Okay. So Sepp has promised to re-look technology as an aid to refereeing in Soccer. Yeah and that is a pig flying past my window. Forgive me if I am a little skeptical. However I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and won't bore you with the open letter I was going to write to him. No. Instead I will bore you with my ideas of how technology should be used in Soccer.
Before I begin the boring bit perhaps we should examine why we need technology in Soccer for the benefit of Sepp and those of you who might still be thinking you don't want to see technology in the game. Well let's start with Sunday's game England v Germany that started this whole debate all over again. Disallowing the goal meant that the England supporters are left wondering what would have happened if it had been allowed. Would it have changed the game and allowed their team to perhaps win the game? Well probably not, but the doubt is there and the feeling of "we wuz robbed" remains.
The excellent performance of the Germans in now put into doubt. Did they win because they were the better team or did the disputed goal so upset the England team that they were put off their game? This is unfair to a team that were obviously superior, but the question still hangs over their performance because of that one moment in the game.
The one piece of technology that Soccer has had for some time now is the instant replay on television. What this did on Sunday was expose FIFA's outdated thinking on the use of technology. It exposed the incompetence of the on-field officials, or if not their incompetence then the incompetence of the system of officiating games. It exposed the cheating nature of Soccer players in the way that the goalkeeper rapidly covered up the goal and attempted, successfully as it panned out, to make it appear that the ball did not cross the line.
I think the persistent avoidance by FIFA to use the available technology is hurting them most when technology is available to viewers. It puts off new adherents to the game. Ask any non Soccer loving sports fan why they don't like the game and it is likely to be the fact that players are cheats is the likely reply. They might not use the word cheat right out, but they will complain about the acting and diving to get free kicks and penalties for example. Within seconds the instant replay tells viewers that a decision was poor, or that a player cheated. If it is so obvious to the viewer why can't it be made available to the officials.
I think there should be four elements to the use of technology. Firstly to confirm that the ball had in fact crossed the line for a goal. This can be done very simply. Video replays could be one way, but this could be time consuming and we don't want to upset Sepp by interrupting the flow of the game. Other methods have been suggested. Cricket's Hawkeye has apparently been successfully tested in Soccer. Adidas say they can put a microchip in the ball. Whichever method is finally selected this technology is long overdue.
The second aspect is to take a lesson from sports like Basketball and Tennis and provide each team with a Time-Out option. Each team could be allowed say two time-outs per half. The captain of the team could call a time-out in the case of say a goal that has been scored but ruled off-side. The scoring team could call the time-out and have the telly ref confirm the goal or award a free kick. If a goal is scored with the assist of a hand ball that is missed by unsighted officials, the team conceding the goal could call a time-out and again the telly ref could confirm the goal or award a free kick.
I am sure that you could think of many other opportunities for a captain to use their time-outs, but the key to this is the limit on the number of times it could be used. A maximum of four interruptions to the game in each half with the wasted time added on at the end would not be a terrible burden on the game. The tension that such a call would create for the spectators would add to the enjoyment of the game rather than take away from it.
The third element should be the referee's discretion to call a time-out. This could be restricted to use for confirming a penalty or red card call in cases when he feels that there is justification, but there is a small element of doubt. I am sure there would not be a need for too many of these, unless of course there was a particularly nasty set of players. However knowing that they could be found wanting by technology might go a long way to keeping players calm.
Finally there should be citing commissioners. Officials watching the game on television with the benefit of replays and being able to call on the recordings after the game, could cite players for unfair play within a certain amount of time after the game has finished. This could cover general dirty play and diving for free kicks. It would go a long way to control player behaviour providing the penalties arising from citing were severe enough.
So there are my suggestions. I believe that the elements I have covered above, or something similar, would go a long way to making the game a lot fairer for players and a better spectacle for viewers. I also believe that a cleaner fairer game would appeal to a lot more sports lovers and grow the game in that respect. What do you think?
Contributed by RIC007WP
| Comments |
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
