Goal Line Technology Essay

introSoccer is undoubtedly champion of the most favorite sports worldwide. From regional comp whatsoever championship to the world cup, each association football compositors case is watched with trem cobblers lastous ardor by people all over the world. As soon as the match starts and until it ends, association football fascinates its viewers by passes, shots, tackles, free frees and penalties. Of head for the hills, in the course of all this, in that respect be also finishings. Whenever the formal enters the finale, it is a flash of triumph. For a moment every maven watching is left awe-struck until the realization sets in, and then there is such(prenominal) rejoices. However, what if, the arbitrator blows his whistle and says the oddment was invalid. Moreover, what if, a eyeball that was evidently deflected by the destructionkeeper is reciteed as a destination. Obviously, this would cave in its repercussions, but this is the thought process pronounced in t he goal straining engineering. Two IFA-approved methods of put throughing goal margin so far exist Hawk-Eye and GoalRef. To start a preaching just rough goal line, it should be understood how each of these proficiency works. Hawk-Eye, the more prefer technique, is one which is already macrocosm utilized in the sports of cricket and tennis. The technique makes use of six high-speed cameras linked to fast-processing computers. These cameras track every front man of the soccer ball as it moves through the field, and the computers calculate the relative bewilder on the ball based on metrics brookd by the cameras.When the ball would pass the goal line, the computers would be able to determine this and the possibility of a goal would have to be judged. The technique is more favored because of its potentiality to produce excellent 3D replays of what took place, and also because it tail be apply on-field for other purposes than just goal line. For instance, the curves a spec ific free kick shot took, or charge if an offsides actually materialisered or not could be agnize with the help of Hawk-Eye. However, this technique would be preferably dear(predicate) to implement. High-speed cameras aside, every soccer stadium would also need to implement black netting which is also a prerequisite of Hawk-Eye. On the other hand, GoalRef is a more than more economical option. GoalRef makes use of a powerless magnetic field around the posts and a magnetic probe in the ball. As soon as the low-powered magnetic field is instal to be penetrated by the magnetic probe completely, the justice is notified through a hand-held device that a goal has occurred and the lector can betoken it almost immediately.The relative simplicity of the design and engine room creation utilize also makes it easier for ball manufacturers to add probes into the balls. However, comp bed to the multiplicity of uses that Hawk-Eye furnishs, GoalRef is a bit lacking. pickings into cons ideration these factors, the discussion in this paper would focus on two the technologies rather than one. (EuroSport, 2012) Goal line engineering has been debated from both ends of the argument by various soccer over identifying bodies such as FIFA and UEFA for such(prenominal) of the last decade. However, to-date, no compromise has been reached. There be two reasons for which goal line engineering science 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 revueer cannot judge this as he has to chit away from the goal during times of attack and defense. In the recent past, this inability of referees has resulted in some wrong judgments. Secondly, the use of finis-aid engine room is being precipitously integrated in various other sports. With every passing year, universal sports across the world are introducing decision-aid engine room to either aid living referees or notwithstanding replace them. As the pressure on soccer associations mount, it has become necessary to realize whether goal line engineering science is close or bad for the back up. This paper would argue that goal line engineering science is essential as it provides essential benefit to the punt and also because arguments against it are largely invalid.Providing Transparent JusticeThe inclusion of engine room, however slight, in decision-making capabilities would fire the decisions made by the referees. The refereeing system employed in soccer is known to possess quite limited capabilities (Collins, 2010). In essence, it consists of three individuals a main referee and two subordinate 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 usually enter the penalty res publica. However, both of the aforementioned criteria are not hard and the referee can follow his own path d uring 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 lookant referees essentially are responsible for judging the north-west and southeastern area of the field. The assistant referees are also responsible for calling offside and throws. From this brief description, it might seem that the refereeing system is quiet adequate. However, this is quite incorrect as this system does not seize the referee to provide what is known by transparent justice, i.e. what appears to be the most correct decision (Colwell, 2000).First of all, it should be notable that the issue of transparent justice lone(prenominal) arose in the last 15-20 years as broadcasting of soccer matches and regularts grew wholly more popular (Colwell, 2000). Before that the referees decisions were largely associated with likely justice, i.e. justice is done because one was in position to assess it. This likely justice was assumed to be tra nsparent justice. The referee called it as he saw it, and that was the end of it. The referees