Goal Line Technology Essay

IntroductionSoccer is undoubtedly unmatchable of the almost popular sports worldwide. From regional club championship to the world cup, for each nonpareil association footb in all stock-stillt is watched with tremendous enthusiasm by mint all everyplace the world. As soon as the match turn ups and until it ends, association football fascinates its witnesss by passes, shots, tackles, free kicks and penalties. Of course, in the course of all this, there be likewise deaths. Whenever the ball enters the endeavor, it is a moment of triumph. For a moment everyone watching is left-hand(a) awe-struck until the realization sets in, and then there is much rejoices. However, what if, the judge blows his whistle and prescribes the finishing was invalid. Moreover, what if, a ball that was seemingly deflected by the designkeeper is counted as a coating. Obviously, this would have its repercussions, but this is the inclination pronounced in the name and address task engin eering. Two IFA-approved methods of implementing goal make so far exist Hawk-Eye and GoalRef. To start a discussion about goal rakehell, it should be understood how each of these proficiency works. Hawk-Eye, the more(prenominal) than favored proficiency, is one which is already being apply in the sports of cricket and tennis. The technique makes expenditure of six high- urge cameras connect to fast-processing computers. These cameras track every movement of the soccer ball as it moves by dint of the field, and the computers calculate the relative position on the ball based on metrics provided by the cameras.When the ball would pass the goal line, the computers would be cap fitting to determine this and the possibility of a goal would have to be articulated. The technique is more favored beca persona of its potential to produce excellent 3D replays of what took place, and to a fault because it can be used on-field for opposite purposes than just goal line. For instance, t he curves a specific free kick shot took, or even if an offsides actually occurred or non could be effected with the help of Hawk-Eye. However, this technique would be sooner expensive to implement. High-speed cameras aside, every soccer stadium would in either case need to implement black netting which is likewise a prerequisite of Hawk-Eye. On the other hand, GoalRef is a much more frugal option. GoalRef makes use of a powerless magnetic field around the posts and a magnetic try in the ball. As soon as the low-powered magnetic field is nominate to be penetrated by the magnetic probe completely, the re sentimenter is nonified through a hand-held device that a goal has occurred and the judge can announce it almost immediately.The relative simplicity of the physique and engineering science being used excessively makes it easier for ball manufacturers to add probes into the balls. However, compared to the numerosity of uses that Hawk-Eye provides, GoalRef is a bit lack ing. Taking into consideration these factors, the discussion in this musical theme would focus on both the technologies rather than one. (Euro maneuver, 2012) Goal line engine room has been debated from both ends of the argument by various soccer overseeing bodies much(prenominal) as FIFA and UEFA for much of the last decade. However, to-date, no compromise has been reached. There are devil flat coats for which goal line technology has been proposed.Firstly, according to international soccer rules, a goal is scored if a ball completely passes the goal line. However, the on-field referee can non judge this as he has to stay away from the goal during times of tone-beginning and defense. In the recent past, this inability of referees has resulted in many handle judgments. Secondly, the use of decision-aid technology is being aggressively integrated in various other sports. With every passing year, popular sports across the world are introducing decision-aid technology to both aid existing referees or even replace them. As the pressure on soccer associations mount, it has wrench necessary to realize whether goal line technology is good or bad for the wager. This paper would get by that goal line technology is essential as it provides essential value to the game and also because arguments against it are largely invalid.Providing Transparent JusticeThe inclusion of technology, however slight, in decision-making capabilities would enhance the decisions make by the referees. The referee governance employed in soccer is kn avouch to possess quite particular(a) capabilities (Collins, 2010). In essence, it consists of three undivideds a primary(prenominal) referee and two helper referees. The standard is that the main referee runs diagonally from the north-east of the field to the south-west. However, the main referee does not normally enter the penalty area. However, both of the said(prenominal) criteria are not strict and the referee can follow h is own path during the course of the match. As the diagonal run of the main referee covers the north-east and south-west area of the field, the assistant referees essentially are obligated for judging the north-west and south-east area of the field. The assistant referees are also responsible for calling offside and throws. From this skeleton description, it might seem that the refereeing system is quiet adequate. However, this is quite incorrect as this system does not allow the referee to provide what is cognize by right-down justice, i.e. what appears to be the most correct decision (Col headspring, 2000).First of all, it should be mention that the break of transparent justice only arose in the last 15-20 years as broadcasting of soccer matches and events grew only more popular (Colwell, 2000). Before that the referees decisions were largely associated with presumptive justice, i.e. justice is done because one was in position to assess it. This presumptive justice was assum ed to be transparent justice. The referee called it as he saw it, and that was the end of it. The referees authority was based on the persuasion of epistemic privilege, i.e. the referee was in the position to best see it as it is, as he had the walking(prenominal) view