's decision to use GLT, I happen to come across this video from FIFA TV. Sorry, FIFA does not allow embedding.

A few things struck me as I took in this promotional video.

First was the fact that it takes six days(!) and as many people to deploy the Hawkeye solution. That is crazy! I know the system will likely not be moved that often if used in fixed stadia for long periods of time, but holy smokes. 

GoalRef was a bit less complicated in the number of people it takes to set up, but, it looks far more fragile. I mean, a special goal, and PCB's lining the frame. I have lived this one personally with my time at Trakus, where PCB's were put in a incredibly harsh sporting environment (NHL), and things failed. Trust me folks, it's going to break at the worst time. 

In the infamous words of Scotty "The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."

Between weather and abuse, I have great concerns that anything other than a nice sunny day will provide the results FIFA is after. 

So what's the backup plan in case of ... lets say fog, in the case of Hawkeye, a camera based system?

The referee.

As I seeded in a previous post too, what about the protocol for the referee in the case of failure? How about if the referee believes the system has failed, yet gives no (technological) indications of such? Open the pod bay doors indeed.

Maybe I am actually starting to see why FIFA is after other tenders. The current systems are both flawed in several ways from a high level.

Another thing that struck me was Cüneyt Çakır's comments regarding GLT. Assuming for just a second that he was not a FIFA shill (did you expect anything negative on a FIFA video?), and acknowledging he is a tremendous referee, I'm not sure his endorsement of understanding "the whole system" works for me to provide confidence as an insurance salesman from Turkey.

My point being, who really, and I mean really, understands this stuff?

I don't think anyone except the manufactures who may do what it takes to sell the system.

Finally, and this is most compelling to me, was Sepp's comments at the end regarding "the need." His argument was that a human eye can't see if the ball crosses the line in some cases. He's absolutely correct in that fact. From here my argument goes in (2) directions.

First, why are we doing something in one particular area that is "in human" to The Game? One of the particular allures for me, and I have to believe for others, is the "traditional" nature of the sport. After all, how much (technologically) has it changed since its creation? Not that much I would opine. So why the heck are we interfering with it now?

Second, how accurate and precise are these systems? There are margins of error in their operation, however small, and just how "over the line" is registered as over the line? An angstrom, millimeter, centimeter? Is it really over the line then?

This now puts The Game on the "technology curve" as good enough is never good enough. When it comes to light how precise these systems are, there will be a call for more precise systems, and so on.

It's not going to stop with GLT. 

Now a counter argument to that can be made that (insert precision) is good enough, and it was better than we had before.

Was it though? Hundreds and hundreds of years of history, and thousands and thousands of goals. We seemed to muddle through. Now in 2012 enter GLT, and you know what, we still won't know to absolute certainty, only to the margin of error.

Dosen't sound like it's worth metaling with the fabric of The Game to me.

So, what's the motivation?

It is a sad, sad day

Fifa confirm that goal-line technology will be in place for the 2014 World Cup

Fifa announced plans on Tuesday to introduce the technology to the game’s flagship tournament and invited tenders from interested providers, and the Premier League later revealed that it was “close to entering a formal tendering process” as well.

Fifa hope to confirm which of four systems they have chosen by “early April” so the technology could be used at this summer’s Confederations Cup in Brazil. ...

See the whole story here, from The Telegraph.

Kicking Back Comments: As I have said before, I am not a fan of this at all. I think it disrupts the "free will" that is part of The Game itself. To begin to take these decisions out of the hand of referees is "the camel's nose under the tent" in my opinion.

Video review of Offside is next folks.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I have heard many people say, "... this is it ...", only GLT during active play.

Honestly I don't believe them at all. I do believe that over time this will be the beginning of the erosion of the referees authority inside the field during active play.

Others have opined this has taken place over a long period of time with the adjustments to the LOTG that have been made. I do agree with this line of thinking as well, yet nothing has been so aggressive a step as what we are seeing with GLT. 

... and for what some may ask.

This will be for the highest level matches around the world, and that's about it. Don't expect to start seeing GLT at your local U-12 match.

Lets just hope that the technology works. FIFA request for "other tenders" was interesting to me in this regard. If it works, why change it?

Prepare for all heck to break loose when it is shown that GLT fails even once ...

After that, what happens?

Yep, it's up to the guy in the middle and his team anyway. They'll get blamed either way I'm sure.

