Sure, Ian Holloway's impassioned plea to have football belatedly shunted into the 21st century ("I'm sorry Mr Blatter, you're getting it all wrong") may have been rooted in frustration following his Blackpool side's 3-2 defeat to Manchester City.
Ollie felt his side had been wronged three times by the officials, with Carlos Tevez's disputable double for City standing and Gary Taylor-Fletcher's goal chalked off for offside. All that after a bright and breezy
But he's right, to a degree. Replays may not ever reliably rule offside goals out or onside goals in, but football does need to change. Even Mr Blatter realises that now, in the wake of Lampardgate at the World Cup.
Goalline technology should be the bare minimum. With so much money at stake for promotion and relegation, football literally can't afford to have any doubt cast over what is essentially its basic premise - the ball crossing the goalline.
It's not a new argument.
To be fair, TV slo-mos have also highlighted numerous brilliant calls by officials. Anders Frisk (later effectively hounded out of the game by Jose Mourinho) bravely awarded a penalty to Ireland in the last minute of their 2002 World Cup second round clash with Spain, when he spotted Fernando Hierro trying to swap shirts with Niall Quinn, an offence which often goes unpunished. Frisk, in the final throes of an important match on the world's biggest stage, didn't bottle it.
I am a (lapsed) qualified referee myself. I've only ever done park matches but I’m protective of referees and the job they do (but more on that in another blog later in the week). And I think the use of technology could support, rather than undermine, the officials.
The naysayers argue the other sports which use video reviews all have natural breaks in play, and football can't afford to stop to check decisions.
Well, unlike Holloway, I wouldn’t advocate TV reviews of every contentious decision. Goalline technology could show instantly whether the ball had crossed the line, so that wouldn't delay things. Football’s also not a constantly flowing sport. The referee halts play several times a game anyway for substitutions or injuries, and arguments over decisions can often take up more time than a replay would.
The anti-technology lobby also say it'd damage the FIFA ideal that football must be the same everywhere, from Hackney Marshes to Wembley. Most professional matches in
I'd like to see reviews prove other line decisions, such as whether an offence was committed inside or outside the penalty area (Brighton and Hove Albion would be two points better off if that had been in operation this season), and on judging handball inside the box. You’d need some restrictions on its use – perhaps a certain number of reviews per game and a finite number of replays before the television match official (who should be a retired referee) decides. If inconclusive, follow the cricket model and allow the original on-field decision to stand.
If Holloway has his way, it may mean the end of dozens of column inches (and hours of pub talk) on contentious refereeing decisions – but if it produces fairer results, the relentless whinging by managers after games should take the heat off the officials. And that can only be good for the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment