Football and Technology

Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

 

Smart football

Why no "smart football" as a referee tool?

Football with embedded sensor (copyright Adidas)LupeFigure: Football with embedded sensor (copyright Adidas)


Controversial referee decisions on "offside", "out of bounds" or "goal" have accompanied the football game from the beginning. The still most famous example is the "Wembley goal" of the 1966 FIFA Worldcup final between England and the Federal Republic of Germany. We can only guess whether it would have become that famous had the referee team had a fully developed position detection system of the football at their disposal. Since this was not the case, this goal became the crucial point of the match and still bothers people in both countries who want to prove in retrospect whether the ball had crossed the line or not. One might, on the one hand, request an enhanced and more sophisticated referee armament, yet, on the other hand, wonder if the 1966 final would then still be suspended, awaiting a decision.

Maybe this goal and the fact that Germany hosted the 2006 FIFA World Cup explain why German firms, in particular, have developed footballs that answer the referee's question of "in or not in" directly when the ball passes the goal line. This is at least how the number and origin of relevant patent applications might be interpreted.

The fast-paced development of computers and the extreme miniaturisation of electronic components in the past decades constitute the technological basis for such systems. They are the prerequisites for real time analyses by means of complex sensor arrangements, such as described in detail in section 6 of the "Football" chapter. Such systems can be used to assist the referee during a match or to help the coach analyse game situations or practice units with the football.

Several such systems have been trialled since 2005, both in professional leagues and tournaments.

An earlier technology, based on electromagnetic waves, had been trialled at the Under-17 World Cup in Peru in 2005 by FIFA and IFAB, respectively. The results were not yet sufficiently accurate to qualify the system for admission to the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany.

An optical system, tried out in the Italian league in 2006/2007, did not perform with a satisfactory level of accuracy. It should be mentioned, however, that it was not used over the whole season but merely in four matches [1], with a limited scope of application. It uses a large number of cameras and is based on systems which are also used for slow motion studies and video replay [2] . The main objective was to detect offside situations. However, the system was not up to the task in a melee of players and was probably not further surveyed by the International Football Association Board (IFAB).

A system using a magnetic field was tested during the FIFA Club World Cup in Japan from 7 to 16 December 2007, with very promising results. The system was the result of a development series of several years. Some actors participating in the tests felt that the sensor-equipped ball had not quite the same properties as a conventional football. These statements by some players might, however, be due to their dissatisfaction with the match result. At any rate, some statements seem to imply a certain reservation about this technological novelty [3].

Despite this mixed response, online magazine TFOT issued a positive statement about the system directly after the acid test in Japan. On 17 December 2007, it reported: (the system) "currently meets all of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) requirements and the ball has been approved by FIFA for competitive international play." [4]

In competition to or as a supplement to the "smart ball" tested in Japan, FIFA officially declared a ball tracking system, which is already used in a similar way in tennis and cricket, to be "ready for inspection by FIFA". [5]

Following this statement, developers had hoped to see their systems in place at the 2008 UEFA European Football Championship or the 2010 FIFA World Cup, at the latest. They were somewhat surprised that a decision of the General Assembly of IFAB of 8 March 2008 put them on ice, at least all systems designed to assist referees.

IFAB, the supreme rule-making body of FIFA, comprises four delegates from FIFA and one each from the four British football associations. It has the exclusive power to determine the laws of the football game, applicable worldwide, in all fields related to the game. The decision not to pursue goal-line technology was taken in a 5-3 vote. The representatives of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland had been in favour of pursuing the system, whereas Wales and all FIFA members had voted against it. [6]

FIFA Circular 1145 [7] of 22 May 2008 contains - under the heading "Goal line technology" -the following brief statement, regrettably without any explanation: "The IFAB has decided that all experiments involving goal line technology are to be put on ice until further notice."

The Welsh official to the IFAB Board voiced general concerns: "We believe soccer is a game played by human beings, it's a game with a human face and there was a feeling it would hinder the flow of the game." This frequently used general objection can hardly have been the only reason, since it would have been an argument against trying out the systems in the first place.

There is, of course, the cost issue as well. Less wealthy associations might not be able to afford the systems for their league operation. This might have been an important aspect since the unified set of rules is applicable worldwide and in all leagues. However, this fact was known previously. Big international tournaments, in particular, are being conducted even today under different conditions than games of the lower amateur leagues. Recent tendencies had rather seemed to favour the admission of technical measures at important tournaments in order to at least reduce the danger of wrong decisions on the pitch.
The above decision not to authorise smart footballs and localisation systems for ball and players had been considered to be provisional at that time. Even two years later, information available to the public is still scarce. We can assume that none of the tested systems was really convincing on the pitch. There may have been technical reasons or, maybe, the majority felt that the non-introduction preserved some inconsistencies and fun factors contributing to the attractiveness of the football game.
Critics of the introduction of modern technological tools argue that the myth of controversial decisions adds to the attractiveness of the football game. England's legendary "Wembley goal" at the 1966 World Cup final was probably the most-discussed event in the FIFA World Cup history. Even a hundred-fold replay in slow motion from various angles did not show satisfactorily if the ball had passed the goal line. Some 30 years later, a computer simulation by a British (!) research group provided likely (!) evidence of a referee mistake. Even if we do not do justice to the great final England vs. Germany by recalling just this controversial moment, the match will always be remembered because of this event.
In his book "4-2", published in 1996, British author David Thomson provides the following comment on the "Wembley goal": "It is my estimate that it was not quite or entirely a goal. A part of the ball was on the line. But let me add two things. This was, so far, the best 'goal' of the match, and there is an impressible merit or logic in such great soccer that should not be denied. I mean by that that the referee and linesman, with only their eyes to go by, saw a piece of wonder and violent execution that they could not reason away." [8]
This statement has to be considered when taking the decision whether or not high-tech tools should be used to assist referees. Yet we may assume that the myth of close decisions would persist in spite of technological aids.
At any rate, the football game has seen changes or modernising measures before, and people have always found something to discuss or, better still, quarrel about. Where - as in case of the Wembley goal - the human eye is not able to clearly see whether or not the ball did actually pass the goal line completely, supporters will tend to question decisions against their team taken by an electronic eye and feel that the device might not have worked properly.
Be it as it may: the decision of IFAB of 6 March 2010 seems to have put an end to the discussions, since it rules out any further pursuit of the technologies presented in this chapter ("Concerning goal-line technology, the Board concluded that goal-line technology would not be pursued." [9]).
Let's wait and see.

References