Sport Innovation/Goal-line Technology/Arguments for the introduction of goal-line technology

Although there are some standalone arguments as to why goal-line technology should be implemented the majority are rebuttals to the arguments put forward against the introduction of goal-line technology. Below details the reasons GLT should be implemented:

The criteria developed by FIFA to test nine different systems clearly states that they must achieve a 100% accuracy in order to progress from phase to phase during the testing. Thus, inaccuracy of the technology should not be considered as a negative aspect of the technology implemented [1].

The thought that play will be stopped for extended periods of time or that the flow of the game will be disrupted because of the technology is incorrect. Again, the criterion used by FIFA to determine which technology to use has a strict rule concerning this. The criteria states that referees must receive an indication of whether a goal has been scored immediatly and automatically confirmed within one second via the vibration and visual signal to the referees watch [1].

Supporters of technology in football say goal-line incidents are the only decisions that are entirely definitive and the answer can be provided to the referee within one second of the incident occurring [2]. The ball either crossed the line or it didn’t. The technology would not replace referees, it would help them [3] [4].

With the every increasing statistics regarding sports betting, there is simply just too much money involved in the sport to have incorrect decision made. An incorrect decision could also affect the outcome of the game being played. A disallowed goal could be the confidence breaker that allows a team to be beaten. A allowed non-goal could mean a losing team getting an advantage over the other.

Although there are cases both for and against the implementation of the technology, the stronger of the two and the future of sport seems to moving it towards the implementation of technology.