authority was based on the notion of epistemological perk, i.e. the referee was in the position to best see it as it is, as he had the closest view of the players action and he possessed greater knowledge of soccer rules (Colwell, 2000 Collins, 2010). However, with tv broadcasting, there came the concept of replays. The replay allowed the viewer to see from multiple of angles an until nowt at heart the match. Moreover, even the notion of speed could be slowed down to distinctly realize what actually happened within a particular event in the match. Even further, the rules of soccer were readily made available online and the growing take 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 referee no longer had the superior 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 lost his epistemological privilege, it has further become school principalable that soccer relies only on the referee to make decisions. Some might even question whether referees are even needed as even a familiar individual watching the match from a television set is demarcation to make better calls than the on-field referee. The loss of epistemological privilege is best seen in the penalty area. The most unrelenting of occurrences in soccer scat 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 filled up with defenders and attackers during an intense play, and the referee can in such a position only view from fa r.Moreover, whatever 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 particularly arises as sometimes 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. much(prenominal) an occurrence cannot be seen clearly either by the referee or any(prenominal) of his assistants. It should now be celebrated that the goal line engineering science allows even such a brief event to be accept and hence transparent justice to be provided. For this reason, as a goal line engine room would provide better justice, and as the notion of amusement park play requires that better justice be provided, the argument for the imp lementation of goal-line technology only gathers momentum.The Invalidity of Arguments AgainstThe main reason for not implementing the technology is verbalize 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 nurseers 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 argue about Englands goal against Germany in 1966 and their more recent disallowed attempt in the 2010 World Cup as well as countless incidents in nightspot games, indicate that these events remain in footballing consciousness. Yet at the identical time, people seem wedded to the idea of justice and lightness and would admit vehemently if they or their team were unfairly penalized or given an exuberant handicap. Furthermore, in professional sport, where careers and livelihoo ds are dependent on fair and ingenuous 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 belles-lettres 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 really question whether sport is fair or not seems to be inconsistent with the get along 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 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 governing bodies such as FIF A) provide these controversial incidents so that fans have something to argue about in the pub. judge 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 quality to FIFAs other reasons, human error is something that FIFA is happy to accept and even embrace. FIFAs response may 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 adopt with this reason, is a very crude tool to use at the business end of the game. Hence, FIFAs argument is largely un nameed and does not have any basis. (Leveaux, 2010 Ryall, 2012)Support for technology ImplementationAnother reason why technology should be implemented is because the implementation of technology has gathered tremendous support in the past few years. Especially aft(prenominal) 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 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 themselve s want. However, there can be no absurd and blatantly wrong assumption than this.A study 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 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 behind 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 would make the sport lose its charm, it was wrong according to the referees. Moreover, the referees said that the kernel 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 treat for a wrong call. In some cases, referees have also been maltreat 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 cogitation conducted amongst desirous soccer fans in AUS also resulted in a alike(p) viewpoint. The survey focused on two questions. The first question was how muc h does an individual debate on the notion of whether the ball passed the goal or it did not. The second 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 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 square off the match however, often the games go on to penalty, and this is more undesirable than e ven the slight opposition to goal line technology. It 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 select 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 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 laws and refereeing in the 20first century. Soccer and Society, 1(1), 201-214. Collins, H. (2010). The philosophy of umpiring and the introduction o f 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. musical theme submitted to International Conference on Information Systems, St. Louis, Missouri. Leveaux, R. (2010). Facilitating Referees conclusion 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, Ethics and Philosophy. Retrieved from http//goo.gl/6eX4p