All hail Sepp!!

FIFA head hails goal tech advances

SAO PAULO — FIFA president Sepp Blatter hailed technical advances in the game Friday as the organisation prepares to try out goalline technology at the upcoming World Club Cup in Japan.

"There is no revolution in football -- there is evolution. There will always be errors from referees because they are human beings," said Blatter. ...

See the whole story here, from AFP.

Kicking Back Comments: He goes on to say in the article this is the only technology he wants to see in The Game. To that I say (a) I don't believe him as he will turn on the referees again in the next crisis, and (b) he will only continue to hail it so long as it works. First time it fails, he'll be done.

Hawkins tries (and fails) to hock the Hawkeye

As most of you know, I am not a particular fan of goal line technology, so from the jump I have a bias.

I was painfully reminded of FIFA's impending implementation of goal line technology in "FIFA tests balls that 'know' when they're in goal", courtesy of 9 News. A link to the associated video can be found here which shows a brief interview with Thomas Pellkofer speaking about "GoalRef". Interesting technology with some interesting challenges in implementation (speaking as one familiar with the art and science).

In the article Pellkofer gives an articulate and balanced quote detailing GoalRef:

"The referee will get a signal when the goal has been clearly achieved. I'm convinced this technology will help the game to become a fair game, on one hand," Thomas Pellkofer, GoalRed operational manager, said. "On the other hand, I see that technology like other technologies in cars for example, these days, you have the brake controls, which will become the usual thing for the future."

I don't agree, but an articulate message. Think about red and yellow cards and their introduction in the 1970 World Cup from Sir Ken Aston. I do not know, but have to believe that such a change was likely not welcome either and may have even been seen as "an intrusion on the referee's authority."

Now lets shift to Paul Hawkins of the Hawkeye system, and his quote:

"You need to put the destiny of the match in the hands of the players. Officials are not there to be at the center stage there," Hawkins said. 

It was likely at this point Hawkins heard what an ass he was being and finished up with this:

"They're there to actually - you know a great official doesn't get noticed and this is simply technology to help them do their job."

Nice save Pauly, but not quite. Your distaste for referees was on full display.

Somehow making the argument this technology is needed is farsical. Why stop with goal line? Why not all decisions made by the referee? As I have opined before, what about penalty/no penalty? Almost like a goal, right? Caution v. Send off, sure that too! 

Where all this ends with a whimper is when the technology fails, as it always does. (Take a look back at "After the batteries die") I would not be so employable as an engineer if this stuff worked all the time. All it's going to take is one decision.

If FIFA still supports the technology after it is tried, and fails, it has fully tipped its hand in wanting to neuter the role of the referee in The Game as we know it. It's my opinion they have nibbled around the edges of that with some of the changes made to The Game, and restrictions and expectations on their referees, but this to me would be a very clear sign.

A little conspiracy theory-ish. Yeah maybe ... I may have turned a bend on this one. But like anything else, if you over regulate it, you make it so that no one will want to participate. Especially the artists on both sides of the whistle that just want to play.

Interesting, yet misguided

So I was cruising Blogger the other day and purely by accident ran across e-Diski.com. In particular I got into reading "The European managers complain but refs have it easy", and found it interesting, informative in spots, but also misguided.

Of interest to me was the particular detail that the author cited percentages of issues. For example, "According to the results, 83 per cent of managers feel the handball law requires further clarification." I am particularly curious to see the source of this (and other) data cited. It was actually very interesting, even if not scientific.

The author does go into some good detail about this in a cursory analysis of what should, or should not be handling. I was particularly amused with the authors line regarding discerning intent and the "... gender of a goat." Trust me and read the article.

Where the author and I disagree is in regard to technology. He is a proponent, I am not. I think there are good points on both sides of the equation, I just happen to come down on the side of the human element deciding matches, not a NFL type review on even critical plays.

Where the author leaves his senses is here:

"Look, anything that gives advantage to the attacking team and good football should be encouraged. High level managers should be crying about the disallowed goals due to wrong offside calls from referees. Video technology should be employed for this and maybe even questionable offside decisions by referees should be punished. While I understand the speed of the game and the quick decisions they make, I distaste that with all my good heart. Managers and coaches also lose jobs because of those wrong decisions, the tactical mistakes they do and even the bad decisions players make.

