MARTIN SAMUEL: Don't be fooled by this perfect storm - video replays may not work
Last updated at 9:58 AM on 26th November 2009
The Greeks had a word for it: panakeia, meaning cure all. By 1548, the name for a healing herb was panacea, which has survived with a wider meaning to this day. In modern life, we think of many things as panaceas: a new government, a congestion charge scheme, chicken noodle soup, fish-oil tablets, Joanna Lumley. ‘Ah, beer,’ says Homer Simpson. ‘The cause of, and solution to, all of life’s problems.’
For football, the panacea is video technology. Everything would be made right if only we could play it again. Players would not cheat, officials would be all-knowing, fairness would abound and the Republic of Ireland would go to the World Cup. It seems so simple; or so simplistic.
And it is. Ever since Thierry Henry lent France a hand en route to South Africa, the cry for the introduction of video replays has ignored one very important factor: the Henry handball was video technology’s perfect storm. Every element came together to produce the ideal conditions in which to advocate the use of television replays.
Horrible Henry: In a perfect world, Thierry Henry's handball for the France goal would be the perfect argument for video replays
There was a natural break in play, so the game could be interrupted without controversy. The referee and all other officials on the pitch were unsighted and unable to voice a contrary opinion, making the video referee the sole arbiter. Replays from just about every angle left no doubt as to the offence committed, so a decision could be made quickly and without debate.
The foul being given, play could rightly restart with an Ireland free-kick, which was fair by both sides. And if each incident was as easily reviewed as Henry’s handball, then the opponents of video technology would be as irrational as they are being made to sound. But it isn’t and they are not.
Take the penalty Arsenal should have had to level the game with Sunderland on
Saturday, when Fraizer Campbell fouled Carlos Vela with a tackle that was
clumsy, more than malicious. The referee, Alan Wiley, had a clear view of the
incident
but did nothing, so we can only presume he did not think it was a foul.
That is the first problem. So for justice to be done the video official must be able to over-rule the match official. One may then ask why anyone would want to be the referee on the pitch getting the abuse if the real decisions are being made elsewhere. It seems rather a thankless task. That is a minor quibble, however, compared to the complexity of what happens next.
Controversy: Henry handles the ball against the Irish
As the referee has missed the foul, play is continuing. The fourth official must now interrupt the game to inform him of an infringement. One presumes he can only do this when he is certain because the sole point of video involvement is to ensure key decisions are made with 100 per cent accuracy. There can be no guess work or supposition; we do not want the opinion of the fourth official but a black and white statement of fact.
The system only has credibility if it eradicates human error entirely. This is tricky. Henry’s handball is, by popular consent, one of the most blatant examples of cheating in recent memory, but few would have spotted it with absolute certainty in real time. So Campbell’s foul on Vela would be even harder to detect quickly.
As the video official must deal only in truth this is a relatively lengthy process. He stops the video, hits rewind, gets to the right spot, watches it again, thinks it looks like a penalty. After that he probably plays it again just to be completely sure, and then alerts the referee. In all this time - which could amount to as much as 30 seconds or one minute - the game continues.
More from Martin Samuel...
There could be other incidents, equally controversial, that the video referee has now missed: a goal might have been scored at the other end.
Now, he must find a way of informing the match official that the game is to be stopped for something that happened previously. Does he sound a siren, does he scream through the earpiece and hope he is heard, does he run to the centre circle waving a big flag?
However he does it, play is suspended. The match official departs to consult the fourth official. They inspect the tape together. Suppose they disagree? Who has the final say? And how are the paying customers meant to know what is going on?
This was a single incident in a lengthy period of open play, remember. As far as
the fans know, the officials could be looking at anything. And now, here comes
the match official who awards a penalty
to Arsenal. Suppose Sunderland had scored in that interim minute before play was
adjourned? Might there not be a little tension in the air as a goal is chalked
off and the ball is returned to the opposite end and placed on the spot?
What if the referees are still arguing about the incident through 12 replays and six camera angles? At what point do we all give up and go down the pub?
Alternately, the video referee could suspend play the moment he suspects a foul has taken place before studying the film. Fine, if his instincts are proven correct. Yet what if Campbell’s tackle turns out to be legal? We have now stopped play for no good reason. How do we restart? A drop ball was one suggestion. It is hardly fair on Sunderland, though, having cleared their area under pressure to have the ball sent back there because a video referee was trigger happy.