of the players action and he possessed great knowledge of soccer rules (Colwell, 2000 Collins, 2010). However, with television broadcasting, there came the concept of replays. The replay allowed the viewer to see from multiple of angles an event within the match. Moreover, even the intuitive feeling of speed could be slowed down to clearly realize what actually happened within a particular event in the match. Even further, the rules of soccer were quickly made available online and the growing interest in soccer made players known to most of the rules (Leveaux, 2010).The epistemological privilege that the referee held had been completely desecrated when newer technologies came to be known (Colwell, 2000). The refer ee no longer had the superior view, as the viewers through television often could see what actually occurred from contrary views and even speeds. This provided the viewer to be in a position of greater epistemological privilege than the referee. As the referee has lost his epistemological privilege, it has only become questionable that soccer relies only on the referee to make decisions. around might even question whether referees are even needed as even a knowledgeable individual watching the match from a television set is bound to make best calls than the on-field referee. The loss of epistemological privilege is best seen in the penalty area. The most intense of occurrences in soccer tend to occur in the penalty area (Collins, 2010). However, it is also one area where the referee cannot be present (Euro pleasure, 2012). As is quite frequent, the penalty area tends to be filled up with defenders and attackers during an intense play, and the referee can in such a position only v iew from far.Moreover, any decisions that the referee makes is from a distant viewpoint or both through the help of an assistant referee (Collins, 2010). However, this means that the referee is not able to call it as it is, but rather call it as he sees it. This means that the referee is no longer the best provider of transparent justice in a match. The issue particularly arises as slightlytimes during most intense of plays the ball barely passes through the goal line and is then quickly pulled out by a reason player or the goalkeeper. Such an occurrence cannot be seen clearly either by the referee or any of his assistants. It should now be noted that the goal line technology allows even such a brief event to be recognized and hence transparent justice to be provided. For this reason, as a goal line technology would provide ameliorate justice, and as the tone of fair play requires that better justice be provided, the argument for the effectuation of goal-line technology only g athers momentum.The Invalidity of Arguments AgainstThe main reason for not implementing the technology is said to be that it would reduce the fun in the game. Although this reason seems to be one of the weaker ones that can be go alongn against GLT, it also seems to be the one that many aficionados and representers favor. For them (and it seems for FIFA), it is these types of incidents in sport that gives it value and makes it entertaining. The notion that fans still represent about Englands goal against Germany in 1966 and their more recent disallowed attempt in the 2010 World Cup as well as countless incidents in club games, indicate that these events remain in footballing consciousness. Yet at the same time, people seem wedded to the idea of justice and luridness and would protest vehemently if they or their team were below the belt penalized or given an undue handicap. Furthermore, in professional sport, where careers and livelihoods are parasitic on fair and impartial dec isions, the idea that sport is better by not implementing technology that would assist in sporting justice seems comical indeed. (Leveaux, 2010 Ryall, 2012)The philosophy of sport literature is replete with discussion on fairness and justice so much so that it arguably accounts for the greatest harmonize of academic thought in this domain, whether this centers on doping, cheating, spoiling, or the characters and virtues of those involved. So to say that it doesnt really matter whether sport is fair or not seems to be inconsistent with the amount of time and effort devoted to discussing it. Sport is based on a notion of fairness however that notion is defined. If players didnt think that they were being given a fair materialize (and this includes handicaps in sports such as sailing and golf) then they would soon give up participating. As such, it would be absurd to argue that officials (at the bequest of regime bodies such as FIFA) provide these controversial incidents so that fa ns have something to argue about in the pub. Referee Jorge Larrionda didnt disallow Englands goal against Germany in 2010 because he was being unfair, he simply made a mistake in his observation.As far as Larrionda was concerned he was attempting to be as fair and consistent with the rules as possible, it was his observation skills that let him down. As is noted with reference to FIFAs other reasons, human demerit is something that FIFA is happy to accept and even embrace. FIFAs response may be that since these incidents are rare, the wellbeing gained from them in entertainment value outweighs the cost to the game itself. What FIFA doesnt consider in this response however, is the cost that is borne by individual stakeholders, such as managers, players, club owners and investors. Such a cost / benefit analysis, that FIFA appear to adopt with this reason, is a very crude tool to use at the business end of the game. Hence, FIFAs argument is largely jobless and does not have any al- Qaida. (Leveaux, 2010 Ryall, 2012)Support for Technology Implementation other reason why technology should be utilize is because the carrying into action of technology has gathered tremendous support in the past few years. in particular after the incorrect calls in the 2010 World Cup and in some recent league championships, viewers, players and even soccer clubs themselves have called upon FIFA to test and put up performance of goal line technologies (Ryall, 2012). Even FIFA itself recognized the need