Despite FIFA promise, goal line tech not on IFAB slate
LONDON, (Reuters) -- Goal line technology will not be discussed by soccer's law-makers in Wales this week, despite an assurance from FIFA president Sepp Blatter during the World Cup that it would be. The technical sub-committee of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) -- soccer's law-making body -- will meet in Cardiff on Wednesday.
However, there will only be one item on the agenda which was set in May -- the continuing experiment with additional assistant referees behind the goals as trialled in the Europa League last season.
Following England's disallowed goal against Germany in the second round of the World Cup on June 27, Blatter said "it would be a nonsense not to reopen the file on goalline technology."
"We will look again at goalline technology at the business meeting of the IFAB in Cardiff in July," Blatter promised. But a FIFA statement on Monday confirmed: "The only point on the agenda will be the review and eventual approval of the requests made by various confederations and member associations of FIFA to implement the experiments with two additional assistant referees for (the next two seasons)."
The debate was re-ignited after a shot from England midfielder Frank Lampard landed a metre over the goalline after hitting the bar but was not spotted by the referee or his assistant despite millions around the world seeing clearly that a legitimate goal had been scored.
The earliest date for any debate about goalline technology would be at the next IFAB business meeting in October. Any law-changing decision on goalline technology would not be taken until IFAB's next annual meeting in March next year.
IFAB, which conisists of one representative from each of the four British associations and four from FIFA, rejected the implementation of goalline technology in March. IFAB sanctioned the first experiment with goalline technology in 2006, but a chip-in-the-ball system used at the World Under-17 championships and Club World Cup matches in 2007 proved inconclusive and has not been used since.