6th January 2005
By
Jody Jamieson
So the issue of video technology being used in football has reared
it's head yet again after a bizarre incident at Old Trafford on Tuesday.
For those of you who've been on another planet over the past 48 hours
a Pedro Mendes effort from just inside the Man United half was clumsily
spilled by Roy Carroll over his shoulder (when I saw the incident
I couldn't help thinking of the song "Do your ears hang low?" And
in particular the line "can you throw them over your shoulder?" I
think match fixing along with technology should be investigated) and
crossed the line by about 3 feet before he scooped it out.
We've all came to our own conclusions regarding the incident. Some
say that the linesman wasn't in the right position to see it. Some
say that the linesman can't give a goal if he's not sure. Some say
the referees are biased bastards. But most are saying that video evidence
is a must. I myself think that video evidence is a must in some sense
but that starts yet another lengthy debate. How much video evidence
do we have? Just on the goal line? How about penalty decisions? Offsides?
Or do we spend 8 and a half hour in the stadium as the game is constantly
stopped and started after numerous baffling refereeing decisions?
I'd like to look at the effect of video replays in some other sports,
and I'm going to start in the good old US of A.
I watch a bit of American football and have to say that I feel the
set up of the video replays are very well done. It is already a stop
start sport so maybe the impact would be a bit different but they
have set rules about reviewed plays. Basically each coach has 1 challenge
per half. If he feels the need to challenge a play it'll be reviewed
and the video referee in the booth has 2 minutes to make a decision.
If the challenge is successful, then they don't lose it and can challenge
later in the half, however if the challenge is unsuccessful, not only
can they not challenge again in that half, but the coach who challenges
the play loses a timeout, which can be quite vital at the end of game.
Also in the last 2 minutes the coaches can't challenge and it's up
to the booth to get in contact with the refs when they feel they need
to review. All in all a pretty satisfactory way to do it, but as I
touched on before, American football is a very stop start game as
it is, so the impact over here might be different to the impact over
there.
Staying in North America we move onto Ice Hockey. The challenges are
pretty simple over there. Challenges are made when it comes to goals.
Either to determine if the puck crossed the line, or if a shot late
in the period crossed the line before the hooter sounded for the end
of the period. Simple and effective. I like it.
Back on our shores in rugby it can be very effective. One of the things
from what I understand (I have no interest in ever watching rugby)
is that going to the video referee can add to the tension of the occasion
and can be very exciting.
We come onto cricket and the 3rd umpire has a few options. Run outs,
close catches and stumpings. Doesn't cover the whole thing but does
it's job sufficiently for things that the naked eye will really struggle
with. Cricket were innovative however and a couple of years back in
the ICC Champions Trophy they allowed umpires to go to the 3rd Umpire
for LBW's. The problem was though that umpires were too reliant on
it and went to the 3rd umpire every time the ball hit the pad. Very
few umpires were willing to take the initiative and the governing
bodies saw it to be detrimental to the game. So they took it out.
Simple eh? Sometimes I wish the governing bodies in football would
admit they were wrong instead of keeping up with the ludicrous rulings
like this barmy new first and second phase of offside crap.
Video referees all over the world in other sports do a perfectly good
job in what they do and haven't exactly ruined any of the games in
question. Why not introduce the video replays? Here's how I propose
it to be done.......
We do it for offsides, penalties, corners and goals. When someone
goes down in the box and the referee doesn't think it's a penalty,
then play on, the 5th official as he'll probably be will review it
while the game goes on, and when the ball goes out of play, then he'll
tell the referee if it was right or wrong. If it was wrong, bring
it back and take the penalty. And if it was right then play on like
nothing has happened. If he gives the penalty and it's reviewed and
found not to be a penalty then perhaps a drop ball from the spot of
the decision, but then I'm open to suggestions on that!
Offsides are simple. Drop ball again if the flag goes up and it's
a wrong decision after being reviewed, and if the flag doesn't go
up and the attacking team either scores or claims possession when
the ball next goes out of play then bring it back and a few kick to
the defending team from the spot of the offside.
Goals are simple obviously. If it crosses the line and it's not given
then the video guy will review it, and then it'll be given as a goal.
If it's given but actually hasn't cross the line then it should be
a goal kick on review.
As for corners if it's given and it's the wrong decision then give
a goal kick. And vice versa.
Rather than introduce them in the league next season without testing
then perhaps bring it in for international friendlies. We know there
are plenty of them this season and in the summer and if it's introduced
and passes the test over the next few months, then get them in. If
it's deemed a failure then at least we've tried. What's the worst
that can happen? 20 substitutions wreck an international friendly
more than video replays ever could.
And of course it would make the much maligned man in the middles life
so much more easier. Takes away their opportunity to be the centre
of attention and the chance to be the star (hence the title) but since
Jeff Winter retired even that isn't an issue anymore.
If only life was always this simple. |
 |
Toon
Shirts |
|
Sponsors |
|
|
