Goal line technology’s staunch opposition
May 6, 2012 1 Comment
Andy Carroll’s headed effort in yesterday’s FA Cup Final reignited the debate over goal line technology once more. I say reignited, it has been raging on for quite some time now. Perhaps it is fairer to say that Andy Carroll’s headed effort found more fuel and burnt some more of the surrounding environment to a crispy ash, leaving many people homeless.
“Why don’t bladdy FIFA just introduce bladdy goal line technology already?” cried all of nation’s blokes-down-the-pub collectively en masse.
It has come to Shilts’ learned* attention that plans afoot to introduce goal line technology and appease the self appointed spokesmen of football have been prevented, not as a result of Sepp Blatter’s mixture of trademark incompetence and unwavering Luddite attitude, but rather due to a press boycott.
Though seemingly appearing to champion such reforms through giving every marginal incident such extensive coverage that the actual game itself is long forgotten, the media have aligned themselves directly against any changes for precisely this reason.
“If goal line technology was introduced, what the bollocks would we talk about after a game?!” muttered Mark Lawrenson, in an exclusive interview (with someone else). He may have muttered this, but Shilts was listening through a wall and has hearing difficulties, so the quote may not be verbatim.
“They would expect opinion and insight! We can’t give that! Rugby has video technology, have you ever seen rugby punditry? They merely shrug and say ‘that was a game of rugby’ after the game and that’s it. I want to get say how ridiculous a difficult decision is over and over again, despite having access to multiple video replays and still not coming to any conclusive conclusion, and then insist that the moment could have ‘changed the outcome entirely’.” argues Andy Townsend, displaying rare opinion and insight.
“Had Lampard’s goal against Germany been given, we would have had to find an entirely different reason to blame for England’s inevitable loss,” admitted one tabloid journalist. “These possible referring blunders are the sorts of decisions which mean we don’t have to analyse tactics and player performance beyond a few basic statistics and bias assertions. Football is all about opinion, not actual football, that’s the beauty of the game, isn’t it? Isn’t it? Beauty of the game. Isn’t it? Isn’t it? Opinion. Isn’t it?…” Shilts backed away as the journalist proceeded to enter a trance like stasis.
So there you have it. Video technology will not be introduced so that we can get more outraged at possibly incorrect decisions and express our outrage that we have to express our outrage at these possibly incorrect opinions in an ad nauseam loop. That’s what football’s all about though really isn’t it? Opinion. Isn’t it?…
The entire ball blatantly didn’t go over the line.