Did That Cross The Line?

So I was wrong about the scoreline. (see prediction at the end of previous post)

And I've never felt more elated about getting it wrong before. 5-1 against Spurs, a team who, not so long ago, were tipped by many as dark horse to snatch the title away from the Mancunian teams. Not bad, Di Matteo.

But alas, this is not the purpose of my writing today. Nope, this post isn't a gloat about how much we comprehensively beat Spurs or how much I'm looking forward to meeting the Reds for the big Final at Wembley. 

Nope, this post is about the FIFA's warm, open-armed approach towards technology. And by open-armed, I am referring to them reaching out to technology with arms wide open, catching it, boxing it up and then proceeding to give it a Schmeichel-like punt back into the Stone Age. 

Chelsea's thumping of Spurs on Sunday was unfortunately clouded by a controversial "ghost goal" involving a Juan Mata shot which clearly did not cross the line. A goal was awarded to Chelsea by referee Martin Atkinson, wrongly. Even Blues captain John Terry later fessed up and said that he thought the goal shouldn't have been given.

Terry was right. And so were millions of Spurs fans all over the world who were crying for Atkinson's head on a plate. With ketchup and a bit of seasoning. From a Chelsea fan's point of view, this incident was unfortunate. Unfortunate because it took away the gloss from our victory. Thanks to Atkinson, Spurs fans will forever be able to whip out the "what if" card and get away with conjectures such as "Spurs may have won the FA Cup in 2012 if not for the goal that wasn't given..." 

Both Chelsea and Spurs fans would then unnecessarily launch into highly speculative (and entirely baseless) re-enactments of how the game would have played out had Chelsea not been given such a 'gift' by the ref. Given that a football game consists of infinite possible outcomes that turns on infinite possible decisions made throughout the course of 90 minutes, there is absolutely no way anyone can single out a particular moment to have a definitive bearing in the game. 

I would gladly launch into chaos theory and the butterfly effect if this was a nerd convention, but I'll just simplify it by saying that theoretically, a butterfly flapping its wings on one end of the field has the potential to cause Ashley Young to take a tumble on the opposite end of it (high probability of what transpired in United's last few games).

Back to the topic at hand, we have seen such blunders by refs all through the season. And the season before this. And the ones before that. Disallowed goals. Allowed non-goals. Wrong flagging for offside. Penalties given for Oscar-worthy play acting. The list goes on.  We've seen it happen all the time in the English game, in the Spain's Primera Liga, on the frozen pitches of Russia and even under the blistering heat of Abu Dhabi. 

It is a worldwide phenomenon which plagues in equal frequency games of non-importance all the way to games where the stakes are at its highest, at the biggest stage of all, the World Cup (USA's disallowed goal and, ironically, Lampard's 'goal-that-wasn't-given' against Germany, anyone?)

It is clear to any football spectator with half a brain that such blunders can easily be solved with technology which are available to almost all other modern sports. Goal-line technology like the one employed in court games like tennis would be able to let us know immediately if the ball had crossed the line or not. Instant replays captured by high definition cameras from all angles of the pitch would cue match officials to any offences committed by any player at any time during a match. 

Such technology are neither revolutionary nor are they in the 'experimentation' stage. Such technology have been used for quite a while now (with great measures of success) for other sports. Such technology would surely aid embattled match officials make correct calls with higher frequency. Such technology would surely put to rest all hypothetical arguments (see above) as to how matches would have turned out if only certain calls were made correctly. 

The answer is blindingly obvious and staring at the face of football like how Gennaro Gattuso would at you if you accidentally stepped on him whilst running (he is quite short after all). Yet, the dinosaurs that run FIFA have steadfastly refused to implement it in the game.

Their ridiculous answer to this: technology will kill the spirit of the game. Whatever that means.

No, Sepp Blatter. You sir, are killing the game. 

Firstly, if FIFA is going to throw around general hogwash statements like that, they had better be prepared to strip the game of all technology for the sake of consistency. 

FIFA should: 

- ban the usage of high tech dri-fit material some players wear under their jerseys for better muscle performance so that players would play in the same weight-laden-when-soaked material as their grandfathers wore;

- ban those fancy-schmancy, Cristiano Ronaldo-endorsed boots laced with so much technology you wouldn't be surprised if players could now curve a free kick so much that it may lead to an own goal and instead, demand that every player wore standard issue boots which Stanley Matthews used to don;

- ban all the under-soil heating, covered terraces and even seats in the stadium so that the game could get back its pre-war spirit where players actually braved all sorts of elements during games and when supporters would still shout themselves silly standing under a hailstorm;

- ban those comfy, weather-proofed substitutes bench which most big stadiums have and instead go back to the good ole days where the subs' bench consisted of literally just a bench;

- ban those emergency-ward level sophisticated stretchers that protects an injured player's core & vitals completely when he's being taken off the field and instead expect grown men to be man enough to just roll off the pitch with a broken leg or a punctured lung just like in the old days.

