Will Fifa now join the 21st century?

Visitors to the Soccer World Cup games in the Mother City have flooded the fan fests, fan jols and the fan walks, with more than one million visitors expected by mid-week. Yet, most headlines since the weekend were not about the remarkable average attendance figures of 53 019 per World Cup match in South Africa, about the marksmanship of Carlos Tévez of Argentina or the penetrating runs by the German strikers, Thomas Mueller or Lukas Podolski.

Rather, it was the hot debate about the lack of modern technology and the dogmatic approach by Fifa in disallowing technology that might have changed the complexion of the round-of-16 clash between England and Germany which dominated social networks and media headlines.

Forget about the fact that Argentina was a hot favourite to win the Cup after its 3-1 second-round win over Mexico, or that Germany had shortened odds of either 8/1 or 11/2 to win the tournament after ousting England 4-1 in the round of 16.

Introduce technology now

It was this game that really had the England management team and millions of their supporters around the globe fuming about Fifa’s refusal to introduce modern technology.

Fabio Capello and Frank Lampard demanded that Fifa introduce goal-line technology on Sunday after the England midfielder had a perfectly good goal ruled out in his team's 4-1 World Cup mauling by Germany.

Germany was leading 2-1 in its last-16 clash just before halftime when a Lampard shot bounced off the underside of the German crossbar and landed a yard over the goal line, only to be missed by both Uruguayan referee Jorge Larrionda and his assistant.

The clamour for technology and video replays became even more vocal later on Sunday when Argentina's opening goal in its last-16 clash with Mexico at Johannesburg's Soccer City was allowed to stand despite Tévez being in an offside position.

"I am in favour of goal-line technology, especially after tonight," said Chelsea midfielder, Lampard.

"The ball crossed the line, it was over, it was so obvious. If we had got back to 2-2 at that moment, it could have been different. It's a huge disappointment.

"We had a meeting pre-World Cup with someone telling us a million different rules, changes that hardly affect the game and the big one that affects this game today hasn't been brought in, so it's a no-brainer," he added.

Capello said he was amazed that football is still to fall into line with many other sports that have embraced technology, such as tennis and cricket.

“It’s incredible that in a time of technology, the referees aren’t capable of deciding if there has been a goal or not,” said the Italian. “The match could have been different after that goal.”

Recent history

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) ruled out the use of goal-line technology and video replays at its meeting in March as anger still simmered over Thierry Henry's infamous handball against Ireland which helped France into the final.

"The door is closed. The decision was not to use technology at all," said Fifa general-secretary Jérôme Valcke at the time.

The decision was reached after officials watched presentations of two systems: Cairos, a chip inserted into a ball; and Hawk-Eye, used in tennis and cricket.

At Soccer City, Tévez's opening goal for Argentina against Mexico was scored from an offside position.

Italian referee Roberto Rosetti allowed the 26th minute goal to stand despite the furore caused by a replay of the incident on the stadium's giant television screens. (Source: Sapa-AFP)

Bizarre Blatter arguments

Sepp Blatter, president of Fifa, told a press conference in December 2009: “There should be no technology on the field.”

Confronted by an Italian journalist who claimed that Fifa’s attitude to the goal-line system was outdated, Blatter conceded: “Yes, you’re right, we are too conservative and we are 100 years behind in technology.”

He pointed out that the body which acts as guardian for the laws of the game, the International Football Association Board, has agreed to trial new technologies. But it will only be used to determine whether a ball has cleared the goal line for the purpose of awarding or disallowing a goal.

Trials of the Hawk-Eye technology, now common in tennis, and another systems based on a ball with a microchip have already taken place. Blatter noted that the respective providers of the technologies were unable to satisfy stringent accuracy requirements.

Another issue was the effect of the technology on the continuity of play, he added. “In tennis, you stop the game. In football, the game goes on, it never stops. There will always be errors in football.”

But Blatter said that was part of the “human face” of football which he wanted to retain, adding that it was “good in life to have a little uncertainty”.

His bizarre arguments about the merits of disallowing modern technology simply implode when you sketch the following scenario. Let us argue that the match between England and Germany was the World Cup final, and it was a 1-1 draw with the final 15 seconds of extra time looming. Lampard ‘scores’ what seems to be a perfectly justified goal, only to be denied by a match referee and his assistant who simply failed to adjust their ageing eyes to the fast and furious action.

England, still furious after the outcries were ignored, loses concentration, and is defeated by Germany on penalties. Germany is declared the winner, and unjustly so. It simply does not make sense.

Fanie Heyns