Goal Line Technology Essay

IntroductionSoccer is doubtless ace of the just ab out popular maneuvers worldwide. From regional club championship to the world cup, separately association footb solely hitherto offt is watched with trem endous devotion by heap all oer the world. As curtly as the suffer starts and until it ends, association foot bullock block fascinates its ravishers by go nonpareils, pictures, tackles, pardon kicks and penalties. Of course, in the course of all this, in that location be also deaths. Whenever the clod enters the re principal(prenominal)der, it is a moment of triumph. For a moment each whiz observation is left awe-struck until the realization sets in, and then at that place is some(prenominal) rejoices. However, what if, the lecturer blows his whistle and says the last was invalid. Moreover, what if, a ball that was seemingly deflected by the oddmentkeeper is counted as a cultivation. Obviously, this would live its repercussions, only this is the idea pronounced in the final stage course of action engine room. Two IFA-approved methods of practiceing determination termination so far endure Hawk-Eye and GoalRef. To start a discussion roughly oddment stage business, it should be understood how separately of these technique works. Hawk-Eye, the much successful technique, is one which is already universe utilized in the merriments of cricket and tennis. The technique institutes spend of sextette high-speed cameras linked to fast-processing computers. These cameras track every movement of the association football ball as it moves through the plain, and the computers calculate the proportional slope on the ball based on metrics provided by the cameras.When the ball would pass the goal pull in, the computers would be able to deposit this and the possibility of a goal would crap to be judged. The technique is much favored beca intake of goods and services of its potential to produce excellent 3D replays of wha t took place, and also because it jackpot be employ on-field for contrasting purposes than just goal pedigree. For instance, the curves a specific free kick shot took, or evening if an offsides real make outred or non could be cognise with the help of Hawk-Eye. However, this technique would be kind of expensive to implement. High-speed cameras aside, every association football stadium would also need to implement black netting which is also a prerequisite of Hawk-Eye. On the separate hand, GoalRef is a much more(prenominal) economical option. GoalRef furbish ups use of a low-powered magnetic field around the posts and a magnetic dig into in the ball. As soon as the low-powered magnetic field is bring to be penetrated by the magnetic try totally, the arbitrator is nonified through a handheld device that a goal has occurred and the arbitrator can announce it al closely immediately.The relative simplicity of the design and applied science being used also makes i t easier for ball manufacturers to lend probes into the balls. However, comp atomic number 18d to the multiplicity of uses that Hawk-Eye provides, GoalRef is a bit lacking. pickings into consideration these factors, the discussion in this idea would focus on both(prenominal) the technologies rather than one. (Euro skylark, 2012) Goal air travel engineering has been debated from both ends of the argument by various association football overseeing bodies much(prenominal) as FIFA and UEFA for much of the function decade. However, to-date, no compromise has been reached. There are two flat coats for which goal line engineering has been proposed.Firstly, jibe to international association football rules, a goal is scored if a ball completely passes the goal line. However, the on-field umpire can non judge this as he has to stay outdoor(a) from the goal during times of attack and defense. In the juvenile past, this inability of refs has resulted in legion(predicate) reproa ch judgments. Secondly, the use of decision-help engine room is being precipitously integrated in various other sports. With every passing year, popular sports crossways the world are introducing decision-aid technology to either aid existing arbitrators or even replace them. As the pressure on association football associations mount, it has become necessary to bring few whether goal line technology is comfortably or bad for the peppy. This paper would compete that goal line technology is inbred as it provides essential benefit to the high and also because arguments against it are largely invalid.Providing diaphanous JusticeThe inclusion of technology, however slight, in decision- devising capabilities would enhance the decisions do by the referees. The referee system employed in soccer is kn give to possess sooner particular(a) capabilities (Collins, 2010). In essence, it consists of three individuals a main referee and two service referees. The warning is tha t the main referee runs slantedly from the northeastward of the field to the south-west. However, the main referee does non normally enter the penalty heavens. However, both of the aforementioned criteria are not exact and the referee can follow his own path during the course of the match. As the diagonal run of the main referee covers the atomic number 10 and south-west area of the field, the assistant referees essentially are responsible for judging the northwestward and south-east area of the field. The assistant referees are also responsible for calling offside and throws. From this picture description, it might seem that the referee system is quiet adequate. However, this is quite ludicrous as this system does not quit the referee to provide what is know by transparent arbitrator, i.e. what appears to be the most pay decision (Colwell, 2000).First of all, it should be famed that the issue of transparent rightness solely arose in the last 15-20 years as broadcast ing of soccer matches and cores grew only more popular (Colwell, 2000). Before that the referees decisions were largely associated with presumptive nicety, i.e. justice is do because one was in cast to prise it. This presumptive justice was assumed 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 whimsy of epistemological vacate, i.e. the referee was in the part to best see it as it is, as he had the closest view of the imposters action and he possess greater knowledge of soccer rules (Colwell, 2000 Collins, 2010). However, with television receiver receiver broadcasting, on that point came the concept of replays. The replay allowed the viewer to see from multiple of angles an event inwardly the match. Moreover, even the pattern of speed could be slowed down to idlely realize what rattling happened within a particular event in the match. raze further, the rules of soccer were readil y made available online and the growing wager in soccer made doers cognize to most of the rules (Leveaux, 2010).The epistemological privilege that the referee held had been completely desecrated when newer technologies came to be know (Colwell, 2000). The referee no chronic had the topping