It will happen, sooner rather than later – Part Two

I saw at least one point in SB’s post on which I agree with. However, I cannot keep telling myself that there are very few refereeing errors. The only valid point I saw there was that video referencing would mean increasing dead-time for the game. Everything else that has been brought up, I mean things like “human element” and “having decision being made by humans without the assistance of video cameras” are way too puritanical stances for me. It’s being thrown about as if football is losing its chastity and it would be sacrilegious if video tech were to penetrate football.

As I had said earlier, I am not going to sit and iron out the infrastructure for video referencing. I focus on the first point which SB makes (and the only valid point). I would certainly take the word “dramatically” out of that bullet though.  There would be more dead-time in reaching the correct decision, either by stopping the game or rather by letting it flow, but reverting it back to the moment of offence. Valid. There should be a good balance between the flow of the game and ensuring that majority of the decisions are correct. Here is a possible solution for SB’s little conundrum involving Team A and Team B: Let the field referee rule for all decisions except off-sides and penalties. For decisions pertaining to to these, refer them to the video referees. Keeping this in context, what would one prefer: about a few seconds of the game dedicated towards dead-time or a penalty wrongly granted? It is as clear as day. This is certainly not “dramatic”.

I completely agree with SB  regarding the issue of retrospective refeereing. It would certainly iron out the issues of late and poor challenges, induce more discipline and mitigate long term injury risks.

Another point I would like to address is the issue of costs. The technology and systems are already in place. Player tracking systems have become extremely commonplace since the introduction of the AMISCO systems introduced back in 1996.These systems require the installation of carefully placed cameras carefully positioned to cover the entire pitch so that every player is captured on video. Using algorithms, trigonometry and digitial processing systems each players’ movement can be tracked and monitored at any given point in time. I am sure SB was aware of all that. If all this is expensive equipment is already in place, I cannot imagine where all the extra costs are going to come from except the extra linesmen who would require additional training costs among a whole host of other things.

About the liability issue. As I suggested, make the men in black liable to all the decisions except two: off-sides and penalties. How does it undermine the authority of the referee? Still makes him the man now, innit? And one can probably throw back SB’s argument. SB does concede that video technology is acceptable in blatant cases like that of Mendes vs Machester United. So what if, after the disallowed goal United had started a dangerous counter and Tottenham appealed for a challenge? Still slowing down the game. As I said, I am not being paid the sort of money those officials at their respective F.As are being paid to sit address these issues.

So what if it infuriated the refereeing community that Clattenburg had to take a good, long, hard look at himself if he was making errors of such epic proportions. If I were to interpret USD 1mn as USD 1bn, I would lose my job. If fans are buying merchandise, paying the recent hikes in ticket prices and most importantly feeling undone due to consistent human errors, is  it actually worth sitting back and debating whether snoods are ok or become proactive and take up the issue of video tech?