The other day a piece was posted on here written by myself in which I talk about referees and a league idea I had devised for them. I also mentioned that with Video Technology my league idea wouldn’t be needed. So in this second part of the piece I’ll discuss the pros of Video Technology, address the believed ramifications and cons while also giving my thoughts on the issue as a whole
I’m not one to discuss such subjects thoroughly or intelligently to be honest. I’d much rather say a few words and just swear a bit, it’s more in my character. But, I shall be professional and talk about the rampant calls for Video Technology in our modern game.
Over the years we’ve seen many dubious decisions resulting in a winning goal for a team, leaving the opposite team and its fans and associates feeling aggrieved. Decision by decision calls for technology to be introduced has become far more frequent and much more incensed. We live in a world rife with technology.
Phones are more sophisticated, cars can drive themselves, printers can print 3D and even Tupac can give a performance at a festival 16 years after his death. It’s a phenomenal world we all exist in. And whether you choose to take part in this technology mad world or not, one thing is for certain: it’s all around us. We cannot escape it unless, of course, you go to a football match.
From the first minute to the last, we fans support our team as we enjoy the beautiful game being played before our very eyes. The emotions we feel during the game can only be described as indescribable. One emotion that occasionally pops up inside of us is anger. And that anger is sometimes generated through poor officiating. What can be done about it?
THE IDEAS & THE PROS
One idea for Video Technology is something similar to Tennis Hawk-Eye system (credit to @Frimponged for giving me info on hawk-eye). While the game is being played some sort of technology can do some sort of technological thing and if a decision has to be made, that said technology can show its advantages and make the right decision without any commotion. The technology doesn’t have to be used for every decision, only decisions labeled as ‘ghost goals’, red card decisions that are contested by players and managers and offsides that seem wrong.
I believe it’s imperative to keep the referees presence on the pitch, even if they do mess up from time to time, as it is what makes the game, the game. When situations such as these do occur, all it would take for a decision to be rectified is for the officials to watch a screen placed in and around the dugout and then voila, there’s your correct decision.
The 2nd & 3rd idea: In-goal post cameras and/or sensors
It’s self-explanatory, really. You place a camera on the inside of the post and watch footage back if needs be. Just like the first idea, a monitor can be placed in and around the dugouts thus making it available to the 4th official.
And along the lines of cameras, another idea I’ve seen mentioned is sensors placed inside the ball and on the inside of the post that will alert the ref if the ball has crossed the line via a vibration in a watch. It’s very complex, isn’t it?
Ramification 1- Slowing the game down
The ideas written above will only take a couple of seconds, no more than a card being handed out, a throw-in being prepared, a sub being brought on, a dead ball being taken or a player feigning injury. This whole argument that it’ll slow the game down is insignificant.
Some teams even deploy tactics specifically to hamper the fluidity of the game. So, will it slow the game down? No, it won’t. The game will be the same speed as all the others.
Ramification 2- Controversial nature of the game
Some believe that Video Technology will ruin the controversial nature of the game. I understand this argument to a certain extent. We all love discussing the beautiful game and the controversy that surrounds it provides the perfect platform for debate. However, surely this isn’t so important it can’t be sacrificed.
Football will still continue to provide debate material and even some controversy will remain. And another thing, when ghost goals occur or a player is wrongly sent off, people call for technology to be used.
I for one would find it strange if people slated technology after all the effort to have it introduced. But as I said I do understand this argument and I am still undecided on this one. I think it would require serious consideration.
Con 1- Cost
No idea comes without consequences and this is no different. You see, technology, while incredible and mesmerising, is also expensive. The top European leagues will be able to afford it, that’s for sure. But where do we stop? Surely we can’t ignore the lower leagues who may not be able to gather enough cash to spend on this luxury?
Gillingham struggled to pay the policing costs for a League 2 clash with Swindon, surely to run this it may be a bit of a stretch too far? If technology was to be introduced there’d need to be some guidelines in place to ensure its success throughout the leagues, throughout the world. A system that’ll allow all leagues the privilege.
What’s written above are the arguments for and against Video Technology that I’ve seen and I hope my views make sense. Football has taken a step closer to introducing technology.
There’ll be talks about it in the summer and it could even come into place for next season. I’m in favour of it as long as it is thought of thoroughly and isn’t just put in place to please people. It can certainly be beneficial but it does have its issues.
Published with permission from O-Posts.