If a spaceship from a planet far, far away landed on earth tomorrow, how would you convince them that not using TV replays is a good idea?
By Simon Lewis (from The Ball magazine, May/June 2005)
There are three main arguments against the increased use of technology in assisting match officials to arrive at the fairest decisions:
- They say it dissipates the referee’s powers;
- They say it isn’t reliable, and;
- They say it takes too long.
All three are good arguments in their own right, especially when delivered by a big name player, manager, coach or ex-player. You always need to remember, of course, that any comment or statement carries with it a degree of bias.
The players obviously want and demand fairness, but in reality the whole debate can be unravelled to reveal one shining pearl of truth: The fans, who pay and pray in support of their teams, deserve the right decisions!
Remember the guy who scored that long-range goal against Man United, the one where keeper Roy Carroll literally shouldered the ball and almost the blame, before diving backwards to scoop it back from across the line. TV replays would have ruled a goal in two seconds, and that poor unknown player (in terms of the masses) would have become a household name. Instead, today no-one except the diehards remember his name or his team?
He is Spurs’ Pedro Mendes. Salute, Pedro!
The same applies to free kicks and penalties when the ball is hoofed upfield and the referee can’t see if a player dives, is tripped accidentally or on purpose, or even who trips himself (accidentally or on purpose!). Unfair red cards, penalties and free kicks have changed many a game, yet a TV replay could so often have ensured the correct decision before the players even stopped arguing with the referee.
DON’T FOOL THE REF
Players: stop appealing for free kicks and penalties when you know you don’t deserve them. Stop appealing for the throw-in every time the ball goes out. Don’t you realise that the referee will make decisions even if you don’t appeal? Maybe everyone’s been watching too much cricket! Get on with the game and concentrate on your efforts rather than trying to weasel out false decisions. That way you are more likely to have a fairer balance of decisions anyway: if you and your opponents play fairly and in the right spirit there won’t be fake appeals for referees to rule on in the first place. The amount of referee error must surely, therefore, be reduced.
Perhaps that’s too simple to be practical and perhaps it has more chance of happening than a woman becoming president in the US or SA, or for thousands of men to start turning up to watch women’s rugby or netball, but it is relevant in terms of one thing: what the players say they want!
If the players are going to be tricking and ‘cheating’ the referees, their opposition and the fans, then they don’t deserve much of a voice in deciding about the use of technology, do they?
BIG BLUBBER
Here’s the best part: if the players know that they can’t get away with trying their luck on officials, if they know they will be found out, exposed and penalised (sorry, that does sound awfully dramatic!) then they will simply have to start playing their games in a more sporting manner. That makes the game fairer and certainly makes the referee’s role a lot easier.
And why not? Where does it say in the rules of any sport that we must test the referee as much as possible, see if he can spot the right decision?
No, no, no. I say NO! The more invisible the referee is the better – and referees (mostly!) agree. Their purpose is not to be tested, but to be an arbiter. They share the field, enjoy some limelight, make good money, and get to enjoy a physical activity that is also a big test of the grey matter. The ref ain’t there to play Big Brother between two spoilt playground brats!
But do you know what’s absolutely, unequivacably BEST OF ALL?
Do I even need to say it?
If players start behaving normally and with good sporting grace on the field … oh dear, think of the massive effect on club and school sportsmen and women! Your hero no longer dives for a penalty in a tough Premiership match … you no longer dive for a penalty in a tough school or club match.
A Test rugby player no longer makes dirty, high tackles, or punches in the scrum, or stands on someone’s face … and you no longer dirty your name or your club’s name in a crunch match.
Isn’t that enough argument for the TV referee and umpire to be used much more?
HOUSTON, WE HAVE A REPLAY!
My worry about technology in sport is that, as with most of the other problems in sport, MONEY is at stake. The top players, teams and managers generally would rather leave decision-making to an onfield official. Consider this: a lowly team such as Exeter can draw with Man United. Doesn’t that show that in the competitive world of sport, a one-on-one contest between two vastly uneven foes can, in fact, be a very even contest. I think the top people know this! I think it scares them. They have a lot at stake. However, we as fans also have a lot at stake. Firstly, we want a fair contest and, secondly, if we think the contest is not fair, we spend our money elsewhere. We need to wake up and think for ourselves about what we want our sport to be. Do not be taken in by big voices convincing you of things. History has shown often enough how dangerous that can be.
