'Electronic refereeing' in sports

FIFA chief Sepp Blatter has announced that "electronic refereeing" will be introduced following the controversial goal scored by England against Germany, which was not awarded. This is a debate that has been going on for many years and, until this blatant mistake by the match officials, had been opposed by the world football body.

There is obviously a human element in refereeing in all sports for the simple reason that all decisions require judgment and only a human being can do that. The England incident apart, there are many occasions where decisions are tricky and doubtful. We all have our opinions on every decision, very often based on prejudice, depending on which team we support.

How many times do we argue that a goal scorer was offside or otherwise? Or that a red card was misplaced? Will we now have the whole field of play being monitored by sensors? Will we spend many minutes reviewing films of actions there and then before or after a decision is taken by a referee, especially in a hairline situation, often undermining the officials' authority, which is so important for stability and good order in a game?

This is all very dangerous. In many cases it is the linesmen or, as they are now known, the second and third officials, who are crucial in decision-making.

In my opinion, since the referee in the England match might well have been out of sight of the goal line, it was for the linesman, who was in a favourable position, to have drawn his attention to the obvious. "Electronic refereeing" is very dangerous and would put football back. Since it is the goal line that is the most important point, the suggestion put forward that goal line officials should be introduced (giving us no fewer than six match officials!) could be a valid one. But no more.

Another point which is in the limelight is political interference in football. We have seen the draconian stance taken by the Nigerian government in suspending its national team for two years and the political debate going on at the highest level in France. FIFA has objected to this and quite rightly so. Football is not a place for politicians, many of whom do not have an inkling. They have enough to deal with and would best focus their attention on political matters, many of which being very serious, especially in these times.

National federations, which are usually self-funding, should be autonomous. They are normally quite capable of taking their own decisions, such as the engagement and dismissal of national team coaches, and should be left to do this. Again, political interference is very dangerous.

As we are moving into what should be a lull in political activity, we got the Pullicino Orlando bombshell. A bombshell not so much because Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando presented a Private Member's Bill or because that Bill aims at the introduction of divorce but because it was moved by a government MP without the knowledge of the Prime Minister and his parliamentary group. An MP does not require the go-ahead from a Prime Minister or a Leader of the Opposition, depending on which side he is on, to move a Private Member's Bill. Fair enough. Nor is he technically bound to advise his "boss" beforehand, but ethics dictate otherwise.

As to the merits of the Bill - divorce - this is an issue that has been debated publicly for years and there is a degree of consensus across party lines that the matter should be discussed seriously. So I do not believe the issue itself goes against Nationalist Party policy. Had it been, say, abortion, then that would have been a different matter. But what then?

The Bill would certainly not be placed on the parliamentary agenda. Would the MP be asked to resign? Perhaps. But what if he didn't? And what with a slim one-seat majority? The government would just have to hang on until the next election. No choice.

With the impending resignation of the Chief Justice and the retirement of Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono, there has been much discussion about both the choice of a person to the Bench and the method of selection. Surely, it is now the opportune moment for candidates for the Judiciary, at least at Superior Court level, to be examined and interrogated by Parliament or a select committee of the House and approved by such before being appointed.