Innovation in sport

With the World Cup Final over (well played Spain) it seems like a good time to write about innovation in sport.  After all there has been heated debate around goal-line technology and off-side rules following a couple of poor decisions in earlier matches.  And soccer does seem a conservative sport with few changes in the last decade or two (penalty shoot-outs are the last that come to my mind).  But it is also a popular sport and a huge business and it seems to me the poor decisions are detrimental to its image.  It is also clear the pace of the game has moved beyond a referee and two assistants.  Today’s soccer players are brilliant athletes who can move the ball from one end to other in seconds.  So why not recognize this and either have goal line technology or extra assistants at the goals?  The counterargument that is put that this would slow the game down and make it less human.  I’m not sure though.  Referees are already linked by radio and could receive an audible “it’s a goal” signal or spoken word from a fourth referee.  The same is true for off-side.  The TV channels show whether a player is offside or not within seconds by overlaying a line on the screen, so why can’t a fourth referee come to as fast and accurate a decision?  The popularity and importance of the game demands better decisions and I’m sure FIFA will eventually come to the same conclusion.  Innovation is an important part of keeping the sport relevant and where technology and communication can help, why not use them?

The other sport that seems confused about technology is Formula 1.  In many ways this is ironic, the formula started with the goal of encouraging the development of the car as well as providing a spectacle.  But more recently it has got itself in a tangle between increasing costs and innovation; first advancing (e.g. Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems), then withdrawing, and then advancing again (KERS being back in the future).   Partly this is redefining what “innovation” means and I think the eventual direction is a good one—that is, encourage innovation which fits the environment  and fuel efficiency and will flow through to the ordinary car of the future.  That will make the sport more relevant to everyone.   Formula 1 also faces challenges in its refereeing procedures—the delay in giving “drive through penalties” to drivers being glaring--- however that seems to be down to more human issues.  The video replays are instantly available but the stewards need to speed up!

The more important challenge to Formula 1 though is over-taking.  Many races are incredibly boring after the first lap as, unless mechanical reliability or weather intervenes, the race order does not change.  This is partly down to track design and partly competition—which results in evenly matched cars.  There would seem to be two solutions to this problem.  First, the magic “push-to-pass” button (seen first with KERS and now proposed for aerodynamics) or second, allowing greater design flexibility so that teams would have more choices to make.  At the moment teams operate within a very restrictive set of design rules.  Formula 1 is pursuing the first option but I wonder whether the second is not in fact better?