More accurately, I don't like the idea of limiting technology to the goal-line. What is the argument against technology used by Blatterites? "We very much appreciate the human side of the game, the debate, the controversy, that's why the board has taken this decision", was the answer given by Patrick Nelson of the IFA, Northern Ireland's football association. Have you ever heard anyone argue in favour of something because the enjoy getting it wrong sometimes?! They verge on the religious with their dogmatic stance. You can imagine when they were deciding whether to implement goal-line technology Blatter's argument against; "we cannot allow this witchcraft to seep into our pure game, and corrupt the minds of our children. Please, think of the children!".
An argument can be made that constantly checking replays would ruin the flow of the game. Anyone who makes that argument is making a statement which has something verging on absolute truth. Anyone making that statement is also refuting an argument which no one is even making. No football fan enjoys a slow, laborious pageant of inaction and non-events and this is why no football fan will seriously suggest allowing every single decision to be challenged - no one has an interest in challenging throw-ins at the half-way line.
That is why, about 3 or 4 years ago, I suggested we use the same system as they do in tennis. By this I don't mean we necessarily opt to use the HawkEye system used for replays, but their rule structure. Allow the referees decision to be challenged. Three challenges might be too much or too few, so obviously trials would be required to find an amount of challenges which allows the game to flow but also minimizes the number of mistakes the referee and his assistants can make without it having serious impact on the game.
Can anyone challenge the referee? Well, no, that would be stupid. A challenge would be a responsibility and would probably be the role of the captain or even the manager. If you challenge and you're right, you retain your full quota of challenges, if you get it wrong then you are docked one from your quota of challenges.
Imagine we give the right to challenge to the team captain (for talking's sake), and a terrible decision is made. Now imagine the captain has used his full quota of challenges - oh no! No challenge can be made, the erroneous judgement stands but this time we stop complaining about the referees (referees get it wrong sometimes, they're only people!). This time, we ask ourselves "why were there no challenges left?" and all of a sudden there is an extra side to the game and it's players. All of a sudden the captain comes under scrutiny for his mishandling of the challenges and what Patrick Nelson of the IFA calls "the human side of the game, the debate, the controversy" is as big a part of the game as ever.
Imagine a game where the debate and controversy would centre around those it is supposed to centre - the players - and not those guys in the middle who are supposed to be as invisible as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment