Video Evidence That Football Desperately Needs Video Technology
Full time and the score line reads Palermo 2 - Milan 1.
Another disappointing performance by Milan, yes. But what is more important here is the contentious manner in which Palermo equalized. Did Amauri used his hand to control the ball?
Although the referee did not think so, Amauri himself had said “My intention was to control the ball with my shoulder, and I think that the ball indeed touched my shoulder. If I touched it with my hand it was completely involuntary”, this, to me, seems to mean that he himself wasn’t sure and if he isn’t sure, how can the referee be so sure?
Which brings me to my argument that football should make use of video technology. If you look at replays of the goal, you’ll see that it is highly likely that the equalizer was the result of a handball, voluntary or not. If video technology were in place, referees could review the situation and probably arrive at a more informed decision.
However, I’ll concede that in this particular case it is still difficult to determine with 100% confidence whether or not it is a hand ball even with video technology, but I can easily think of other incidences where video technology could have been helpful.
The most unforgettable one being what happened in January of 2005 during a match between Manchester United and Tottenham at Old Trafford. If you can’t remember what happened, take a look at the video.
This is probably one of the most ridiculous things to have happened in the history of football. The ball was clearly a meter across the goal-line and yet no goal was given. Even bookmakers William Hill acknowledged the goal and announced it will honor bets on Pedro Mendes to score. Arsene Wenger summed it up best when he said, “The whole country knows it’s a goal, except the referee.”
If you are still not convinced, then there is Messi’s “Hand of God” goal against hapless Espanyol. How about Chelsea’s disallowed goal against Blackburn? Henry’s against CSKA Moscow?
Clearly, there is room for video technology in football. Purists may argue that video technology spoils the flow of the game and that football should remain as “pure” and as “untainted” as possible. Yes, that is good and all, but is it practical? Is it being pragmatic? If existing technology allows us for having better referee decisions, then I say use it. Referees need all the help they can get.
Your views please.
- Premier League officials to lobby with FIFA for video replays to help refs
- Euro 2008 Nike Video
- FIFA moving too slow in introducing video technology
- Coke Football Language Ad for Euro 2008
- Champions League Matchday 3: Goals!
Discussion - 10 Responses
Add Your Comment
Comments are moderated (our comments policy).
[…] Video Evidence That Football Desperately Needs Video Technology […]
Would be interesting to see the Premiership introduce a system such as that in the American Football, where one team challenges a ruling. If they lose the challenge, they lose a time out. I’m sure the system could be reconfigured to work properly for football as well. We’re in an age where things like Video Technology are just needed.
Use technology for decisions that are black and white e.g. did the ball cross the line. Anything that you cannot be 99.9% sure with using technology then it’s pointless to introduce it.
And the referee has to be “SURE” when he DOES give a decision i.e. if as a referee you are unsure if something is a breach of the rules you are obliged to give the benefit of the doubt. If the referee was unsure of whether there was a handball then he would be correct in his decision not to award a free-kick for handball. He can only award a free kick if he is 51% sure in his mind that there was a rule infringement. If you can’t even tell from the replay then the referee made 100% the right decision according to the rules of the game.
I saw the game between Palermo and Milan and i have to say the ref was right -the ball hit the top of his shoulders.
Nooooooooooooooo!
Football is an exact science in terms of rules, but it is amazingly varied and fascinating in all the things it throws up.
Shit happens, get over it and join in the debate. So what if a team doesnt score a valid goal, whats the big deal, they come 2nd at the end of the season instead of winning? Oh well theres always next year!
Unless you bring money into it… Root of all evil.
What would be subject to video evidence? Goals? Fouls? Throw on’s? The list could be endless.
One of the things that I always find fascinating in a football match is ‘momentum’. Its incredible how when one team have it, the other team cant string 2 passes together no matter what, and they try desperately to break up play so they can recoup.
Would you really want an extra rule for teams to expolit to their advantage?
I also strongly believe that a football match should be a football match regardless of where or who is playing.
Video evidence would initially be elitist… only the richest clubs could afford it.
So what happens when they play a lower division team? Different rules all of a sudden?
Do I need to get my mate to come over to video my Sunday league match and we can use that for contentious decisons?
If it can be done electronically and instantly with balls crossing lines, fine, my previous arguments not withstanding, but video evidence, no way!
A similar system to what they use at Wimbledon (Tennis related) could work, sensors along the lines, indicators when a ball is over it, or not as the case may or may not be.
It (the technology) exists and soon won’t be that ‘new’ a technology so I reckon it should be introduced sooner rather than later. We were lucky b******s with that Mendes strike though! Bet that still haunts Roy Carroll lol. If that had been a United goal ruled ‘not a goal’ I know I’d have been livid!
Peas out.
I definitely agree that yellow and red cards should be taken away when there’s evidence, that’s easy though, it doesn’t interrupt any rhythm and if a player is sure that he did not commit a foul, and therefor deserve a yellow card, he’ll have no need to complain with the knowledge that it will be revoked.
Goals are different, it’s harder and would definitely make a difference to football, especially when in the stands. I reckon there should be a couple of guys in the back that could talk to the referees via the headsets and correct them if needed, adding cameras around the goals could work as well though.
Goal Line technology will be very useful for determining whether a goal was a goal or not. Since every goal has at least 20 seconds of celebration — 4th official could, in that time, review the goal on a monitor and ensure it actually was a goal. Only given goals should be checked (i.e. Livepool vs. Chelsea) to ensure that a goal is a goal.
Any other use of technology would be disruptive and could end counter attacks — even checking close calls (i.e. Carrol dropping the ball in the goal). Judging diving and fouls via replays is doomed to fail as it is very difficult to infer whether and how hard someone was tackled. And even to talk about about throw-ins and offsides is silly… football is not an exact science!
Let the referres do their job!
I disagree. The Carroll incidents should be called. And that’s an easy one. Just do it like they do in the NHL. Ball goes in net and lights go off (there are very rarely mistakes in the NHL with this and the puck usually travels considerably faster and is WAY smaller than a football). No need for disruption because it’s a goal. I think anything that is major (the awarding of a penalty shot) should be reviewed. Goals that are disallowed because of offside, etc. can easily be reviewed and it’s usually clear if the linesmen got it right. Minor incidents (throw-ins and the like) shouldn’t be reviewed because, as you point out, it’s too disruptive.
[…] BD wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt […]