Last week the law-making suits at Fifa sat down to talk about the future of the game. One of the most interesting things to come out of it was Sepp Blatter suggested more referees or more assistant referees.
It is just hot air at the moment, but ideas being floated include a ref for each half of the field, refs for the penalty areas or four assistant refs. What a mess. Who would have overall control? What happens when two assistants disagree? One area that immediately highlights a problem would be offsides. Imagine a situation when one assistant flags and the other doesn't.
The separate refs for each half is ridiculous too. When does the power shift? What if one of them sees something in the other half, does he have jurisdiction to stop the game? Again, more questions than answers.
My issue with more officials in the professional game is more fundamental. Football prides itself on being the same game anywhere in the world. Okay, your pub team doesn't have thousands of people watching you, TV cameras or lucrative sponsorship deals. But it does have 22 starters, 14 subs, a pitch, two goals, six flags, two assistant referees and one referee. Well, it should do.
And that is my point. When the FA launched the laudable Respect campaign last August, it revealed that more matches kick off without a referee on a Saturday afternoon than with one. A terrible statistic. So why pretend that it is the same game at every level? If Fifa is considering more officials, that means it accepts delays to the game. With six or more referees and assistants on the pitch, they will have to convene to discuss decisions like they do in the NFL.
So why not steal another NFL feature; video replays. This is one of the most talked about topics of the last decade or so. I'm not sure I would want to see it, but I do feel it is inevitable and should therefore be brought in carefully.
Firstly, there has to be an experiment. Therefore, it cannot be trialled in league football. For example, if the Premiership had it, the Championship would want it. Also, to be fair, the experiment would have to be for all teams, for all games. It should therefore be tested at a cup final. A one off event where all teams have equal opportunity to benefit from (or lose out to) instant replays. A cup final would also render the outcome of the experiment more important.
Secondly, the infringements that can be referred must be set. I suggest, ball-over-the-line claims, penalty shouts, red card decisions and offsides. To ensure the flow of the game, play continues after controversial moments (unless the ref himself has blown his whistle) until the ball goes dead. Therefore, a ball-over-the-line claim could be result in a clearance that sets up a goal at the other end. That goal would not count if the video referee found the original ball-over-the-line claim to be... over the line!
Finally, when is a decision referred and who refers it? This is the most crucial element. No one wants to ruin the flow of the game. (Incidently, please click here to read a funny comparison between football and the NFL). So I suggest that each manager gets a red flag. When they want to appeal a decision, they throw the flag on the pitch. Just like in the NFL.
If they are right and the decision is overturned, they get the chance to throw the flag again. If they are wrong, that is it. No more referrals. This would weed out spurious appeals.
I'm not saying this would definitely work, but it is the best basis for an experiment. Please comment if I have overlooked something or if you have any suggestions. This is a thorny topic and if Fifa suits need this much time to natter about it, what chance has KFF got? Then again, perhaps Blatter reads this. In which case, can I add that the video ref will obviously be a good looking blonde in tight clothes. Have we swayed you Sepp?
Some interesting points raised here. Not sure whether Sepp Blatter will pay attention to what you are saying though. Apart from on Wednesday night he seems to not like anything connected to English football
ReplyDeleteI am not against the use of TV technology in principle but don’t want to see Football spoiled in the same way that both codes of Rugby, Tennis and now potentially Cricket has been. I don’t think it promotes the idea of sound refereeing or umpiring. Because the refs have a fall back option they seem afraid of ever making a decision for themselves without referring to the TMO/Third Umpire. In tennis line judges have the backup of Hawkeye so can rely on players to make the decision for them. Rugby of both codes has been blighted by needless delays when refs and touch judges could have given the decision for themselves. Also I presume that any new system will have a human interpreting the TV replays. This means that you are still relying on a judgment call to make the decision. If you use the recent West Indies series as an example the quality of TV umpiring was just as variable as that of the onfield umpires.
Your point about football being the same game at Old Trafford and Hackney Marshes is also valid to some degree on this topic however will every league game have TV technology available? The coverage of the early rounds of the FA Cup and the Championship would suggest not. Is a game between Hull and Blackburn on a Wednesday night more important than one between Tranmere and Leicester? In pure monetary terms undoubtedly yes but not in true sporting terms. In tennis Hawkeye is only used on the show courts in Grand Slams, this seems slightly unfair on players who are not likely to play in the bigger matches or later rounds. They simply have to put up with umpiring/line calls. The smaller clubs in the premiership already moan about the bias shown towards the “Big Four”. In an earlier blog you bemoaned the fact that all the big games get the best referees. Would these games also get the best TV officials?