There are probably sixteen thousand more modern day 'technology' which the modern day footballer is so accustomed to so much so that he doesn't even stop to think about (like scientifically-portioned-and-mixed pre-match meals, state of the art team buses and Twitter) that it really boggles the mind that FIFA would still be so insistent on keeping out actual technology which would benefit the game.

Football, like everything else around us, evolves. It doesn't stay in a constant position where one could safely say where its "spirit" should be kept at and maintained forever. Day by day, new technology emerges and improves our lives. Technology adapts to our needs and is constantly changing the way we live so that we may live just a little more efficiently. 

Besides "killing the spirit of the game", another more popular excuse thrown about by FIFA is that technology would take away the human element from the game.

To which I say: what the fuck is so wrong with that?! 

We rely on processors to crunch numbers and do massive amounts of calculation because to rely on humans to do so would take way too long and involve possible human errors. We rely on technology to perform elaborate surgeries because they are capable of reducing human errors down to almost zero. For tasks such as mining, deep-sea diving and even military games we rely on technology all the time simply because we realise that for certain things, the human element may not be the most ideal to have. Things like reasoning, art, creation and innovation require the human element, yes. But for things which require dead-on accuracy, precision and consistency, humans fuck it up all the time. 

So what's wrong in trying to create an environment as neutral as possible (where all calls made by match officials are aided by unbiased and less fallible technology) so that both sides of players can concentrate on giving their 101% of human element to where it is required; playing a damn good game of football?

So why and why and why, we ask, would technology be such a bad thing for football?

There is no other plausible explanation other than a harsh, dark and (whisper it softly) conspiratorial one: perhaps they want the game to be in a state of uncertainty. If the game is in a constant state of flux, where calls are entirely at the discretion of match officials, it is easy to dictate ... and maybe even 'control' the outcome of a particular match.

Now, I am not insinuating anything, but just consider this: every weekend, billions of pounds exchange hands in football betting all around the world. When huge sums of money come into the picture, the stakes are high when it comes to the outcome of games. When stakes are high, the human element invariably rears its ugly head. Match-fixing and bribery are not uncommon in football. Yes, the punishment and shame associated to convicted perpetrators are severe, but what if it becomes hard to prove that a match has been fixed?

Let's do a mental exercise: put yourself in the shoes of a large, underground betting syndicate who has cumulatively received huge amounts of money betting for Team A (a strong favourite) in an upcoming fixture against Team B (whipping boys of the league). Team A is chasing for the title so there's motivation for their players to go all out and win. Team A's players are also mostly highly paid stars who have a lot to lose if caught fixing a match. Even if a Team A player were inclined to throw the game away, he is but 1 out of 11 on the pitch. His contribution may not be substantial. 

Who then, would be your most ideal 'investment' to ensure that you cause a giant-killing feat for Team B and rake in big money from the Team A punters? Perhaps someone who probably doesn't earn as much as the stars of Team A (and hence require less amount of money to be bought)? Perhaps someone who, in one move, can affect the outcome of the entire game much more than the efforts of 11 players combined? Perhaps someone who can, after the match, raise up his hand and simply say "oh, I made a bad call. Sorry"?

Hmm ...

And if you're already going to go so far as to "invest" in such individuals, would it then not be prudent long-term investment on your part to ensure that the individuals who collectively hold power in the governing body of football, are individuals whom all share the notion that technology is bad, kills the spirit of the game and removes the human element of the game? Would it not make economical and financial sense to back such individuals in any upcoming election to hold power in such a body so that they may in turn ensure that technology does not come into the game so that your "mini investments" in the men who make the calls game after game may continue bearing fruit, week after week after week?

Hmm ...

I thought I'd end with a disclaimer: I am in no way insinuating nor implying that FIFA are in any way affiliated with underground betting syndicates or have members who were installed by the aforesaid syndicates. The above comments were merely hypothetical assumptions made of the possible reasons for FIFA's stoic reluctance to adopt game-defining technologies which would improve the game and remove the element of uncertainty from them.

So if FIFA or anyone who walks in the corridors of football's power has felt the heat from the above article, perhaps you could prove this author, and everyone else, wrong by implementing technology to safeguard the game from more "bad calls" by match officials.

The ball's in your court.