Lets Go To The Video

The calls for the introduction of video decisions in some form seem to have grown to a overwhelming roar in the A-league over the last week. The majority of managers support at least a limited introduction of technology to help the poor referees out but is this what we really need in our game?

The ability of referees to call on video replay to help make decisions has been around in other sports now for a significant amount of time ( in the case of cricket since 1993) and has been quite successful in helping those sports eradicate certain mistakes they were commonly made by the referees.

However there appears to be two common aspects of where a video decision can be and cannot be implemented.

Where the game has come to a complete stop and the ball is dead
Cricket is a good example of this requirement, each delivery is a “play” unto itself. Once the delivery has been completed the ball is considered dead. The ref can stop the game to consult the video as there is no direct effect upon the game except for a small amount of lost time. Tennis is another classic example of this principle, each point is self contained and video technology does not interrupt the continuous aspect of the game.

The video decision should not be used to interpret the result
Video is very good at giving you a yes or no answer. In cricket for instance it is common for it to be used to determine run-outs and stumpings. It is perfect for this as the decision is limited to whether the foot/bat has made it across the popping crease and is grounded. Cricket authorities have resisted introducing the camera for LBW decisions as these type of dismissals are much more open to various variables and although a referee may get it wrong it was felt that a camera would not be conclusive and would therefore cause more issues.

If we use these two principals in our game is there a place for some type of video decision? There seems to be three common aspects of our game that people suggest could be resolved by some type of video intervention.

The first is the goal mouth scramble and the debate over whether the ball crossed the line or not. To be honest I don’t think the use of a video decision for this circumstance passes either principle. In over half the cases where there is debate around this type of decision the referee has waved play on and the ball is still live so it fails Principle 1. There is also the added problem that in a great deal of cases the ball will be in the air and so unless the camera is perfectly positioned across the goal mouth there will be some doubt whether the ball fully crossed the line and so the second principle also fails.

FIFA has tried to solve this issue however by using ball tracking technology. Progress over the last few years has made it possible to embed tracking devices in the ball which would allow a conclusive decision on whether the ball has crossed the line of not. Although trails have shown the technology is not ready yet I think that FIFA are on the right track here and this approach is better than the Video Decision in this case.

The second type of decision is the curse of the world game, the simulation. There is nothing worse than losing a match to a penalty that was awarded to a dive that was more appropriate for the swimming pool than the football pitch. This type of decision certainly passes the first principle. The referee has awarded a free kick/penalty and the play has come to a stop, perfect time to check the video for cheating. But is the decision clear cut. There are many variables to consider and the video referee would need to make a judgement call (ie Was the contact sufficient to cause the player to go down). Lucas Neill’s infamous tackle on Italian Fabio Grosso at the 2006 World Cup is a case in point. Could a Video Referee overrule the controlling ref on the penalty decision, I don’t think so as it calls for a judgement call.

I suppose you could make the argument for clear example of diving to be overturned and the benefit of any doubt to rest with the controlling ref but I don’t think video decisions are the answer for diving. I would rather see post game analysis of the match and hefty suspensions handed out to “clear” example of cheating. Out the player for 6 months for diving and the culture would change.

The last type of decision is the one that is getting a lot of play in the Australian press at the moment. The “was it a free kick or a penalty”. There is no doubt that referee’s regular get it wrong whether the foul is committed inside the penalty box or just outside it. The best referees in the world are not immune to this mistake.

I firmly believe this is the one type of decision that our game would benefit from having video intervention. It passes the first principle. The game has come to a complete stop as a foul has been awarded. It also passes the second principle as the video referee has a clear cut decision to make. Was contact made outside the box or inside. This leaves very little room for the video ref to interpret the result.

So lets go to the camera, now we just have to convince FIFA to give it a try here in Aus.
,