Two big hitters on the broadsheets, Martin Samuel from the Times and Henry Winter on the Telegraph put the case against video replays in football.
Martin Samuel echoes some points made in last month’s Red Issue editorial:
‘Brian Barwick will assume his role at the FA this month; naturally he arrives with a Big Idea. All new bosses have them, or else what would distinguish them from the old boss? Adam Crozier made the organisation a commercial success and then nearly bankrupted it. Mark Palios introduced a commendable sense of moral responsibility, in every department bar his own. Barwick’s baby, unsurprisingly considering his television background, is video technology.
‘These days, though, it has come to be regarded as football’s panacea. Wenger says it would eliminate cheating. Jamie Carragher insists it would have stopped Chelsea’s title charge in its tracks with the award of a penalty to Liverpool on Saturday. We all know that Pedro Mendes would have scored the goal of the season had it been available.
‘And, yes, certain uses for technology are easy to implement. A device to indicate when the ball has crossed the goalline — indeed, when the ball has crossed any line — would be perfectly acceptable. Yet until last night this was hardly the “hot potato” issue.
‘So as hard as it may seem, put last night’s fiasco to one side and answer this. How could video evidence have ensured justice was done when Tiago, the Chelsea midfield player, handled the ball at Anfield, taking into account that Mike Riley, the referee, did not think an offence had been committed? Try the question on your friends. Try it on Barwick, for that matter. What happened in Manchester was a complete fluke, an exceptional error by a referee that might not be repeated in many years. More typical is the unnoticed handball, the misjudged offside or the dive that earns a penalty.
‘The bottom-line flaw is that Riley missed the handball, so there was no pause in the game during which film of the incident could be studied by an outside party. That is also true of the “goal” by Mendes. Unless we accept that the word of the referee will no longer be final and the game can be interrupted from an editing suite in the stand, the debate ends here.
‘It is a myth that in other sports technology has banished human error. In cricket, the officials on the field of play still have to invite the third umpire to adjudicate on contentious episodes and legitimate leg- before appeals continue to pass by on a shake of the head. The rule remains that the umpire trusts his eyes and only surrenders control as a last resort.
‘This is quite ridiculous, of course, as the space between balls makes cricket the one sport that could aim for 99 per cent accuracy by making every decision science-assisted and doing away with the men in the middle, but that is an argument for another day. Had football implemented cricket’s third-umpire rule, there would still have been no Liverpool penalty and no Tottenham goal, because in both instances the referee saw nothing amiss and would not have utilised technology.
‘To get justice, the game would need to be halted by a fourth official, who is neither referee nor linesman, acting instantaneously on suspicion of an infringement.
‘For every stitched-on Tiago handball or Mendes winner there would be an incident when replays prove no offence had been committed. Consider that scenario. What about those occasions when we think the man in charge has missed something, but he has not?
‘Until last night, the main talking points of the present campaign — Wayne Rooney’s fall against Sol Campbell, Tiago’s handball against Liverpool, Thierry Henry’s free kick for Arsenal against Chelsea — would not have been solved by reruns. There are too many grey areas in football, even with technology. I thought that Rooney dived against Arsenal, I also thought that Robert Pires dived against Chelsea — but I accept in both instances that an opposite case could be made. And that is with the benefit of months of replays and hindsight. Technology has confirmed nothing for certain.
‘The Mendes “goal” makes a compelling case — but it was a one-off. If Fifa, the world governing body, overreacts and one day makes referees mere bearers of bad news from a faceless, nameless, higher authority, who will be a whistle-blower? Barwick has a big idea, all right, but not a bright one. Two words for anyone who thinks that a video replay will solve any mystery: Kennedy assassination.’
Henry Winter:
‘So there you are, relaxing on the sofa, enjoying the live images of Manchester United's spat with Arsenal at Old Trafford, and Wayne Rooney goes down in the box. Suddenly, the turbulent scenes are replaced by a 30 second commercial for pushy mortgage-brokers while, back at the Theatre of Screens, an official in the stand pores over footage of the Rooney penalty/dive incident.
‘Big Brother's rewind button will be worn out: along with Rooney, the video ref must also stop proceedings and rule - even over-rule - on the antics of Ruud van Nistelrooy, the Nevilles and other players. The viewer's patience will also be eroded, having been forced to endure ad breaks while the judge in the editing suite declares his verdict.
‘To make it bearable for those stifling yawns in armchairs, maybe the television companies could ensure the ads had a topical flavour: personal-injury lawyers for bad tackles, mouth-wash for dissent, aqualung manufacturers for dives and compass-makers for offsides.
‘Commercial broadcasters - the clue is in the name - insist they would not slip ads into live games but the temptation would be overwhelming; just look at American sport, cricket even.
‘Forgive the apocalyptic vision, but allowing such a free-flowing spectacle as football to descend into a stop-start contest run by opportunistic appeal-makers and camera-wielding law-enforcers would be ruinous.
‘Viewers would switch off. Fans' minds would numb. Players' muscles would stiffen. Technology-loving managers like Bolton Wanderers' Sam Allardyce appear to have a mantra that The Show Must Not Go On (Until All Angles Of Every Incident Have Been Reviewed Satisfactorily). But it's just not cricket. Football is not a sport where natural breaks occur.’