An interesting article.....

As seen on Sportingo.com

The camera may be an exact science, and it may never lie. But while it works in rugby and cricket, the fuss that goes with it is too much to justify its use in football.

Think of the most significant individuals in sporting history and most people will come up with names such as Pele, Carl Lewis or Bjorn Borg. But only the most knowledgeable of sports fan could tell you why Tofik Bakhramov could be added to this list.

It was not as a competitor or coach that he gained his fame and yet Mr Bakhramov has the honour of having a national stadium named after him. The year was 1966, the venue Wembley, the occasion the World Cup Final between England and West Germany - and Tofik Bakhramov was one of the linesmen.

With the game finely balanced at 2-2 in extra-time, the ball fell to England striker Geoff Hurst, who struck a fierce shot that ricocheted off the underside of the bar and onto the goal line. Bakhramov decided the ball had crossed the line, England went on to clinch their only World Cup and the rest, as they say, is history. Until now.

Recent technology suggests that Hurst’s shot did not cross the line and if available to the referee at the time, would have changed the course of football history (no ‘Three Lions’ song for example!).

Such incidents have decided the destiny of many different sporting events over time. Football provides the most high-profile examples, whether it be Maradona’s Hand of God or more recently Pedro Mendez’s wonder goal that never was against Manchester United.

And so the debate about technology in sport rumbles on. In recent weeks, we have heard that Everton manager David Moyes is keeping a video of poor penalty decisions against his team, while a team of lawyers are investigating whether Horacio Elizondo, the World Cup Final referee, sent off Zinedine Zidane after his fourth official studied a replay of the incident.

The England cricket team, despite being comprehensively beaten in Australia, can point to poor umpiring decisions that have contributed to their demise. In tennis, we had the bizarre scenario of Tim Henman signalling from the court to John Lloyd, working for television, to check whether video replays of certain points had shown incorrect decisions against him.

John Inverdale, a sports journalist I have great admiration for, called for increased use of technology in sport after reflecting on another year of poor decision-making by the men in the middle. “In 10 years' time our children will laugh at the suggestion that once upon a black-and-white yesterday, the onus of responsibility at multi-million pound sporting events was entrusted to a single individual who may, or may not, have been giving 100 per cent of his attention to the crucial incident that determined the ultimate prize,” he wrote.

In an article for the Daily Telegraph, Inverdale points to the use of technology in rugby to ensure that the correct decisions are made. He says that technology can be used in a quick and efficient manner that would not hold up the game, which is the primary concern of many when the subject of technology arises. I have to disagree with him, however. I have watched rugby with great interest since the introduction of the video referee and, yes, on occasions it has really come up trumps.

Who can forget Rob Howley’s dramatic try at the end of the 2004 Heineken Cup Final that was awarded correctly by the video referee? However, a disturbing trend has developed. It seems that any slightly dubious decision in both rugby union and league is now referred to the video referee. This means that very obvious tries are not awarded on the spot, while time is taken up by incidents where all but the most optimistic fan would concede that a try had not been scored. In short, referees on some occasions are becoming frightened of making even the more routine decisions, preferring instead to send the incident upstairs lest they make an error. And with sport becoming increasingly high-profile, watched by millions and tons of cash riding on results, who can blame them? All of which means that we have highly disrupted matches that can lead to sterile viewing.

Is it not the very essence of sport to have exciting, free-flowing games in which there is great drama and on some occasions, controversy? And would such technology transfer well to other sports? The main reason rugby has had success with video referees is that players generally have respect for the officials. The game, more so than other sports, is also prone to many stoppages for lineouts, scrums, bloodbins and so forth. Can you imagine the scenes if a footballer goes down in the penalty box in front of the home fans and the referee has the option of going to a video referee?

I have no doubt that players around the world would be surrounding referees at every incident, demanding that he refer to the man in the stands. The respect from footballers to referees just is not there. We are so used to footballers (and managers) harassing referees during recent years but the only thing that stops this spiralling out of control is the fact that the referee is solely in charge, his decision is final and once it is made it cannot be undone. Once we have a situation where the referee is not totally in control of the game, any remaining faith in his ability would be eroded completely. With football being a fluid sport with very few major stoppages during a match, these extra breaks in play would be detrimental to the sport as a spectacle.

There is perhaps more potential for success in cricket as, like rugby, there is respect for the officials and the pace of the game is slightly slower. Of course umpires can refer to a video umpire for run-outs, which are easy and quick to adjudicate. But what about other decisions? Leg befores, catches and so forth? Test match cricket relies on getting through 90 overs per day to create a competitive match and any delays would slow the occasion right down.

Like in rugby, I fear that umpires would become increasingly prone to referring to others in fear of making the wrong decision. Being denied in sport by a poor decision is tragic but a part of the game. It is what makes players, managers and supporters alike stronger in character. It makes winning so much more satisfying, revenge so much sweeter and viewing so compelling. I believe the main role of referees is to referee, not to refer. Just let them get on with it.