The game stops, the computer draw the line and within seconds the verdict: offside or not, the technology can’t be wrong. Too beautiful and transparent for the ball. And in fact football (not only that Italian) for once he has a clear rule he wants to change it. In recent weeks, the debate on the so-called “CLOCK” (Semi-Automated Offside Technology), i.e. the semi-automatic offside: the position of the ball and the players is calculated in near real time by the system virtual reality obtained with the images of the cameras present in the stadium. An almost infallible mechanism that eliminated the concept of arbitrarinessand therefore almost entirely human error, at least as regards the rule of offside. Well, she will say. But no: even the semi-automatic offside becomes a source of controversy. First it was the time of the disallowed goal a Lautaro in the derby, then, yesterday, during Juventus-Fiorentinait fell to Vlahovic e Castrovilleall very similar, erased by technology, always for questions of centimeters or their own millimetersbetween mutual recriminations. Little to say: even if only for a little piece of nose or kneeor a hair as it says Allegri, the players were over the line. But since the evidence cannot be denied (some fans manage to do even that), here is that in order to complain we appeal to the spirit of the game, to the fact that it would not be soccer disallow a goal for so little. Sure, better validate it wrongfully for the mistake or the subjection by some linesmen, as happened before.
The rule as it is conceived today is almost perfect: it may be rigid but it has the merit of being objectivedo not lend yourself in any way to interpretations (and distortions) arbitration. Yet there are those who would like to change it. It’s not just bar talk: just in the last few days there FederCalcio announced that it is continuing to test a new rule proposed by the Fifawhich provides for the signaling of offside only in the event that there is a visual separation, the so-called “light”, between the attacker and the defender, in the name of showmanship of the game. In short, there would be only clear offsides, and no more millimeter. This should serve to stop the game less and increase the occasions. In reality it is only the best way to undermine one of the few certainties conquered by the ball.
The Figc it is at the forefront of technical experimentation, and this is one of the (rare) merits of ours Federationalways at the forefront of innovation, since the days of Tavecchio (Italy was the first to try the Was in an international friendly match), and now with Gravina. However, new is not necessarily beautiful and we also need to reflect on how we change: the new rule of offside is one of the many bizarre proposals launched by the Fifa adviser, Arsene Wenger (remember the World Cup every two years?), and it does nothing but resurrect an old concept, that of “light”, superseded twenty years ago precisely because it generated too much confusion.
Today the technology of allows to establish without margin of error if a player is beyond the fateful line, stopping them in the bud controversy. It is clear that SOAT would also be used to apply the new rule but it would not be the same: first of all because the concept of light is in itself more uncertain; but it would become totally random without the use of the technology, which can never be available on every pitch in every category, ending up generating a Serie A and a Serie B football, while at least in the spirit and rules of the game the ball should try to be universal. In order to make controversy, we take it with the millimeters. But why downplay its importance. For a millimeter a good shot can go in or out, the ball crosses the line or not (la Goal-line technology was a great achievement, why shouldn’t it also apply to SOAT), and a player ending up in offside. After all, that’s the beauty of football.