Terry Venables, the former England manager, devoted his national newspaper column to a call for the introduction of video technology last week. Venables is not vague, like some commentators, and always backs up an idea with a specific way it should work, which is admirable.
He said video referees should concentrate on the two penalty areas, where key decisions are made, and the remainder of the pitch should be policed by the match referee. Leaving aside that the problems of the foul on Vela would remain, how long before this small-scale system was deemed inadequate and the Henry controversy simply played out further up the field?
Sir Alex Ferguson, the Manchester United manager, has already stated that referee error cost his team the match against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge this month, and perhaps the title, too. So where did that initial mistake take place? Outside the area, when Darren Fletcher was judged to have fouled Ashley Cole, despite having won the ball cleanly.
Chelsea scored from the resulting free-kick. Does anyone think, therefore, that if football was using video replay to adjudicate in the penalty area, there would not have been howls of complaint from United and calls for it to be rolled out across the pitch?
Heads up: John Terry scores Chelsea's winner against Manchester United
Graham Poll suggested video could be requested by referees for important clarification or at moments when an official fears he has made a significant mistake. Yet, all this would lead to is managers and players bullying referees into seeking a second opinion. It would increase dissent and post-match criticism as every mistake would be met by a moan that the referee could have gone to his TV screen, but arrogantly refused.
The real micro-system, and it has its supporters, would be a referral process for disputed goals, which is what rugby union has now. The ball is in the net, the game has stopped, so now we have the opportunity to briefly review the tape and ensure nobody has handled, fouled or drifted offside in the build-up.
This seems a thoroughly negative development, though. Every rule change in football in recent years has been with the intention of benefiting the attacking team, and now we are to introduce a rule that can remove goals but cannot put them on? A scheme that can turn 3-3 into 1-1 but cannot make 0-0 into 2-2?
Rugby followers frequently complain about the dreariness of modern games. Poorly conceived rule changes, not technology, are to blame, but what is incontrovertible is that replay technology will chalk off more tries than it awards.
In the old days, when the ball was put down near the corner flag, it was up to the referee to decide whether the scorer was in play. He had to find a reason to rule the try out. Now, he merely signals to the video official who has to find a reason to rule it in.
Think of Mark Cueto’s disallowed try for England against South Africa in the World Cup final in 2007. If Cueto’s foot strayed on to the touchline as Danie Rossouw made his tackle, it was by the tiniest margin. Stuart Dickinson, the video official, could not be certain Cueto was in play, however, so had to find against him. And Dickinson could well have been right, but when the benefit of the doubt supports the negative outcome it does not increase the entertainment value of a sport.
This is why the best technology is that which adds to excitement levels and supports the team that is trying to achieve. Goal-line technology in football would be an example of this: the one area in which technological assistance would make sense, if a clear signal could be offered to the referee that a goal has been scored.
Instead, extra officials stationed behind the goal are to be introduced in time for the World Cup, as if human error was ever eradicated by throwing more humans into the equation.
Still, it is better than that other, mechanical, panacea that will create more problems than it solves. The Greeks did not have a word for that, although they did have Pandora’s Box - which amounts to the same thing.
Video can work...if bosses play ball
So what might work? One of the more radical, yet plausible, ideas that has gathered ground since the debacle in the Stade de France is a video referral system comparable to tennis.
The manager of each team starts the game with two referrals and plays them when he believes the referee has made a mistake. If he is correct, he keeps both appeals, if he is wrong, he loses one.
Goggle box: Neil Warnock seems to want TV replays
The obvious drawback is that, like every other idea brought in to make football fairer, it will instead be used tactically. Just as substitutions have become a time-wasting exercise for the team that is happy with the score as it stands, so the delay of a referral could be deployed cynically to disrupt the flow of the game and interrupt the rhythm of a superior team.
It would, however, put the onus on the managers to be as sharp-eyed as the officials, so no more whingeing about what was missed, and it would solve the problem of travesties such as Crystal Palace’s undetected goal against Bristol City.
The problem is the timing of the break, because referrals could not become a way to thwart an attack or a scoring opportunity. They would have to be dealt with the first moment play is stopped. There could even be a signal on a scoreboard indicating a manager had requested a video review, so his players might choose to kick the ball into touch, the way they do if a team-mate is injured.
The system is far from perfect, but it would apply in all areas of the field and is better than a vague demand for technology, which is meaningless without a precise framework.
CONTACT MARTIN AT: m.samuel@dailymail.co.uk