You've heard of fish 'n' chips, England's delectable contribution to world cuisine. Now the Brits have something new up their sleeves: balls 'n' chips — coming soon to a soccer stadium near you.
But let's back up for a second.
All of us who watch sports on TV have seen referees making dramatically wrong calls. It's easy to criticize the ref from your comfy, cupholder-equipped Barcalounger: you see the action played back in slow motion multiple times, from three or four different camera angles. The arbiter out in the field doesn't have that advantage.
But why not? We've collectively entrusted our lives to complex, mission-critical technology that controls everything from our power plants to our airliners to our emergency-response systems. But apparently, letting a ref look at an instant replay on a sideline monitor (or even on a wireless, video-enabled PDA he could carry in his breast pocket) is still impermissible. I'm stumped. With athletes' careers and reputations at stake, sponsors' bottom lines affected, and millions of people emotionally invested in the game, what could be fairer than to augment the referee's human judgment with video technology — especially since that technology reached maturity decades ago? And tell me this: Why is it fine to install a photo-finish camera at a racetrack (thus giving a machine the final word about the outcome), but not to let technology help decide if a tennis ball was struck out, or if a soccer player deserves a red card for having kicked an opponent?
The matter is relevant again after a high-level British soccer match played yesterday. During Tottenham vs. Manchester United, the referee erroneously disallowed a deciding goal, costing Tottenham the victory. The man in black hadn't seen the ball roll across the line, though it clearly did — by at least three feet — before goalie Roy Carroll pawed it back into the field. Untold numbers of television viewers watched it happen, again and again, no doubt shaking their heads over the ref's blunder.
This kind of thing happens frequently. And still, FIFA, the soccer world's governing body, won't hear of using video technology. High-placed FIFA staffers reconfirmed their anti-video stance today. Officials in most other sports are afflicted by similar cases of techno-abhorrence.
In fairness, though, FIFA has authorized a trial of a soccer ball with a chip inside. Adidas has been trying to perfect the invention recently. The idea is that when the ball crosses the goal line, an alarm sounds. The Guardian writes that if the field test is successful, balls-with-chips may be used in real-life matches as early as next month.
It's a start.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
UPDATE: The Guardian corrects its story today, January 7. According to the paper, Adidas is working on a ball with a chip but hasn't produced one yet, and that could take months or years. The previous day's claim that the electronically enhanced ball could be pressed into service next month was apparently wrong, although there is an alternative that's ready to go. A German firm called Cairos Technologies has equipped a ball with a tiny radio chip
"...that transmits 2,000 signals a second to a network of aerials hidden in the flood lights or under the stadium roof. ... When the computerised tracking system registers a goal, it immediately sends a message to a vibrating sleeve worn by the referee. .... Similar chips in shin-guards can track the players and help judge everything from offsides and if the wall is far enough away at free-kicks to whether the goalkeeper moved off his line before a penalty."
Also:
"Cairos could install the system at top football clubs for free and then sell the information gathered to the media and fans as virtual replays. "A fan could download a game and watch it on his PlayStation, but choose the angle of the camera or watch it from the perspective of their favourite player." Several Premiership teams have expressed interest in using the data to coach players."
Comments