Basic HTML Version
touchline
Is Technology Moving
The GOALPOSTS Too Far?
There once was a time when the decision of the referee or umpire
in sport was unquestionable – at least by the players. Even if
the partisan crowd thought that they could do a better job, the
referee’s decision was final on the pitch of play. Now in many
sports the traditional view about the final authority of the referee
appears to be changing.
Three sports that have recently highlighted the changing
interaction between technology and sport are cricket, formula 1
and tennis.
Cricket, as the Ashes series has recently demonstrated, boasts
‘hotspot’ replays to sit along-side ‘Hawk-eye’, television replays
and the ‘Snick-o-meter’. Similarly, the Formula 1 authorities are
constantly tweaking the technical limits and allowances to keep
team mechanics in check, while Wimbledon showcased the
referral system with Hawk-eye.
Just how much of a say is technology having on modern sport, its
rules and how they are officiated? And to what level of influence
is this scientific aid acceptable?
Well to look at some examples of sports influenced by technology,
we can differentiate between two different approaches. Help for
the officials and help for the sportsman.
Aiding the officials may, on the face of it, be the easiest to justify.
Accuracy of decisions can surely only benefit the game and
appease the supporters who suffer bouts of apoplectic disbelief
at blatantly erroneous decisions by officials every week (courtesy
of several slow motion replays, from four angles in the comfort of
their armchair).
This has lead to Hawk-eye; perhaps the most successful line-
calling technology widely accepted in modern sport. Utilised in
cricket to determine the path of the cricket ball in LBW appeals,
if only for the viewers’ piece of mind rather than the umpires,
Hawk-eye has become second nature in cricket.
Even more so in Tennis where line calls are now decided by
officials in conjunction with Hawk-eye, and even relied upon for
referrals of human calls.
There is also talk about bringing in hawk-eye to adjudge goal line
disputes in football, and the system is currently being reviewed
by FIFA.
Another norm these days is the instant television replay. Most
sports have introduced this technology with positive results,
including cricket for run outs, catches, boundaries and stumpings,
rugby for grounding of the ball and offsides, baseball for home
runs, basketball for ‘buzzer beaters’, ice hockey for goal line
disputes, various different uses in American football and so on.
The notable exception is football. Why are the powers that be in
football so afraid of implementing video replays? Is it the worry
that the game will be slowed down? If the technology was used
merely for goal line disputes there would be no greater delay than
say, the taking of a throw-in.
Maybe they wish to stand by the truism of “what goes around
comes around”? This is after all part of the fun of football, its
unpredictability and talking points. This could be acceptable
if everyman and his dog didn’t harp on about the injustices so
vehemently. Or is it that they are concerned about undermining
the authority of the referee?
Television referees in Rugby League are an example of how the
system should work; the anonymous television referee working to
empower the on-field referee.
Replays are also employed in racing, such as photo finishes in
horse racing and athletics, and also in motor racing such as
NASCAR. Television replays are also used in snooker in order to
rearrange the table to its exact state prior to a shot.
All of these instances arguably improve the running of the sport,
helping to avoid controversy and ambiguity. So it is unclear why
some sports have embraced this new technology to improve the
decision–making process whilst others still oppose it.
The other variety of technological help is that aimed directly or
indirectly at the sportsmen themselves. This comes in different
forms from drugs to equipment.
While performance enhancing drugs are outlawed in sport, there
is widespread use of medicine, pain relief and isotonic drinks
to help condition the human body to push it beyond its natural
capabilities.
With regards equipment enhancements, you only have to look
at how world records have tumbled over the years courtesy of
improved technology. For example, the poles used in Pole vaulting
were originally wooden, followed by bamboo, steel then aluminium,
but it was the introduction of glass fibre-based composites in the
1960s which brought a step change in records.
The most recent debate has surrounded the use of high tech
streamlined, neoprene all body swimming suits that not only
reduce drag but are argued to aid the body’s fight against
fatigue.
The 1978 Swedish Grand Prix demonstrates technology gone too
far. The race was won by the Brabham “fan car”, which utilised
a fan in order to create suction and downforce and a winning
margin of over 30 seconds… which was ultimately deemed illegal
in design. A similar debate rages around the introduction of
diffusers on current F1 cars.
On another slightly more light-hearted note, it was interesting to
see Manchester United goal keeper Ben Foster using a video Ipod
before the penalty shoot-out against Tottenham Hotspur in last
year’s Carling Cup final to see where the opposition were most
likely to place their shots.
Considering football has consistently rejected video replays, the
sport utilises many advanced sciences to improve the performance
of players, such as Pro-zone which analyses player movement,
contribution and work rate in depth over every blade of grass.
There is also the use of specialist training equipment such as
altitude chambers in order to improve fitness.
In American football, players now have radio transmitters
Feature
4
F