Soccer ball microchip helps inattentive refs

This year's under-17 world soccer championship will be the official testing ground of a new technology: a microchip embedded in the soccer ball will transmit a signal to a watchlike device on the referee's wrist, generating a beep or vibration whenever a goal is scored. The chip, developed in part by Adidas, is being incorporated in response to an incident in a match on January 4 in which England's Tottenham was denied a clear goal against Manchester United when goalkeeper Roy Carroll dropped the ball behind the line while officials were apparently looking elsewhere. We're all for using technology to solve problems, but may we humbly suggest the International Football Association Board (IFAB) ruling body might want to look into hiring some new refs willing to keep their eyes on the ball?

[Thanks everyone who sent this one in]

[Brian Casey @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

The missed goal in the Tottenham/ManU game was not the fault of the assistant referee, whose job it is to judge goals. The ball was shot from 45 yards away from the goal, and the asst. referee ran from his proper position to try to judge if the ball would cross the line, but didn't make it in time to see the 'keeper bobble the ball. Not even the fastest man alive would have beeen able to run to the goal line in time.

[nowak @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

I agree. I watched the game, and though it was a clear goal, no one could have made it back in time for that. It was a freak incident.

[loner @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

I think this is a wonderful idea. There's nothing wrong with using technology to assist referees (see tennis), and no matter how good they are, humans will make mistakes / can't look in all directions at the same time / can't see through players. I've also read some blurbs about using the same type of technology for detecting balls going out of touch.

Brainstorming a bit, they can also use the same stuff for offside calls: put sensors in players' boots, have a computer calculate everybody's positions at all times, and send a signal when the ball changes speed drastically and a player is offside.

BTW, the cool thing about this implementation is that the signal goes to the referees and them only, so they can still override it based on the circumstances, and it won't be a distraction to the players and audience.

[Sherwin @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

What the hell? I was thinking up this idea a few weeks ago. Entirely computerized referee system for basketball with embedded microchips. Damn it.

[pitchingwoo @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

How come other sports have more than one ref while soccer with its huge field has only one. Even basketball with its tiny court has three refs. Imagine if the NFL reduce its officials to one. Perhaps it's time for FIFA to forget about tradition and implement extra refs or video playback.

[Brian Casey @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

Soccer (football, really) has three officials - a referee and two assistants. Only the referee has a whistle and can stop play; the assistants use flags to inform the referee of an infraction, but the referee is free to wave it off at their discretion. Unlike basketball and American football, where any infraction results in a whistle/flag, there's a lot of subjectivity involved in soccer refereeing - if the infraction is trifling, or if stopping play for an infraction is a disadvantage to the team that was fouled, referees are trained to let the game continue. If more than one referee had a whistle, they would each interpret infractions to their own way of thinking, making it even more difficult for players to know what they can and cannot do at any given time.

[duncan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

oh come on, there were man united supporters on the other end of the pitch that said it was a clear goal. the assistant ref was a twat who may have cost spurs a place in europe next season.

secondly this was not a reaction to the spurs/united match. it may turn out to be the straw that broke the camels back as it was such a blatant non-goal, but the real reason is one of adidas' board members is still fuming over a questionable goal in the 1966 world cup final (england vs. germany)

oh and pitchingwoo, there are 4 referees in a soccer match, the head ref who is on the field, two assistant referees who are on both sides of the pitch and a 4th "official" that is in charge of handling events in the dugout (substitutions, indicating extra time etc...)

two center refs were tried in some competitions, but it was a disaster, i was at a game where probably 50% of the fouls called had both refs making the opposite call.

[Carmi @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

The lovely thing about soccer is the way it transcends social strata: anyone who can afford a pair of shoes and a ball can afford to play. But consumerism being what it is, any opportunity to add complexity must be exploited as a means of increasing margins.

This strikes me as yet another threat to the egalitarianism of soccer. We're not far from $100+ balls and high-tech shoes: eventually, only the rich kids will be able to afford to play.

All because some refs can't be bothered to look.

Carmi
http://writteninc.blogspot.com

[TT @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

With questionable goals. isn't it time to bring in instant replay, video judge? what's going on there?

[David O'Neill @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

What the hell is the International Football Association Board (IFAB)?? I've never ever heard of that.

[James Demastus @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

Carmi, thats the silliest thing I've ever heard. The poorest of the poor can play. Pele grew up playing in bare feet and a bunch of socks rolled up and tied together with a string. Sometimes he'd play with a coconut. The microchip will be at the top level only. The huge FA's can afford it easily.

[simon @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

you could have looked it up in the time it took to post your comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFAB

[llcooljayce @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

It's not the fact that the assistant referee did not see it, it's the fact that it happened. Tottenham was robbed of a big win against ManU and 2 precious points.

[pitchingwoo @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

"oh and pitchingwoo, there are 4 referees in a soccer match, the head ref who is on the field, two assistant referees who are on both sides of the pitch and a 4th "official" that is in charge of handling events in the dugout (substitutions, indicating extra time etc...)"

But only one ref can call infractions. In hockey, football, and basketball more than one ref can call infractions and consult each other. Plus other sports have used new technology (electronic timers, photo finish, instant replays, video goal judge) to improve the game. It should be up to the players to decide a match and not the ref. That disallow goal in soccer will happen again and that's the reason why hockey uses video determining goal and basketball uses instant replay for last second shots.

[Mike @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

How about combining this with some sort of stadium mounted laser pointer system to actually indicate the exact point on the field where the ball goes out of bounds, or in American football to determine how far a player made his forward progress?

[silentio @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

In response to #8, the reason why football does not have instant replays to judge matches is to keep the flow of the game. Football is not a game where the clock keeps going, unlike games like basketball where the clock stops when the ball goes out etc. If football starts relying on instant replays, it will affect the pace of the game drastically. I'm a big football fan, and i hope "The Beautiful Game" will never have to resort to that.

[matsimpsk @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

How can I resist the chance of spamming my animation of the goal:

http://mat.rubberfeet.org/b3ta/image/manure.gif

;)

[duncan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

"But only one ref can call infractions"

- that's not entirely true, both assistant referees can signal for infractions. the center ref has the ability to overrule the AR and he's the one that stops the game to actually give the card/warning/free kick.

[Matt Johnson @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

I think this idea of using a digital detector to judge if the ball goes over the line isn't a good idea. I agree that sometimes goals are misjudged, but that's part of the game. I believe that whatever the referee sees is what happens and what he doesn't see, he doesn't call. That's just the way it should be. We should keep all of this technology out of the game and just play it the way it used to be.