Why should referees have it easy?"

He's kidding right? 

Assuming the paths to get to that level are equal, and I do not believe they are personally (as I think the number of correct decisions that are required to be made is much higher for a referee) it is more likely that a referee will not be given many "bites of the apple" at the higher (not highest) level before they are dismissed.

A manager, would really, really have to screw things up to get dismissed in a year. I can cite some MLS managers as examples ... 

A referee gets a very limited time in which to adjust at the higher levels. Let me share a personal story.

My first MLS match, I failed the assessment ... badly. I should have as well. I missed a wicked tackle that I gave only a caution for ... what should have been a straight send off. It was so bad that at the very next stoppage the manager substituted the player who committed the foul because he knew that I blew it, and anything close to a caution was going to get that player sent.

First MLS match a joyous occasion after in the locker room ... not so much.

It was clear, and I was told after ... adjust, or out you go.

This was reasonable to me as while there was some flexibility in getting acclimated to that level, no one referee is worth the "product" any league is selling. Certainly not a in a league that was struggling financially.

So I adjusted and had several more years in MLS with much better results. Learning along the way, but far smaller "teachable moments."

I have seen one and done referees, or a season and done referees. The "half life" of a referee is much shorter than that of managers, and is accelerated by not only incorrect, but also correct yet unpopular decisions.

Remember Esse Baharmast in the 1998 World Cup? Vilified for his penalty decision in Brasil v. Norway, even after the photo came out of a Brazil player with a fistful of jersey. How was his career impacted by that (correct) decision?

I have cited in the past, Koman Coulibaly, and how he remains in the "FIFA Witness Protection Program" to this day. Never seen since that match at any significant level.

While it is true that referees make decisions that can effect managers jobs, and we need to be sensitive to that, it is also true that referee's jobs are far more fragile on a match to match basis that anyone else who is involved in The Game. Player, General Manager, Manager ... no one.

The very best know that, and react accordingly to every challenge laid down before them.

Training of the future, or really cool toy?

Special thanks to Elie for bringing this one forward.

Ichiban!!

FIFA'S Goal-Line Technology On Schedule in Japan

GENEVA (AP) -Officials from two FIFA-approved goal-line technology systems arrived in Japan on a Club World Cup inspection visit on Tuesday, hours after English football witnessed yet another disputed incident.

Everton was denied what appeared a clear goal against Newcastle in a Premier League match on Monday, as a referee's assistant did not spot that the ball had crossed the line. ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of NBC Sports.

Kicking Back Comments: Geez. I am just back from Japan and would have stopped by had I known.

Timing on these installations are interesting, and it makes me wonder if just more than a full year of testing will really be enough to ready the technology for "prime time", that is to say, the World Cup.

While goal-line issues are embarrassing to FIFA in a sense, a failure of GLT at the World Cup would be a huge blow to The Game overall I believe.

I remain very, very interested in the trials.

I do still think this is hilarious how this is being portrait in the media, as a referee failing, not as the speed of play these days. Even more hilarious however will be the blame on the referee when the GLT Technology itself fails. That on is coming too folks.

Take a look below for a brief GLT overview.

On Means In ?! It Just Might Work

For those of who who know him, or know of him, George Cumming lead the FIFA referee program, lead and consulted on several Olympics and World Cups, and oh yeah, help revise the Laws Of The Game in points of his career.

It suffices to say he is an expert, renowned, and respected on The Game.

In his blog George Cumming's Football Blog, he writes about a variety of topics about The Laws, various incidents, and soccer pop culture in general. His writings are very good, and his site is also linked to the right, as I have noted before.

Recently with all the discussion of GLT and FIFA stating they will adopt it, he came out with a couple of posts that I thought were really insightful, and one that was way out of the box thinking, that was really, really clever.

His first, Goal line technology for .01% of world football, I think is a simple, yet eloquent recitation of the reality of FIFA's decision is on GLT.

His second, Is it time to think outside the box?, is a devilishly clever idea to twist The Laws slightly to possible avoid much of the controversy. It is "out of the box" as he says, but worth considering.

Both are good reads to put GLT into perspective that we will start to see soon around the globe.

What the f@$k??

