Baffling why FIFA averse to hawk eye vigil
ootball is in its silly season now that the real champions are out and you may just end up watching lesser teams like Uruguay and Holland playing the grand finale as opposed to a much bigger prospect of a high-tension Brazil-Argentina do in soccer city on July 11.
It would have been a perfect evening had Brazil withstood the pressure against Holland the other day but it was not to be. With other big teams like Italy, France and England already back home without any gains, the tournament is moving towards an inevitable anti-climax.
Of course a clear picture of what's to be will emerge only after the Argentina-Germany tie gets to a decision (the page goes into production much before that). But the run-up to the big days has been rather eventful. France did a Zidane headbutt kind of "losing it" campaign this year, lending unsporting words like revolution and rebellion to the event before being packed off home on an economy class ticket after being humbled by Slovakia in a match where off-field tensions far outweighed the dribble in the middle.
Italy went out too but to nothing more than comprehensive non-performance on a given day. Except for certain players missing in the squad due to coach Lippi's arguably wrong pickings, and Buffon's untimely injury, there was nothing else more dramatic that did Italy in.
Brazil is too recent a memory in the line-up to really need a recall but suffice it to say, the samba kings fell to their own mind halts and there was nothing more the Dutchmen needed to put their hard work into successful practice.
England, on the other hand, were victims of so many things that a list would look unduly handsome. They were prisoners of their stern coach; hostage to their scathing media; vulnerable to in-team rumblings and party to spats that Terry and Capello indulged in in off-time.
But it was England's plight that finally made football's resistance to technology look so utterly stupid that even a diehard critic of the new age hawk eye like Blatter had to come centrestage and make some noises about it. The goal that was denied to England by a referee who was 90 degrees from the goal post changed the complexion of the game for the Englishmen. From where the referee was standing, there was no hope in hell for him to have spotted the ball correctly, especially when it was doing a continuous tango with the goal bar and the ground. That he was removed from the tournament would hardly assuage the anger and the frustration that the English would be feeling, with or without the holidaying they are indulging in nowadays. Fact is that had there been a hawk eye, the second goal by England would have changed things. England would not have gotten desperate enough to leave defence to the Gods and head to the rival D en masse. Germany would not have been able to sneak in the goals so easily and for all you know there might have been a stretch to shootouts.
But all that is history which is a nice place for meaningless arguments. The more important fallout of this is the fact that after this tournament technology vigils will finally enter the playing field to assist the referees who are the most stressed beings when compared to any other sport.
It is baffling why Blatter, who is poised for another term as FIFA president till 2014, would have such an unexplained aversion to technology. Hasn't he been instrumental in giving his go-ahead to hi-tech changes by Adidas where the Jabulani ball is concerned? And hasn't that all gone wrong with the FIFA finally admitting it is "not deaf" to the erratic behaviour that the ball has been sporting throughout the tournament? Why then a no to hawk eye which has been introduced into the most conservative grand slams of tennis, not to speak of cricket and rugby?
One argument, which has many takers, is that not having hi-tech interventions in decision making has something to do with the dark, dark world of betting. Though there is no one to verify this with facts or figures, it is true that millions of dollars are traded on wagers during the world cup with almost the entire globe involved in the ring. It would be mayhem for the bettors if video referrals were to reverse decisions - there would be blood and gore all over moolah street, a casualty not many in or out of the organization may be willing to allow. But then, this is just an argument which can find its bearings only in the future. Till then, one can only keep fingers crossed against fatally wrong decisions by those minders in the middle who are after all as human as the rest of us erring population is.
Source: Sunday Pioneer, July 4, 2010
It would have been a perfect evening had Brazil withstood the pressure against Holland the other day but it was not to be. With other big teams like Italy, France and England already back home without any gains, the tournament is moving towards an inevitable anti-climax.
Of course a clear picture of what's to be will emerge only after the Argentina-Germany tie gets to a decision (the page goes into production much before that). But the run-up to the big days has been rather eventful. France did a Zidane headbutt kind of "losing it" campaign this year, lending unsporting words like revolution and rebellion to the event before being packed off home on an economy class ticket after being humbled by Slovakia in a match where off-field tensions far outweighed the dribble in the middle.
Italy went out too but to nothing more than comprehensive non-performance on a given day. Except for certain players missing in the squad due to coach Lippi's arguably wrong pickings, and Buffon's untimely injury, there was nothing else more dramatic that did Italy in.
Brazil is too recent a memory in the line-up to really need a recall but suffice it to say, the samba kings fell to their own mind halts and there was nothing more the Dutchmen needed to put their hard work into successful practice.
England, on the other hand, were victims of so many things that a list would look unduly handsome. They were prisoners of their stern coach; hostage to their scathing media; vulnerable to in-team rumblings and party to spats that Terry and Capello indulged in in off-time.
But it was England's plight that finally made football's resistance to technology look so utterly stupid that even a diehard critic of the new age hawk eye like Blatter had to come centrestage and make some noises about it. The goal that was denied to England by a referee who was 90 degrees from the goal post changed the complexion of the game for the Englishmen. From where the referee was standing, there was no hope in hell for him to have spotted the ball correctly, especially when it was doing a continuous tango with the goal bar and the ground. That he was removed from the tournament would hardly assuage the anger and the frustration that the English would be feeling, with or without the holidaying they are indulging in nowadays. Fact is that had there been a hawk eye, the second goal by England would have changed things. England would not have gotten desperate enough to leave defence to the Gods and head to the rival D en masse. Germany would not have been able to sneak in the goals so easily and for all you know there might have been a stretch to shootouts.
But all that is history which is a nice place for meaningless arguments. The more important fallout of this is the fact that after this tournament technology vigils will finally enter the playing field to assist the referees who are the most stressed beings when compared to any other sport.
It is baffling why Blatter, who is poised for another term as FIFA president till 2014, would have such an unexplained aversion to technology. Hasn't he been instrumental in giving his go-ahead to hi-tech changes by Adidas where the Jabulani ball is concerned? And hasn't that all gone wrong with the FIFA finally admitting it is "not deaf" to the erratic behaviour that the ball has been sporting throughout the tournament? Why then a no to hawk eye which has been introduced into the most conservative grand slams of tennis, not to speak of cricket and rugby?
One argument, which has many takers, is that not having hi-tech interventions in decision making has something to do with the dark, dark world of betting. Though there is no one to verify this with facts or figures, it is true that millions of dollars are traded on wagers during the world cup with almost the entire globe involved in the ring. It would be mayhem for the bettors if video referrals were to reverse decisions - there would be blood and gore all over moolah street, a casualty not many in or out of the organization may be willing to allow. But then, this is just an argument which can find its bearings only in the future. Till then, one can only keep fingers crossed against fatally wrong decisions by those minders in the middle who are after all as human as the rest of us erring population is.
Source: Sunday Pioneer, July 4, 2010
Comments
Post a Comment