To illustrate, it’s a well-known fact that officials are often more inclined to rule in favour of the better player, or bigger club - not because they are cheating or applying ‘favouritism’. Please do not even consider that for a moment. No, it’s simply that the official is more likely to believe that the better player or team is deserving of the benefit of the doubt in any close call. Call it a form of subconscious sporting goodwill.
No wonder, then, that so many top teams aren’t picketing for greater use of technology!
A bleeper in a ball costs money, in research and development, and to supply the balls. And Hawkeye… it wasn’t just lying on the side of the road, or plucked off a tree.
I’m not suggesting that any of these methods are in any way unsavoury, but I am saying that they are unneccessary. Tennis has the cyclops to call line decisions - but why is it sometimes over-ruled? How reliable will Hawkeye or a bleeper in a soccer ball ever be?
Why not leave the power in the eyes of the referees and umpires! Have a system where the referee or umpire always makes the best decision he can onfield, backed up by his umpire or refereeing ‘partner’ watching a TV monitor. He can then radio the onfield ref if a more accurate decision can be given after a QUICK viewing on the monitor.
Traditionally, the referee or umpire was always in the best position to make a decision. Think about the 1950s! However, today cameras are all around the stadiums and THEY now provide the best views. Plain and simple.
To be honest, if I were the umpires I would be picketing hard for the implementation of TV replays. Many people use shock appeal to make the public fear that technology will make the referee disappear. Oooh, let’s not use the replays, as it will dehumanise the sport and make the referees redundant. Oh no – let’s avoid technology today! It’s the plague of the new century.
However, in three weeks’ time when the same authorities smile and announce tests of this format or that format of technology, we all rejoice. Thank heavens - they have found a way! Hallelujah! We are now all saved.
Referees and umpires – thanks for all your hard work, but if the hi-tech technology goes much further, you guys are going to be back home in your slippers! If I was brave and dedicated enough to stand among your ranks, I would be DEMANDING more low-tech decision-making, such as the increased use of TV replays.
BUT IT TAKES SO LONG!
Back in the 90’s everyone moaned about cricket’s Third Umpire ruling on run outs. Today it’s just part of the game. In football any controversial decision is followed by 45-60 seconds of players swinging their handbags above their heads and crying to the referee. Look, we don’t need the right decision always. Sometimes that’s too difficult to achieve even if you watch a tape for months – and I mean that! What we can do is spot the really big mistakes quickly, which an onfield official might have missed (because he’s human). Surely if everyone waits for 20-30 seconds for a TV umpire to spot any glaring errors it would be quicker than the Handbags Hit Parade… and it would be fairer to all.
BUT IT ALL EVENS OUT …
It’s just stupid to say we shouldn’t use an easy and available resource to help make high-impact and high-pressure decisions. In club or school sport there’s no alternative: you have to accept the referee or umpire’s decision, and ‘it all evens out’ is relevant (well, there’s also no choice in the matter than to accept that – and hope!). Not in professional sport, however. Selectors don’t worry about things evening out, and neither do league tables.
Your boss at work wouldn’t say, oh, you made us R200,000 profit last year … unfortunately, this year you lost us R200,000. Don’t worry, though, you can keep your job as it all evens out.
In the old days rugby never allowed substitutions: it was a great mystery to me, as a soccer lover. In fact, as recently as the 70s soccer didn’t even allow substitutions! Of course, the players and management found a way, and phantom injuries allowed players to be ‘substituted’. Today substitutes are a big part of rugby, and are taken for granted.
Funny how things change!
Is it really such a difficult decision to say that all televised sports should have a referee watching a TV screen, ready to overrule wrong decisions?
© SIMON LEWIS The Ball magazine
simon@theball.co.za • www.theball.co.za
0 comments:
Post a Comment