FIFA 13 cursing without repercussions

When we have been playing the current FIFA game there are times when swearing occurs, although this is normally due to frustration and not directed at anyone personally. It seems that when EA launch FIFA 13 they will offer Xbox 360 Kinect users the ability to curse the referee, which will result in no bookings or major repercussions, although this hadn’t been the expected outcome a few weeks ago when we first saw a promotional video. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of PR.net.

Kicking Back Comments: This was interesting to me on many levels, none the least of which was the technology.

There have been times in my career that I have booked, or sent off players for dissent and foul and abusive language (respectively) that may had been in error. I don't hedge to make it appear that I have not made mistakes ... I have ... it is just hard when a player has such a self interest to not poison the pool after the fact.

Language is such a precise construct. Some curses are easy to spot as dissent of FAL, others are not. In fact, the most cunning, and most hurtful, rarely have no curses in them at all.

As a referee, we have to be aware of where the line is for the day ... and when to just suck it up as The Game does not need to caution or send off. The developers at EA need to teach Kinect this as well before we humans have any fear of being supplanted by a robot referee.

BTW, there is no truth to the rumor that FIFA is funding EA to do so, dispute their recent appetite toward technology.

Shocking ... just shocking

FIFA bows to pressure over goal-line technology

(Reuters) - Soccer's rulemakers and its governing body FIFA bowed to pressure on Thursday when they finally approved the use of goal-line technology and agreed to allow Muslim women players to wear a headscarf.

The first decision followed widespread calls from players, coaches and the media, after a series of embarrassing high profile incidents in which perfectly good goals were disallowed because officials did not see the ball had crossed the line. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of Reuters.

Kicking Back Comments: Well folks, not a surprise, but the camels nose is under the tent with the GLT. A poor decision in my eyes that was brought by pressure from folks who have never had to judge such situations on the most part.

At this point some members of IFAB are just spouting rubbish, such as this:

"None of us are considering any type of technology which would interfere with the free-flowing nature of our game," said Alex Horne, the English member of the IFAB.

"We do not believe it is appropriate for technology to creep out into other areas, we are deliberately drawing a line and saying that goal line technology is where it stops."

To which I say ... Bull S&*t. I say this on (2) levels:

1. How can it not stop the free flow of the match? In the best case these devices would register a goal where the referee has awarded none. Play is stopped to award the goal ... after how long? How do you deal with those incidents that occur in the space between the (non called) goal occurring, and the stoppage? Is the ball still "in play"? Keep in mind this would have an effect on misconduct as well.

In the worst case the referee stops to "check" to see if the ball was in or not. What if the AR has one thing, and "the machine" has another? Who wins?

Are we replacing the AR's between the posts with HAL? In a tie, who wins?

2. FIFA and IFAB won't allow anymore technology ... until the next "crisis" that gets people in a snit. My next prediction for technology is video review on goal scoring opportunities to result in a send off. Or as a close second for me is PK/no PK based on spot of the foul. Almost like goal/no goal, yes?

With this step FIFA and IFAB have opened the door to future "enhancements" of the use of technology.

Finally a question, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ... or Who watches the watchers?

I could write for hours on this, but end with the question of what do we do if this system ever fails and how will we ever know?

Les jeux sont faits, Platini??

Platini: Introducing goal-line technology would be a historical mistake

The clamor for confirmation over whether a ball has crossed the line has grown following Ukraine’s ghost-goal against England, but the UEFA chief is strongly against any changes

UEFA president Michel Platini believes FIFA would be making a “historical mistake” if it introduced goal-line technology, following growing calls for its introduction after Ukraine was denied a goal against England in its Euro 2012 Group D clash. ...

See the full story here, courtesy of goal.com.

Kicking Back Comments: I think thou protest too much Mr. Platini. While I agree with his position, and even the reason he states for it in this article, I'm not quite sure this is his only reasoning.

He was the inventor of EAR's (I call them AAR's) and frankly would not look great if they went by the wayside in lieu of GLT.

I'll be honest, I don't see the benefit given the cost. Given the amount of controversy a referee can inject into a match, and the given number of decisions they make, or can help get right, I'm not seeing it.

I think at the highest level it makes sense ... more eyes are better. What has been forgotten is that more referees == more controversy, and the Ukraine v. England match was no exception. The EAR should have called the goal as I wrote earlier.

Believe me, I don't like the ideas of EAR's, or the idea of GLT. Then again, you are listening to a guy who still wears long sleeves when he referees.