World Football: Why FIFA Should Not Implement Goal Line Technology

Landon Donovan broke free of everybody in Saturday night's clash between Los Angeles Galaxy and New York Red Bull.

The LA captain rolled the ball towards the open net, when out of nowhere to clear the ball off the line at the absolute last moment, preventing the Galaxy from going 2-1 up after equalizing three minutes earlier, or did he?

I have seen no replay which can convince me beyond a shadow of doubt that it was clearly a goal for Donovan and the Galaxy, though it was debatable.

The no goal, which led to a 1-1 draw between America's two most popular teams, has brought up the discussion once again of instant replay for goals in professional soccer.

FIFA has been debating this topic since 1970 and has not implemented it after 41 years of discussion. There is no reason to now.

Instant replay is used in sports such as basketball, hockey and American football. In basketball and hockey, you most often see review for a buzzer beater to determine if the player shot before the horn in basketball or the ball crossed the line before the horn in hockey.

In the National Football League here in the United States, coaches are allowed to challenge two plays during the game such as spot of the ball, complete or incomplete passes, fumbles, etc., and are awarded a third if both calls are overturned. With under two minutes left in each the second and fourth quarters, any questionable call is automatically reviewed by the officials.

With these instances I can understand it. Basketball and hockey have to most often make sure the shot was released or the puck crossed the net before the buzzer and American football has it because there is so much going on during a play.

In soccer, I honestly believe that things should stay the way they are and that technology should not come into the game.

Soccer is the world's game, a natural, beautiful game played for generations. To tinker with it by implementing replay for goals is unjust.

A big issue is that replay would take away from the game which would have to stop. The beauty of soccer is its running clock and nonstop action.

Even if, as people suggest, there is someone watching up in a booth who can instantly inform the ref through a headset that it was a goal or not, you still have that few seconds of confusion amongst the players who do not know whether to play or not and it would cause chaos on the pitch, not to mention that the judge could also make a mistake in trying to rush to a decision.

If you install replay now, you call into question everything that has ever happened in football.

What if we had the ability to now see replay of the infamous "ball through the net" of the 1929 Serie A battle between Bologna and Genoa? The two teams were locked in a playoff that went five games to break the season-end tie at the top of the table.

The ref awarded a goal to Bologna despite the ball seeming to fly behind the net. Protesters argued that the ball went through the hole in the net, which was actually there. Some say that it was pressure from a Fascist official in the stands, but the ref awarded a goal.

The game ended in a draw and Genoa lost the next game. By many eyewitness accounts, it was not a goal, but we are forced to accept that it was. It should have been their 10th Scudetto and they have not won since.

There is also the 2002 World Cup, where Torsten Frings clearly handled the ball on the line against the United States in the quarterfinals, preventing a goal. Should the ref have been able to go to the replay?

I am an American and hate that no handball was called, but I realize that it was not and that maybe the ref missed it. Sure, I would have liked to see the penalty given, but the United States still lost. They had 89 other minutes to do something and they could not.

There was Frank Lampard's shot at the 2010 World Cup as well. The ball hit the crossbar and clearly (from the viewer's perspective through the television) went over the line. However, the referee waved play on. Maybe he did not see it as well and was at a bad angle. It happens.

Human error is part of life. We all screw up at home, in school, at jobs, all the time. Referees are just like us. They are doing their job. They make mistakes too. Do you not think the President makes mistakes? What about the police? Doctors? Everyone makes them. Its who we are.

FIFA tested technology in 2007, but as Sepp Blatter put it: "Let it be as it is and let's leave (soccer) with errors. The television companies will have the right to say (the referee) was right or wrong, but still the referee makes the decision—a man, not a machine."

Now I know Blatter is a terrible president and I am one of his biggest haters, but he is right. So is FIFA general secretary Urs Linsi, who said the following:

"Players, coaches and referees all make mistakes. It's part of the game. It's what I would call the 'first match.' What you see after the fact on video simply doesn't come into it; that's the 'second match,' if you like. Video evidence is useful for disciplinary sanctions, but that's all. As we've always emphasised at FIFA, football's human element must be retained. It mirrors life itself and we have to protect it."

UEFA is testing an idea that I like very much. They are testing with an extra linesman on each endline. This was introduced as a test in the 2008 UEFA Under 19 Championship qualifying and has been used throughout several UEFA tournaments since.

The use of five refs seems to be working without complaint and is a far better solution than video replay.

Video replay would scar the game. It would be a slap in the face to install technology and take away the aspect that makes part of life and being human so great. This aspect is that we are all human and we do make mistakes on a daily basis.

Maybe it was Donovan who made the mistake by not striking the ball harder or the rest of his team for their poor finishing throughout the game. You cannot program players to be mistake free. You should not try to with referees.