Technology can save football

When it comes to the idea of introducing video replays into the world of football it seems fans are divided right down the middle.

On the one hand you have those who think it is both necessary and inevitable - a way to eradicate costly errors and ensure the playing field is properly level.

On the other hand you have the traditionalist who breaks out in a cold sweat at the very thought of referees taking time out to watch replays.

Essentially what we have is the Marmite of football - an idea you either embrace with open arms or passionately detest. Personally, I fall into the former camp. On the football issue that is.

The debate has raged for years and the truth is we are no closer to a conclusion now than when the idea of introducing technology to football was first suggested.

But events last weekend must surely have gone some way towards deciding the argument once and for all.

Just in case you missed it, I will recap.

During the Watford vs Reading match the linesman awarded Reading a goal when the ball hadn't gone in. In fact, not only had the ball not gone in the net, it had crossed the touchline several feet away from the goalmouth.

We are talking about a ball going so far off the target, it made David Beckham's World Cup penalty look accurate.

The linesman later claimed it had been an optical illusion but that doesn't change the fact that his decision to award the goal denied Watford victory with the game ending 2-2.

There was a time when this sort of event would have gone by almost unnoticed. The players would obviously have known and a section of the fans would have been able to tell what really happened.

But it would only have been eyewitness accounts. Nothing more definite or conclusive than that. Something to discuss down the pub without ever coming to a proper conclusion.

In today's world though, we have television cameras at every game. Cameras that show, quite clearly, that the ball didn't cross the line. Cameras that prove Watford were robbed of two potentially priceless points.

And that is, quite simply, unacceptable.

Why on earth can't referees, in situations like these, watch a replay of the incident? Why does the entire world get to see what really happened while the one person who really counts, the one person who really needs to know, is left in the dark?

The argument goes that allowing referees to watch replays of incidents would slow down the game. And, to be fair, that does hold some water as there is a danger the flow of the game could be compromised.

But there are ways around that. Replays could be limited to only the most serious of incidents and only used at the referee's discretion. Or, say, you could give each team two 'calls' in each game - opportunities to ask for a replay on an incident which is controversial.

Alternatively, why not get the fourth official to keep an eye on a screen during the match. I admit the fourth official is a busy man what with all that board holding to do and trying to look important in his tracksuit. But surely he could make space in his tight schedule to take the occasional glance at the TV screen.

Or maybe you could engage a fifth official to monitor the game from the stands, keeping an eye out for glaring mistakes and notifying the referee if he feels it is necessary. I am not suggesting these replays should be used for every incident. If you start reviewing every single disputed throw-in or questionable corner then the whole thing would descend into chaos. And the average game would last three days. Four if Bolton are involved.

But introducing the sensible and considered use of video technology to clarify controversial incidents is no longer an option - it is a necessity.

There was talk of the Reading vs Watford match being replayed but that is just plain silly. Where would that end? There is a moment of potentially game-turning controversy in just about every single match. You would end up with some sort of bizarre football time-warp with matches replayed over and over again until the referee gets it 100 per cent right. Which may be never.

Ultimately the error by that linesman - sorry, assistant referee - cost Watford two points. What will happen if, come the end of the season, they miss out on promotion by two points? Promotion to the Premier League is valued at around £50 million and Watford are not likely to take that lying down. The outcry will be huge and I wouldn't be surprised if the club took their grievances to the courts.

Does anybody seriously believe that sort of situation is more palatable than having our referees wandering around with a tiny television screen strapped to his wrist? Can anybody really think having the flow of a game interrupted once or twice to review a decision is worse than watching a club relegated on the back of a refereeing error?

I certainly don't.

To be honest with you there is a giant flaw in this whole 'introduction of technology' debate - the reality is we have already introduced the technology. The moment television became an integral part of football was the same moment that technology did.

The real question now is do we have the courage and common sense to start implementing the technology properly? Or are we going to stumble along as we are until some poor club is pushed to the limit and the whole game descends into legal chaos?

They say the benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing. Well, football is in the unique position of having hindsight available at the push of a button.

Now it's just up to the people who run the game to come to terms with the reality: embracing the existing technology may have its downside, but failing to do so could destroy the whole game.

Chants of the week

Europe may well have lost the Ryder cup to the USA - and quite comprehensively at that - but at least they won the battle of the chants.

As everything turned pear-shaped on the course in front of them, the despairing fans from Europe taunted their opponents' questionable sporting heritage by singing: "We play football with our feet do-da, do-da!"

Not big or clever I admit. But undeniably accurate.

Meanwhile, over in England, Sheffield Wednesday fans were showing they can take a joke during their 6-0 defeat by Reading.

As the home fans chanted "We want seven!" the away fans responded with "We want one!".

Well, you've got to dream...

Your say

Lino Vella Clark, e-mail, writes:

"I agree completely with your article of September 14. Apparently, in Britain, everything is up for sale for the right price. Firstly, most of the biggest companies have been sold to foreign investors. Secondly, all the car manufacturing companies followed the same fate, followed by the British Airports Authority, which runs seven UK airports, which was bought by a Spanish company.

"Now it's the turn of the English clubs - Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Portsmouth, Aston Villa, etc., which all have fallen victims to mega rich businessmen.

"But it's not only Premier League clubs that seem to attract foreign investors' attention; other smaller clubs have also been sold to foreign investors. While I admire the stand taken by the chairman and board of Arsenal FC, who refused to sell the club to foreigners, I still think that Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger has done a lot of damage to the standard of the English game.

"What Mr Messina said in his e-mail is true, namely that Arsenal have the best youth policy - Bentley, Upson, Pennant, Cole - but all these English players have been shown the door out of Highbury and Emirates Stadium, since Wenger has publicly stated that he prefers to work with foreign players than English players.

"With the exception of Walcott - he still not yet considered a regular starter - most of the time Wenger fields 11 non-English players. Other clubs are also not giving young promising players their debuts in the Premier League because managers want proven stars and are not prepared to take chances in order not to lose their jobs."

sportscolumnist@timesofmalta.com