Dream Olympics 2020

Whole of India was in a jubilant mood when India ended up winning a silver medal and a bronze medal. The government as usual decided to shower our winners P.V Sindhu and Saakshi Malik with loads of cash prizes and other treats. Rightfully they deserve every ounce of success they earned through their sheer determination and hard work. Sindhu had a great mentor in Gopichand who has been there done that. Sakshi’ story is clearly the case of the classic underdog. Coming from one of the lowest sex ratio states in the country, where sports is discouraged for females, she overcame all the odds to give India its first medal in the Olympics. Without a question this is one of the most inspiring stories of 2016.

And then came the bomb, Piers Morgan. Well we Indians are not good at taking criticism, are we? He only said and I quote “Country with 1.2 billion people wildly celebrates 2 losing medals. How embarrassing is that? All hells broke loose. One of the first to counter, Virendar Sehwag. He said England invented cricket and yet haven’t won in the grandest stage of them all. Seriously, how can one compare Olympics to Cricket. And for the record they did win the T-20 world which is the THING right now in cricket.

Guess what Morgan is spot on. Not to undermine our Indian contingent in any way but when we have the 2^nd largest population (age between 10-40) and yet fail to achieve any major gold, it speaks volumes about our inability to produce world class talent. Rather than introspect at our failures we tend to attack the ones who dared to target our failures.

Our Hockey team has done us proud in the past, Abhinav Bindra the only individual gold medallist has done it too albeit at a huge cost (physical and financial). Not to forget the various medals we won in shooting, wrestling etc.

Countries like Azerbaijan with a GDP of $75.2 billion has more medals than India ($2.07 trillion). I believe if we start planning for the Olympics 10 years in India (It’s India of course) we can compete with the best in the world. Planning is right from building the grassroots like proper facilities for the athletes. It’s shameful that some of the athletes did not get proper facilities and some of them were a bit tired and exhausted from the travelling. Also it wouldn’t harm if we find gems in the schools and colleges. There are a million youth who have the ability but not the right resource and who yearn for that one chance.

The biggest question will be “What will be our excuse in 2020? Or will there be an excuse?

             I think most ardent football fans would agree on this - NECESSITY OF GOAL LINE TECHNOLOGY.We have seen a lot of so called GHOST goals like the one in   Chelsea's 2–1 victory over Tottenham in 2011, a goal which was off the mark and prompted officials to think about it.Time and time again the issue of GLT comes up.
             Even in 2000 the the issue had raised up. Victor Ikpeba's penalty for Nigeria against Cameroon was deemed by the referee to not have crossed the line after deflecting off the crossbar.Cameroon won the African Cup of Nations.
             In 2005 in a match between Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspurs,Pedro Mendes hit a shot from 55 yards.Roy Carroll dropped it well within a yard of the goal but nobody noticed it. 
In order to avoid even the marginal errors the technology should be applied.The current debate over goal-line technology cannot be adequately resolved by a simple answer of either yes or no.
There are two types of technologies FIFA is currently looking at for making goal-line decisions-


1. Hawk-Eye

This is similar to the ones used in Tennis and Cricket. These have an accuracy of 3.6 mm. It is capable of simulating the ball's actual position in less than a second using various images made available from cameras installed in different locations

Pros -

1. Correct Decisions
2. Visual pleasure and confirmation for the spectators

Cons -

1. The installation of six cameras on each side of the goal will mean the installation costs will be high. Consider the costs if this were to be ensured for all football matches around the globe.
2. Although, the system is capable of simulating the ball's trajectory within 1 second, it would actually eat up a lot of time when shown on replays.
3. It requires the ball to be at least 25% visible, or else we have to rely on the referee's judgement like old times.

2. GoalRef

This requires electo-magnetic antennas to be placed around the goal posts and the cross bar to create a low-power magnetic field and the ball to be fitted with electronic probes in between inner and the leather out-lining. The moment the ball crosses the line, a signal can be sent to the referee's microphone.

Pros -

1. Correct decisions
2. Really fast and no need for the play to stop

Cons -

1. Probably wouldn't be as great from a spectator's point of view
2. All balls would have to be manufactured with this chip

Overall, the most important negative about both these technologies is that they are not easily duplicable at all levels of football. But, considering the stakes at modern day football, this is one sacrifice that FIFA will have to make.
Also, the fans/managers would no more be able to blame the referee for their frustration.

I think the GoalRef technology makes more sense, although it would be fun to have a look at free-kick trajectories and a lot more amazing stuff with the Hawk-Eye technology. No matter how much some people might protest, these technologies are inevitable in the future.

Advantages
1.Reduce Errors: The first obvious advantage would be that It will reduce the burden of the referees.I mean one can imagine what would happen if a "GHOST GOAL" would go in the El Classico.The refs are under tremendous stress for a game.Often a ref takes flak if they make a wrong decision
For eg:Lampard's goal which had clearly crossed the line by a few distance was disallowed.The game would have been different had GLT been used.

2.Technology helps Human Judgement :GLT should be used when a team doubts about the referee's decision on a goal score, like the challenges used in tennis where each player has a limited number of challenges they can use through the whole game.

3.Technology is available :If anything that helps the refs is available why not use it

4.Benefits Outweigh The Costs:If the game is of most importance,then GLT should not matter.

5.Accuracy:i The results are more accurate


Disadvantages 

1.Reliability:It amy not be a 100% reliable

2.Renders Referee Redundant:The role of a ref is reduced considerably.

3.Cost:The cost of applying such technology is high and not feasible for all the teams to apply.