Last week's "goal"
at Old Trafford was one of those occurrences that have been happening
since football was invented - these days, of course, virtually every
game in professional football, and the top echelons of the non-league
game, is televised meaning that such mistakes are highlighted, and
invariably condemned.
In that particular case, it was virtually impossible for that goal
to have been given within the current laws of the game. At the end
of the day, a ball will move faster than a man, and with the linesman
(referee's assistant is a misnomer in my book, as they rarely assist
in making the referee's decisions) correctly watching the line of
the last defender, there was no way he could have got back to a
position to categorically say that the ball had crossed the line.
Spectators at the halfway line may claim to have seen it clearly,
but over that distance at pitch level, it is next to impossible,
and there was no way he could have given the goal.
I do not believe that any of the four officials could have possibly
got themselves into a position to give that goal, and even if they
are in position, it's not infallible. There have been numerous incidents
where incorrect decisions have changed the outcome of vital games,
not least involving my beloved Baggies against Rotherham in 2002
when Jordao's goal was not given and was proven to be at least three
feet over the line. It was from a corner with the linesman directly
in line and he was still unable to see, apparently. It may not have
cost Albion promotion, but Crewe were relegated as a result of the
point that Rotherham gained. It remains to be seen whether the point
gained by United, or the two lost by Spurs, will prove to be crucial
at the end of season. With a rising scale of prize money for each
finishing position in the Premiership, the answer is likely to be
"yes".
There is obviously an argument for additional officials. Goal-line
officials have been mooted by certain commentators in the past week,
and that idea has merit. Personally, I'd like to see a second referee
with overall control for a particular half of the pitch, but with
the ability to draw the other referee's attention to an incident
that he may have missed. But in this section, I'd like to talk about
how technology could help.
This particular incident at Old Trafford (strange that the incident
at the Hawthorns didn't spark the same response, eh?) has caused
the FA and FIFA to comment, and there are suggestions that there
may be action taken. Football's leading authorities are apparently
considering the "Magic Eye" technology that has been implemented
successfully in tennis. A microchip would be placed in the ball
and a device installed on the goal-line to indicate whether the
ball crosses the line between the posts. It is unclear as to whether
the relative sizes of tennis balls and footballs will impact its
effectiveness, or whether the issue of a ball being too far over
the line will be surmountable - in tennis, if a serve is more than
six or so inches long, "Magic Eye" does not work. Of course, these
issues may well have solutions and FIFA have said that only an infallible
solution would be implemented. There is then, of course, the question
of cost and at what levels of the game such technology could be
implemented. Is the Premiership and international games enough,
or should the Championship be included?
In my opinion, this technology may be worthwhile should it prove
infallible and relatively inexpensive, but the number of times that
it would be used is very small. There are many other crucial decisions
that affect the outcome of matches, such as penalties, free kicks
and offsides, which could only be corrected by the use of video
replays.
Football has always resisted the use of a video referee. Unlike
rugby where video replays have been seen to work successfully, football
is a flowing game and there is not always an appropriate stoppage
for video replays. I am, however, in favour of their use in certain
circumstances. With the amount of money that is riding on the outcome
of football matches today, we must make the best use of technology
we can without unduly affecting the ebb and flow of our wonderful
game.
I believe that it should be restricted to decisions that directly
impact the scoring of a goal. This would include, but perhaps not
be limited to, offside decisions, penalty decisions and whether
a ball has crossed the line.
The mechanics would be quite simple. Firstly, there would need to
be a video referee. If a referee or assistant referee is unsure
of a particular decision, he could refer it to the video referee.
Ideally, play should be allowed to continue until the ball goes
out of play or a clear infringement is committed, but as this does
not always happen, the referee could decide to stop play once the
ball was in a neutral area. This already happens when treatment
is required for an injured player, so I do not see a problem with
implementing it for video replays.
Assistant referees already have an electronic mechanism of alerting
the referee which could be used by in these cases. It should then
only take the video referee a few seconds to check the tape, and
the game could then continue with the correct decision having been
made. The on-field officials should still make the vast majority
of decisions unaided, but for things like penalties and off-sides
where the referee or assistant is genuinely unsure, play should
be allowed to continue until an appropriate stoppage and then the
replay checked.
Providing their use is restricted, I do not accept the argument
that the flow of the game would be affected. It can take from 30
seconds to a minute to restart the game for a goal, goal kick, penalty
or set piece, and with digital technology and efficient video referees,
I do not believe a replay should take more than 30 seconds to review.
Using replays during a game may be difficult, but not impossible,
to implement. Their use after a match is becoming more common, and
rightly so. I do not believe that the result of a game can be changed
by video evidence, but I think more use should be made of such evidence
for particular incidents.
Currently, clubs can use video evidence to appeal against red and
yellow cards, and the subsequent suspensions, and according to the
FA website, the Video Advisory Panel will look video evidence of
mass confrontations and violent offences to determine whether further
action should be taken. In my opinion, they should also look at
examples of blatant cheating. Diving, simulating injury in an attempt
to get a player cautioned or sent off, or any other sort of blatant
cheating should be able to be reviewed by the panel. We would have
all liked to have seen Rivaldo punished for grabbing his face having
been hit on the knee, and as for Maradonna's "Hand of God", it may
have been difficult to reverse the result of the game, but there
would have been some element of justice had the player been suspended
from the remainder of the tournament.
Surely if players knew they would be punished for cheating, even
if it was only after the game, they would think twice about doing
it. How about a five match ban for Roy Carroll for example?
Video replays during a game would work, in my opinion, but without
a dramatic change of heart on behalf of football's leading authorities,
I can't see it happening. Extending the use of video evidence after
a match, however, is much easier to bring in and would help to cut
out some of the blatant cheating that blights the modern game.
|