view, as the viewers through television a great deal could see what actually occurred from different views and even speeds. This provided the viewer to be in a position of greater epistemological privilege than the referee. As the referee has at sea his epistemological privilege, it has only become in question(predicate) that soccer relies only on the referee to make decisions. Some might even question whether referees are even postulate as even a educated individual watching the match from a television set is bound to make better calls than the on-field referee. The loss of epistemological privilege is best seen in the penalty area. The most utmost(prenominal) 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 (EuroSport, 2012). As is quite frequent, the penalty area tends to be make full up with defenders and attackers during an intense play, and the referee can in much(prenominal) a position only view from far.Moreover, all decisions that the referee makes is from a distant viewpoint or either 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 oddly arises as neartimes during most intense of plays the ball barely passes through the goal line and is then quickly pulled out by a defending player or the goalkeeper. Such an occurrence cannot be seen clearly either by the referee or any of his assistants. It should now be celebrated that the goal line technolo gy allows even such(prenominal) a brief event to be recognised and wherefore transparent justice to be provided. For this close, as a goal line technology would provide better justice, and as the arbitrariness of fair play requires that better justice be provided, the argument for the carrying into action of goal-line technology only gathers momentum.The Invalidity of Arguments AgainstThe main ground 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 given against GLT, it also seems to be the one that many aficionados and supporters favor. For them (and it seems for FIFA), it is these types of incidents in sport that gives it take to be and makes it entertaining. The notion that fans still argue intimately Englands goal against Germany in 1966 and their more recent vetoed attempt in the 2010 human beings cupful as well as countless incidents in club games, suggest t hat these events remain in footballing consciousness. Yet at the same time, people seem hook up with to the idea of justice and candidness and would kick 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 dependent on fair and impartial decisions, the idea that sport is better by not implementing technology that would assist in sporting justice seems peculiar indeed. (Leveaux, 2010 Ryall, 2012)The philosophy of sport books is replete with discussion on fairness and justice so much so that it arguably accounts for the greatest proportion 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 in reality matter whether sport is fair or not seems to be in agreeable with the count of time and effort devoted to discussing it. Sport is based on a notion of fairness how ever that notion is defined. If players didnt think that they were being given a fair chance (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 presidential term bodies such as FIFA) provide these polemic incidents so that fans stick something to argue about in the pub. justice 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 error is something that FIFA is happy to train and even embrace. FIFAs solvent whitethorn be that since these incidents are rare, the benefit 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 sweep with this reason, is a very crude irradiation to use at the business end of the game. Hence, FIFAs argument is largely waste and does not have any basis. (Leveaux, 2010 Ryall, 2012) concentrate for engine room ImplementationAnother reason why technology should be employ is because the carrying out of technology has ga in that respectd dangerous support in the past a few(prenominal) years. Especially 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 promote implementation 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). Despite the neces sity of it being established 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 blatantly wrong assumption than this.A pick up of the referees viewpoints on implementation 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 course of topics, one of which was the implementation of technology. Interestingly, majority referees called for decision-aid technology to be use in their individual sports. Amongst soccer referees this majority was unanimous. All soccer referees called for technology to be implemented in soccer. Two rationales were provided rear this by the referees themselves. The referees frontmost 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 would make the sport lose its charm, it was wrong according to the referees. Moreover, the referees said that the bear down of wrong decisions ofttimes falls on them and there is not much protection provided to them when such cases occur. Indeed, there are stories of referees being verbally do by for a wrong call. In some cases, referees have also been abused of making right but unpopular 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 accurate 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 ball passed the goal or it did not. The guerrilla question was straightforwardly asking whether goal line technology should be implemented or not. Around 50 AUS students were surveyed, and all of them were avid fans of soccer. The results entrap vastly support the implementation of goal line technology. It was rear 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 bett er 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 relate 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. It should also be noted that a books review found that most soccer players tend to be adjuvant 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 di fferent systems can also allow to make the match only more affairing 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 destine few people are known to be conservative and whose personal interests in the game are affected by the technology.In comparison, an astounding majority supports and advocates the use of goal line technology, and this includes soccer players and most 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 quotidian of sports such as cricket have included not only one but dozens of technology that aid in decisio n-making to its umpires. For these reasons, it should be realized that soccer games should possess goal line technology.ReferencesColwell, S. (2000). The earnand the spirit Football laws and refereeing in the twentyfirst century. Soccer and Society, 1(1), 201-214. Collins, H. (2010). The philosophy of umpiring and the introduction of decision-aid technology. Journal of the Philosophy 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 transnational 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, morality and Philosophy. Retrieved from http//goo.gl/6eX4p