•    HOME   
•    NEWS   
•    BUSINESS   
•    INTERNATIONAL   
•    TECH   
•    SPORTS   
•    LIFE & TIMES   
•    OPINION   
•    MY JAKARTA   
•    BLOGS   
•    EYEWITNESS   

There has been much debate over goal-line technology in the past few years and it seems FIFA, initially hesitant, is starting to think it may not be such a bad idea. What can be wrong, the argument goes, with giving the referee an extra pair of eyes?

Nothing. Nothing at all. If you don’t mind football, the world game, turning into American football, where the breaks in play last longer than the match itself.

Technology is a good thing. As long as it’s used correctly. And using goal-line technology specifically for questionable decisions on the goal line has to be a good use of technology.

Much like the ball-tracking systems used in tennis, goal-line sensors would indicate whether the ball had crossed the line or not. Definitive answers would cut short many a pub discussion about whether, for example, Geoff Hurst’s pile driver during the 1966 World Cup final for England, which bounced down off the underside of the crossbar, should have counted or not.

That’s all well and good, but such decisions are very rare occasions in football. Far more numerous are the “little” decisions that refs and their assistants get wrong in the course of a game. Add them together and you get justice not being served.

Take, for example, the exciting FA Cup tie between League Two newcomer Crawley Town and English Premier League side Stoke City, the runner up in last year’s competition.

Goal-line technology would have been no earthly good in this game, which Stoke City won 2-0 to reach the quarterfinals. But imagine there was some other technological safeguard in place for this particular game. We would have perhaps seen a very different result.

Stoke manager Tony Pulis was left fuming after a reckless challenge by Rory Delap saw his player red carded early in the first half. Now if there was, for example, an official sitting in the TV gantry with access to video replay, he would have seen the studs go in high and would have supported the man in the middle.

But it’s not until after the Delap incident that things start to get interesting. Minutes later Crawley had a free kick, which it pumped into the box. A Crawley player, with two Stoke defenders following him, attacked the ball and fell down in a heap. Subsequent replays suggested that one of the defenders had made no attempt to get the ball, preferring to impede the attacker.

Match officials, apparently, are human and as such, are keen to avoid controversy. Having seen the reaction to the red card moments earlier, the ref, wanting an easy ride home, saw nothing and play continued. The Crawley players didn’t help themselves by not appealing and remonstrating in front of him, which is what professional footballers normally do.

Play switched down the other end and this time the ref did give a penalty when a Stoke player went tumbling down in the box. This time replays showed there was next to no contact. But the ref, already under pressure for having given Crawley a one-man advantage, sought to even things up by pointing to the spot. Stoke scored and was on its way to the next round.

Forget the limiting impact of goal-line technology. With an eye in the sky, another official could have overruled the man on the pitch and Stoke City could well have been out of the FA Cup.

Yes, it is the “big” decisions that make the headlines, but too often in football it is the more mundane calls that decide a game.