Referees usually prefer to remain anonymous when they are officiating big matches. That isn't always easy at major tournaments like this year's European Championship, where the spotlight tends to shine even brighter on the men in black and their decisions on the field. Any device meant to save refs from scorn would be a bonus for most, but UEFA and FIFA are against using goal-line technology to aid their officials. “Anything that would assist us to become more accurate would be welcomed by the refereeing world,” said English official Howard Webb, one of 12 referees chosen to work the games in Austria and Switzerland at the Euro 2008 championship. “You never want to decide or impact an important game in a negative way.” The technology would be used to definitively signal when a ball has crossed the goal line, and could help stop controversial goals like the one scored by England forward Geoff Hurst in the 1966 World Cup final. Euro 2008 referee organizer Yvan Cornu also said there would be no video replays used during games at the tournament in June, but UEFA will review footage to assess things such as fouls and injuries. Refs already use ear pieces to facilitate communication with their assistants on the field. The main reason goal-line technology is being excluded from soccer's major tournaments is because FIFA has not approved it. The governing body of world soccer controls half the votes of the International Football Association Board, the custodian of the laws of the game, and voted against goal-line technology at the IFAB meeting in March. “None of the systems proved to be accurate enough at this time. Therefore, it was decided to put this project on ice,” FIFA said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. The IFAB had designated four criteria that must be met: 100 percent accuracy, instantaneous decisions, a signal that goes only to match officials and technology that rules only on goal-line issues. The IFAB has approved a FIFA proposal that would have two additional assistant referees focused on fouls and misconduct in the penalty area, but no competition for this test has been selected yet. Critics blame UEFA president Michel Platini for the idea and say it just increases the chances for refereeing errors. “I hope they do test Platini's referee system _ we already know it won't work,” said Paul Hawkins, the founder of the Hawk-Eye replay technology. “If the ball is hit hard, it's across the line in milliseconds. The human eye could only be about 60 percent accurate. Then add goal posts, players obscuring the view, they would be just guessing.” The Hawk-Eye technology has been used on the professional tennis tour and in cricket, and video replays are also used extensively in American football. Soccer has been investigating goal-line technology for years, and FIFA has been looking at microchip balls since 2003. Last December, a new type of microchip-imbedded ball was tested at the Club World Cup in Japan. Jointly developed by Adidas and Cairos Technologies AG, it transmits a real-time signal to the referee's watch, alerting him if the ball has crossed the line. By using a magnetic field, the Teamgeist II ball was reportedly far more precise than a radio-signal ball the companies tested in 2005 at the Under-17 World Cup in Peru, which had problems in bad weather and with radio interference. Adidas did not return phone calls asking about the Teamgeist II tests, but Cairos is said to have invested millions in developing the technology. In the 1966 World Cup final, Hurst sent a hard shot off the underside of the post in the 10th minute of extra time, and the referee conferred with his linesman before saying the ball had crossed the line for a goal. England went on to win 4-2, and Hurst's second of three goals remains one of the most talked about goals of all time. In February, the Hawk-Eye system of cameras and wire-thin sensors was tested at the Madejski Stadium in Reading, England. Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd. spent nearly two years and 500,000 pounds (US$1 million) designing a new system just for soccer, which Hawkins says met every IFAB requirement and passed every test at Reading. “Some people think technology is good for sports, others don't. It's a moral question, not a technical one,” Hawkins said. “The shame is not that they (the IFAB) changed their mind, but that they are not honest enough to admit it. You can't say it doesn't work – that's just not true.” Besides replays, FIFA is also against real-time video reviews, claiming they will upset the flow of the game. “You cannot stop a game for dozens of seconds or even minutes to verify an action,” FIFA said. “By that time, the ball could have already been on the other side of the pitch or another goal could have been scored.” FIFA also noted that many people can disagree on the correct call even after looking at a video. “For football, it is important to maintain the human face,” the soccer body added, noting it has worked to improve accuracy by creating referee training courses used all over the world. Yet for fans, television replays already serve as de facto goal-line technology _ albeit with no way to overrule bad decisions. That power will remain in the hands of the officials on the field, whether they want it or not. “Referees and their assistants do not want to be the star of the show,” said English assistant referee Darren Cann, who will also be working at Euro 2008. “We simply want to make the right calls and hope that any mistakes that are made from time to time do not affect the outcome of the match.”