for goal line technology after the blunder of the 2010 World Cup (Leveaux, 2010). contempt the necessity of it being realized and this much support, FIFA has time and again waivered on its stance to implement goal line technology. More recently, the head of UEFA blatantly renounced goal line technology by stating that this is not what the fans want, and this is not what the referees want, and this is not what the soccer clubs themselves want. However, there can be no absurd and b latantly wrong assumption than this.A study of the referees viewpoints on execution of technology was conducted by Leveaux (2010). The study interviewed nearly 40 referees from soccer, and also many others from other sports. The referees were interviewed on a variety of topics, one of which was the implementation of technology. Interestingly, majority referees called for decision-aid technology to be implemented in their respective sports. Amongst soccer referees this majority was unanimous. All soccer referees called for technology to be implemented in soccer. Two rationales were provided piece of ass this by the referees themselves. The referees first stated that the notion that soccer is a simple game that has not been intruded by technology so far is incorrect. In fact, technology is currently utilized by referees themselves in pre-game preparation and also in monitoring time-related events, i.e. extra time.Hence, if any implementation is denied on the basis that technology wo uld make the sport lose its charm, it was wrong according to the referees. Moreover, the referees said that the burden of wrong decisions often falls on them and there is not much protection provided to them when such cases occur. Indeed, there are stories of referees being verbally abused for a wrong call. In some cases, referees have also been abused of making right but less-traveled calls. The rationale then was that by including goal line technology, the referees would be able to steer the burden of the any possible decision away from them to the true technology. Hence, it should be noted that referees were in support of such an implementation and not against it as UEFA and FIFA would have one believe.Even fans and players support the notion of goal line technology. A survey conducted amongst avid soccer fans in AUS also resulted in a similar viewpoint. The survey focused on two questions. The first question was how much does an individual debate on the notion of whether the b all passed the goal or it did not. The second question was straightforwardly postulation whether goal line technology should be implemented or not. well-nigh 50 AUS students were surveyed, and all of them were avid fans of soccer. The results found vastly supported the implementation of goal line technology. It was found that a very insignificant minority (15%) actually debated things such as whether the ball passed the goal line, and most people often did not even notice when such things happened during the match.Moreover, nearly 95% said that a technology should be implemented if it allows for a better call on whether a goal has occurred or not. The reason behind this was that soccer fans would like goals to count in a sport where goals rarely occur at times. For instance, in between teams of equal strength, even a single goal could decide the match however, often the games go on to penalty, and this is more undesirable than even the slight opposition to goal line technology. I t should also be noted that a literature review found that most soccer players tend to be supportive of goal line technology. This was because most of these people often worked hard to bring the ball from one half to another, and when a goal that had occurred was not awarded it was often cause for frustration. Hence, it should be realized that implementation of goal line technology held massive amounts of support in fans, referees and players.ConclusionFrom the discussion above, it is quite clear that the argument for the implementation of goal line technology has a lot of benefits and support. The use of different systems can also allow to make the match only more interesting rather than disrupting to the games flow or element of interest. Moreover, the arguments against do not have any actual basis in them. Surveys and literature review have not found any arguments to be valid. More or less, the arguments against is based on the opinions of a need few people are known to be cons ervative and whose in-person interests in the game are affected by the technology.In comparison, an surprise majority supports and advocates the use of goal line technology, and this includes soccer players and almost all soccer fans. It should be noted that the world is changing everyday as newer technological progress is made. In this technologically progressing era, it is only questionable that a sport as popular as soccer has not implemented any aspects of technology within it. When even the most mundane of sports such as cricket have included not only one but dozens of technology that aid in decision-making to its umpires. For these reasons, it should be realized that soccer games should possess goal line technology.ReferencesColwell, S. (2000). The letterand the spirit football game laws and refereeing in the twentyfirst century. Soccer and Society, 1(1), 201-214. Collins, H. (2010). The philosophy of umpiring and the intro of decision-aid technology. Journal of the Philos ophy of Sport, 37(2), 135-146. EuroSport. (2012, July 5). Goal-Line Technology How Does It Work? EuroSport. Retrieved from http//uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/ Mignerat, M., & Audebrand, L. K. (2010). Towards the Adoption of e-Refereeing and e-Ticketing in Elite Soccer Championships an Institutional Perspective. Paper submitted to International Conference on Information Systems, St. Louis, Missouri. Leveaux, R. (2010). Facilitating Referees Decision Making in Sport via the Application of Technology. Retrieved from http//bisongbakiaholmes.files.wordpress.com/ Ryall, E. (2012). Are there any Good Arguments Against Goal-Line Technology? Sports, ethical motive and Philosophy. Retrieved from http//goo.gl/6eX4p