Sex, Lies and Videotape

I appreciate referees and assistant referees can?t see everything and errors do occur but I personally would welcome anything that would improve the quality of referee?s judgements and reduce the number or impact of their errors. So, and perhaps I?m wearing my rose tinted glasses here, I raise the subject of using video evidence to mitigate these errors or act as a deterrent to footballers of questionable integrity.

From the arguments I have heard against the use of real time video evidence the main one appears to centre around the concern that it would interrupt the flow of the game. I expect this would be true. However, isn?t the real question: ?would it interrupt play by an unacceptable degree??. For me, I?d have happily sat in my seat for an extra ten minutes whilst the evidence was examined if I knew either of those two goals against us would have been disallowed and the offending players sent off.

Mind you, would it have been ten minutes? How long does it take the Beeb or Sky get footage from all those different camera angles, repeated in slow motion and zoomed-in for us to look at the incident? Seconds. How long would it take for the referee to make a decision? Less than a minute in the majority of cases. Certainly less than the time it takes him to calm the protestations of the players and restore continuity to the game. In fact, does it even have to be the referee on the pitch who examines the video evidence? It could be done ?behind the scenes? by other off-pitch referees and they merely inform the on-pitch referee of the decision he should enforce.

I would image that key to the success of this technology would be it?s judicious application, perhaps limited in use to a small number of significant cases, for example, when there was uncertainty about if the ball had crossed the goal line; a contentious sending off incident; or if a goal had been unjustly earned. Don?t get me wrong, I?m not saying it would be easy to define which, or even when, significant cases merited the use of this kind of examination but surely it offers a way forward to enforce fairer play?

Regardless, I have drifted from the original idea behind this post - I didn?t really intend to attempt to justify the use of real time video evidence. I really wanted to suggest a more pragmatic use of it: as an off line deterrent: after the game a panel of ?officials? review the video evidence surrounding the incident, such as the Eduaro handball. If the footage does not conclusively indicate a foul occurred then nothing is done. If it does, then a severe penalty is enforced, for example, the result is overturned and the player is banned for half a season.

Sure, there would be absolute outrage from managers, club owners, etc., the first few times such penalties were enforced - but what a deterrent and how quickly they would learn. If the player knew that his offence would always be thoroughly scrutinised and the penalty actually hurt player and club (as opposed to pathetic cash fines that hurt nobody) would he ever commit the crime?

Apologies for the lack of sex and lies.

Reader Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer