Why the web must debate technology in football

Regular readers will be aware that my stance on technology in football - goal-line, video or otherwise - is very much an adversarial one. Podcast listeners might also know that my view could be seen as softening, largely because of some frankly criminal refereeing in two Wembley appearances for my club this season and, of course, Thierry Henry's scandalous double handball for France against Ireland.

My preference would be to have a fourth official watching the game on video (with replays) as it happens and letting the referee and his assistants get on with it, make their routine errors and maintain the flow of the game. In the event that a decision is both clearly wrong and potentially result changing, the fourth (well, fifth) official should notify the referee. So, if an offside decision is touch and go, the video ref keeps quiet regardless of right or wrong. If Henry handles the ball to knock Ireland out of World Cup contention, or John Terry attempts to amputate James Milner's leg at the knee, he tells the referee he's made a mistake.

That's a pipe dream, of course, and it has obvious flaws. But this post is less about one side of the debate and more about the importance of the debate itself.

Technology in football is becoming inevitable because the controllers of the debate have already made up their minds and they're all on the same side. The "debate" is about how rather than whether, and those with no desire to see such change are entirely voiceless. Why? Because the television companies have no cause to debate an innovation that would clearly benefit them.

Sky Sports in particular are guilty of using the word 'debate' when they have no intention of allowing both sides to be heard. They bleat on, in special features and in the general run of conversation, about how disgraceful it is that FIFA won't budge on technology, about how awful it is that referees are allowed to make errors which - gulp - cost clubs money. And there, of course, is the very kernel of the matter: money.

My fury at the TV outlets and their pro-technology agenda hit the ceiling on Saturday afternoon. In the FA Cup final, one of five Chelsea strikes to hit the woodwork in the first half cannoned off the crossbar behind David James and appeared, in real time, to bounce behind the line and back out. Referee Chris Foy and his assistant waved play on, and ITV commentary duo Clive Tyldesley and Jim Beglin instantly went into preaching mode, incredulous about FIFA's lack of movement on technology before their replay had even been shown.

It was almost as if they couldn't believe their luck that a controversial goal-line decision appeared to have been called incorrectly. Here's our chance to peddle our agenda!

What followed was nothing short of ridiculous, and my general fondness for my friends at the aforementioned broadcaster cannot stop my frustration at their commentators climbing on to a soapbox on Saturday. The replay showed with absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the ball did not cross the line. All around the country, I hope, supporters like myself who jumped the gun whispered a word of praise for the match officials and calmed down.

Not Clive and Jim, who somehow decided not only that the replay was inconclusive, but, later that it clearly showed the ball cross the line. I must apologise to my girlfriend's neighbours in Cardiff for my foul-mouthed bellowing when I realised that ITV's men on the gantry were going to continue their indignation about the lack of technology and base their ire on a decision which they'd called completely wrongly based on a replay.

So don't be fooled when you hear about the "technology debate" on television. There isn't a debate being conducted, there is a very obvious lobbying effort by the TV companies and very limited allowance for their opponents. It's all about the so-called 'product', the polished package sold by the TV industry. It must be perfect and error-free, and as dramatic as possible. Which TV executive wouldn't want the drama of a replay system?

FIFA, the only powerful voice on the other side of the argument, might be the ultimate decision maker but they can only hold out against the money men.

Here in the UK blogosphere we don't have nearly as much influence as our American counterparts, who form a crucial part of their country's soccer media. But it's important that both sides of the technology debate are heard, even if it's just a few moaning bastards like me arguing online. The mainstream debate is not fair and balanced.

(Pic via Bleacher Report)