Borderline

Posted on June 29, 2010 by bobpiper

Video technology, or no video technology? In the wake of Frank Lampard’s phantom ‘goal’ in the match against Germany on Sunday we have been bombarded by people slagging off FIFA for not allowing the use of camera technology in football… LampGoal_1074785a.jpginterestingly, much of the heat being generated by… television companies… who wouldn’t dream of registering a personal interest, of course.
I have two problems with the use of video technology in football. Firstly, in football, unlike tennis or cricket there is not a natural break in the game to allow the officials to consult those with access to the screens. When Lampard’s shot rebounded out of the goal, the German keeper quickly dispatched it down field and the Germans came close to scoring at the other end. When should the game be stopped? Immediately? In which case if it is shown not to be over the line the Germans are denied a chance to score at the other end. When the ball next goes out of play? That could be five minutes later, and all sorts of things could have happened in the intervening period (substitutes brought on, players booked)… do you have to go back five minutes and try to start again?
Secondly, Lampard’s shot is shown to be over the line. The message is eventually conveyed to the referee, the game is stopped and a goal given. Five minutes later Defoe is marginally offside but the linesman’s flag is not raised and Defoe goes through and scores. Should the Germans not be able to say, hey, let’s look at the video? They have had a goal given against them with the use of video technology… why not chalk one off using the same technology? And then there’s a shout for a penalty. Was it in the penalty area or not? was it a dive? Do we stop the game again to check with the camera folk? Where do we draw the line? As I say, there is not necessarily a natural break in football to allow a replay of these incidents, and (I don’t say this often) I agree with John Motson and Sepp Blatter on this one… introducing video technology would fundamentally change the whole nature of the game, and instead of television covering the game, they would end up refereeing it too.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Borderline

  1. Gary Elsby says:
    June 29, 2010 at 9:21 am

    I disagree Bob because you appear to relegate the referee to the second position.
    Video technology is there to enhance the position of the referee and serves to deny him the opportunity to apologise for getting it wrong.
    Exactly where and in what circumstances hawkeye should be used is the only question being asked.
    Only once or twice a game? By whom, the captain or manager?
    100% of the viewers and officials know it was a goal and in any walk of life, justice would be demanded and delivered with compensation, but not in football.
    American football has the referee addressing the crowd via his microphone after reviewing the replay, his yellow rag thrown down immediateley is where the foul took place previously with no argument.
    Football is the poorer relation in all of this and technology proves everyone who argues wrongly into a correction.

    Reply
  2. Bob Piper says:
    June 29, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Gary, I don’t relegate his position, I am saying more or less the same as you… where and in what circumstances do we use video evidence? The notion of allowing managers or captains to stop the game would certainly undermine the referee and ‘relegate’ his position.
    American football is irrelevant. It takes bloody hours to play now, and they love all those breaks to plug McBurgers and fizzy drinks anyway.

    Reply
  3. Harry Barnes says:
    June 29, 2010 at 11:28 am

    What would be the fun in watching a football match if we couldn’t shout “referee get your eyes chalked”? or afterwards insist “we was robbed”. Perhaps the answer is to ban action replays from what should be live TV coverage. In the World Cup you lose much of the real time play because of them. All I want is to be able to watch a game on TV almost as if I was there and to be told the name of the person who has the ball.

    Reply
  4. Bob says:
    June 29, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Splendid idea, Harry. When I go to the cricket these days people are always moaning that there is no replay when an incident happens. They are so used to seeing every little incident 5 times from different angles and at different speeds.

    Reply
  5. John Lilburne says:
    June 29, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    Hawk-Eye claim that their system can identify when a ball fully crosses the line and send a beep to the ref’s earpiece in half a second. That’s much faster than the current bitchfest of players shouting objections at the ref.

    Reply
  6. stephen says:
    June 29, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    You have a point – perhaps the correct thing to do is to impose a long international ban on cheats sich as the German goalkeeper and Henry for cheating, so that others may be less inclined to follow suit.

    Reply
  7. Robert says:
    June 29, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    I’ve refereed for twenty off years and it’s happened to me many times, I’ve given about three goals from corners that had been saved or so the keeper thought, but when standing on the corner flag it’s easy to see the ball pass the post, the hardest one to see is the ball that hits the top post, then shots down and out, especially if the goal keeper is trying to save it because your eye automatically will look at him.
    But you have to be dead in line to see it two yards out and you cannot tell because the post cut your eye sight.
    So what do we do well it depends on how you want the game to go, the way it’s going with FIFA soon football will become a dance routine, in which the chap on the ball will get points for all the step overs and if somebody dares tackle him he will be removed.
    Just let the game go, it gives us something to blame when we lose anyway

    Reply