I think that there more pressing issues for the game to deal with than the use of technology. Steps need to be taken to improve the quality of referees and linesman that are already working, and certainly improve the quality of new refs being brought in. (Yes Stuart Attwell I am thinking of you). A citing procedure should also be introduced to stamp out any bad or anti-social behavior that is picked out by the cameras during the game even if the ref has dealt with at the time. Ronaldo would have played at half as many games this season under the system would soon stop his diving and petulant kicks. A topic for another time perhaps.
AAdanchelo,
ReplyDeleteThanks for such a thorough response! I agree with many of the points you have made. TV replays would change the game radically and shouldn't be introduced unless it covers at least the whole of the top division. Your highlighting of the early rounds of the FA cup confirms this.
However, I cannot help but think TV replays are an inevitability. Which is why I suggested a small experiment. If it were to be restricted to domestic cup finals for two or three years, we'd have a better idea of many things. Principally how useful it is, how expensive it is and how the flow of the game is affected.
From your comment, I think we would be united in hoping the experiment failed. But at least we could say we tried and the endless debate may calm down a little.
Your thoughts on improving referees and introducing citing procedures has given me food for thought... Watch this space!
Ok, first thing is I haven’t read danchelo’s post above, so I may cover some of the same ground.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point on clarity over who makes decisions if there are multiple refs on the pitch, and as an extension who is ultimately the responsible official? Which on pitch ref, the 4th official, the guy in the TV studio? This will be vital to know once the inevitable mistakes happen and managers/media/fans go looking for a scapegoat.
Thing, is does the extra surveillance actually work? Unless it’s all automated, human error will creep in. Look at cricket, where the recent Windies v England series has been marred (in my opinion) by the use of referrals, poor decision making by both umpires on the pitch, and by poor decisions up in the TV box. This hasn’t been helped by umpires seeming to fear being second guessed by the guy upstairs, and seemingly having a crisis of confidence. Also you can look at rugby (both codes) where disputed tries can often go either way, depending on the wording of the question of the decision, angles of the camera, and often lead to massive delays in the matches, at crucial times.
Another thing to consider is do we really want these errors to go away? How would managers cope if they had to face up their teams losing because they aren’t good enough, and having to admit that on TV or in the press, rather than harping on about poor refereeing decisions?
I’m with you on the experimentation with video replays. Make it high profile. That is the ultimate test of whether it will work, in a one off, high stakes match. If it can survive that and not be too disruptive then it has a future on a February night in Bolton. But, how far down the league pyramid should replays go? If it’s just the Premiership then surely that’s an extra barrier for promoted teams to overcome. They have to get used to the (inevitable) breaks in play, and managers have to have time to develop their strategic use of the red flag and appeals against decisions.
It’s not an easy one, surely we should embrace the technology available and aim to make the game as fair as possible. But if it leads to delays in passages of play, extra confusion, and a tilting of favour towards those clubs that are on TV all the time in terms of video replays, then screw that. The game’s become huge without it and will it make as much difference as, say, changing the backpass rule did (another topic perhaps?).
Hagg,
ReplyDeleteAgain, some very interesting points. I won't address them all, but wanted to make a comparison between football replays and replays in other sports.
In cricket and tennis, the referrals rely heavily on computer technology. The former uses hawkeye for LBWs (albeit only until the impact of the ball on the pad) and tennis exclusively uses hawkeye for line calls. There is always an element of doubt due to this. In fact, Roger Federer consistently questions the accuracy of hawkeye. Indeed, how come the shape of the ball mark is always the same? Surely a serve would be a skid shape and a lob more splodgy?!?
Football replays would be exclusively real footage. It is rare nowadays that replays in football don't get to the truth of the issue. Especially now many stadiums have goal line cameras. Naturally there will be some circumstances where things aren't clear. In that case, the video ref could call 'no decision' and the on-the-field decision would stand.
Finally, rugby decisions differ too. Tries are often debated due to a pile of torsos, arms, legs etc. Although I don't watch enough egg chasing to comment convincingly...