Present in the World Cup since 2014. Installed in the Champions League since 2016. Used in championships as powerful as the Premier or the Bundesliga. But absent in Spain. Goal technology, which allows validating whether or not a ball has completely crossed the goal line, is not applied in the League mainly because the clubs’ employers, chaired by Javier Tebas, have not shown their will to date to apply it. It has been considered that controversial situations could be resolved with the VAR cameras. The argument commonly used behind closed doors has been that the cost of the goal technology system was too high in relation to the few times it had to be used throughout the season.
But what is the cost? Well, it ranges between 3 and 4 million euros that have to be paid as a license to FIFA. For the moment, LaLiga has not been about to scratch his pocket although it does not seem like an exorbitant amount taking into account the money that moves in football.
The licenses charged by FIFA for goal technology range between 3 and 4 million euros
The matter has returned to the forefront after the controversy of Atlético’s second goal against Espanyol in Cornellà last Wednesday. Griezmann kicked and Pacheco deflected the ball to the limit. Did the ball completely cross the line? It did not? Espanyol understands that of the images used by the VAR there is none that can conclusively conclude that it was a goal and that, when in doubt, the goal should not have gone up on the scoreboard. It was 0-2 on the verge of rest. The referee, Melero López, had not given the goal but from the VAR González González corrected him. “You have to be sure, you have to be sure,” said Melero López. Despite this, González González insisted that the goal should be validated.
Espanyol asked if there were more images and from the technical committee of referees they were told no. Subsequently, the blue and white club contested the match, considering itself seriously harmed. “The only image used for the awarding of the goal offers a perspective from which it is impossible to determine if the ball has not entered in its entirety. What’s more, all our own and third-party analyzes to which we have had access would show, on the contrary, that the ball does not cross the line at any time in its entirety ”, defends Espanyol.
“It would be important to implant the hawk eye, it would be very good,” says Ancelotti
In the same way that a debate was opened about the semi-automatic offside after a disallowed goal against Marco Asensio at the Camp Nou on March 19, now the goal technology is hot. “It would be important to implement it. It’s a good thing, it seems very good to me, although the application of technology also needs to be improved,” said Madrid coach Carlo Ancelotti.
At the beginning of the season there was already a similar play in a stop by Rulli in an Atlético-Villarreal match. In that case the goal was not awarded.
In the World Cup it has been used since 2014, in the Champions League since 2016 and in England and Germany they have it
The hawk’s eye has not completely ended the controversies in other championships, but it is one more tool for the referees. Proof of this is the match between Mainz 05 and Arminia Bielefeld in the 2021-2022 season, where the referee validated as a goal an action in which the ball was clearly above the line, since the clock wrongly warned him of that he had entered. In the end he canceled the goal after consulting the VAR. In England another controversy was generated in a match between Aston Villa and Sheffield United. Goalkeeper Orjan Nyland put the ball into his goal, but the clock did not warn referee Michael Oliver, who did not validate the goal. The play was not reviewed in the VAR, since this technology was considered infallible, and it had to be after the game when the hawk-eye company recognized that the ball had entered and requested forgiveness. They argued that the seven cameras that monitor the goal were covered at the same time by the goalkeeper, the defenders and the posts and that it was the first time they had made a mistake in more than 9,000 games.