Thursday 5 July 2012

IFAB Lives up to its Name

Football is not only beautiful, but simple. The same game is essentially replicated across the planet with universal rules and equipment (in essence). Football's initial rules were formulated in this country by the English FA. Eventually a conference (IFAB) was convened by the FA to seek harmonisation of the rules with its Welsh, Scottish and Irish counterparts. IFAB was born. This was 1886. Some while after the formation of FIFA in 1903 the international footballing community began to get a say in the rule making process. There are 8 votes in total. One each for the original 4 members and 4 for FIFA. A three quarters majority is required for change so consequently change is deliberately difficult to effect.
Rule changes are proposed and then investigated. The Board 's reluctance to make rule changes derives from its mission to preserve the essence and integrity of the game. The game is still highly recognisable to me from my childhood 40 years ago. Off the top of my head I can only think of the back pass rule, the 6 second rule for goalkeepers and a slight amendment to the offside rule (level is onside) as examples of changes to the game.
Much publicity has recently been given to the proposed use of Goal Line technology (GLT). FIFA eventually became a supporter after the fiasco of the 'Lampard Goal' at World Cup 2010. UEFA (Michel Platini) remain deeply opposed. Platini fears that the floodgates will open and than eventually the clamour for technological assistance will lead to the loss of the flow of the game as endless incidents are reconsidered before the game moves on. Others, including this blog http://gibbsbarrister.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/bitter-and-twisted.html, argue that anything which leads to greater accuracy in decision making is to be welcomed. GLT will be of limited significance. The number of disputes about balls crossing the goal line is  minimal.
In a groundbreaking announcement IFAB has approved 2 technological systems. 'Hawkeye', essentially the technology used in sports like tennis and cricket and 'Goal Ref' which involves sensors in the ball and on the goal line. Both provide assistance to the referee within one second of a request.
The implementation of either system will ultimately depend on finances. From now on there will be marked differences from competition to competition in the technology available dependent on the financial resources of the relevant stakeholder.
However you may not have heard about another IFAB decision which, in my view, has far more cultural, religious and diversity significance.
The ban on head scarves (such as the hijab) was temporarily lifted earlier this year. It has now been officially ratified by FIFA.

The ban came into force because the laws of football prohibit equipment that is either dangerous or seemingly makes religious statements.
 The ban came into place 5 years ago. A hugely significant consequence was that Iran was barred from the qualifying tournament for London 2012 because it insisted its players be allowed to wear the banned  head scarves on the field of play. Opponents argued that there were dangers inherent in wearing it for both the player and other participants. Conservative muslin countries such as Saudi Arabia seized upon the ban as an excuse to prevent women participants in football. Muslim observant women are supposed to wear head scarves in public.  IFAB's medical committee decided that the head scarf designs, which incorporate either quick release velcro or magnets,  before it posed no such health risks and FIFA has now accepted these findings.
This is a moment of liberation for muslim observant women of far more significance than GLT will ever be.
However staggeringly one of the first hostile reactions to this positive development came from France. Their Federation announced that head scarves would remain banned for their international teams and their national competitions. There is strong governmental opposition to the display of religious symbolism in France. Muslim fundamentalism is greatly feared. There is bound to be opposition, but I am dismayed that a supposedly progressive Western country should adopt this position!
For more on this subject from those directly affected http://www.womentalksports.com/displaypage.php?url=http://muslimwomeninsports.blogspot.com

3 comments:

  1. It's interesting that head scarves are argued to be dangerous, when Bury's Efe Sodje is famous for wearing a bandana when he plays.

    It does look as though banning headscarves is more about making a political statement, whilst hiding behind the safety of players.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are so right - there was huge pressure on the medical expert from countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar. It gave them an excuse to discriminate by another name - that has now been taken away from them.
    Saudis think sport is 'steps of the devil' for women! Extraordinary, but things are changing pretty fast because of the enormous health impact of non participation by girls and women in sport through school and beyond. It is not sustainable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/soccer/euro2012/Hijab+wearers+remain+sidelined/6907642/story.html in Quebec and in spite of IFAB ruling the ban remains firmly in place. It is hard to see this as anything other than spiteful stalling. Islamophobia dressed up as safety issue - one of the approved prototypes originates from Canada.

    ReplyDelete