|
 In the first article of an occasional series, (i.e., we will see if readers like the concept and participate in future e-mail-based forum discussions), we asked several UK soccer fans whether technology should be embraced for umpiring decisions. Here follows the e-mail conversation they had on the subject.
Fan 1:
"It seems to me, that in this day and age of advanced technology, cricket is perhaps the only modern ball game to actually embrace advances within the rules. In football [soccer], how many contentious penalty, free kick, disallowed goals, offside decisions etc., are given each year, even at the highest level, by referees and linesman - which are quite blatantly wrong? Decisions which quite frankly can change the fortunes of entire games and perhaps ultimately promotion relegation. When is football going to embrace technology - and when are referees going to learn that this embrace will actually enable them to do an even better job?" Fan 2:
"Agreed. The inability to embrace technology quite frankly has taken all the fun out of the big business of the newest profession, sport. Fan 3:
"What is the proposal, that a bell dings every time the ball goes over the line as in tennis? The game gets stopped while a team of experts studies a video clip every time offside or a goal is challenged? For goodness sake, part of the fun and unpredictability of football lies in the dodgy decisions and the arguments after the game. Most teams will shout if the decision goes against them but keep very quiet when it goes their way. Fan 1:
I certainly see your point [Fan 2]. But that's not the idea. No-one's trying to stop the flow of a game or the spontaneity of sport in general. In cricket for example, the decision only goes to the 'Third umpire' if there is a sense of reasonable doubt in the umpire's own decision. I do understand this is a debatable subject - but isn't that the whole idea if it's for 4-4-2??? If these things don't get debated and everyone's opinions and ideas are put on the table, all sport will stay in the dark ages forever. As I say - it's just my suggestion. Feel free to open up a debate of your own if you think it's a naff one - or if there isn't any logic or basis whatsoever for my argument. Personally, I think it's long overdue to be looked at before looking at imposing salary caps or wealth distribution of assets already accumulated by other things according to the current rules. Fan 4:
I'll support [Fan 2] on this. If the ball is fractionally over the line (or not), cleared by a defender and play continues up the field and a goal is scored at the other end, what then? The only justifiable use in my view is when play has already stopped. For instance, a foul on the edge of the penalty area. Ref blows whistle and play stops. While everyone argues, the fourth official has time to determine whether the tackle was outside or in. Justice done without any long wait. And remember that Hawkeye at Wimbledon isn't foolproof. Fan 1:
There is a sensible argument to be had here, but if in general people are going to be insistent on taking the technology concept to the extreme of having a virtual referee, then they are completely missing the point of what I'm saying, or actually not reading properly at all. I'm saying that technology could assist contentious decisions. If you want specific examples, how about when Tottenham should have drew with Manchester United last year, when the ball quite blatantly went about a metre over the goal line? Or even closer to home, how about on Saturday when my team should have had a penalty for a handball in the box? No-one in their right mind would even suggest stopping play if the ball accidentally goes out my a few millimetres and those sorts of petty decisions really are a petty and pedantic reason to look to technology. But for high profile, game changing, point affecting decisions - there should be a third party consulted, if the referee isn't absolutely certain. Ask yourself another question. Why have the Football Association already overturned five red cards to yellow cards this season. I've given my thoughts and therefore if someone can give a better idea, instead of tearing strips off of mine, I'd love to hear it - but at least listen to the actual argument instead of giving your own interpretation of what I'm saying before making up your mind!!!
This article was seen first by people who receive the monthly newsletter, join them.
|
