• 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? 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 penalized 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? Their purpose is not to be tested, but to be an arbiter.
• 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. If I were the umpires I would be picketing hard for the implementation of TV replays.
• In football any controversial decision is followed by 45-60 seconds of players swinging their handbags above their heads and crying to the referee. 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 would be fairer to all.
• 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.
Article extract from The Ball magazine, May/June 2005, written by Simon Lewis
© SIMON LEWIS The Ball magazine
simon@theball.co.za • www.theball.co.za
0 comments:
Post a Comment