Video Technology: it’s not as simple as it sounds

Nothing like a bit of volleyball to reignite the video technology debate. Henry’s Hand of God II was seen by many as yet another damning piece of evidence for the introduction of video technology into football. Although they’re all missing the point – it was a time to be honest rather than to look for a 2^nd opinion – there are many reasons why we are still a long way to go to before a video umpire joins the refereeing team match day.

In the case of the handball the referee’s vision was impaired by a clouded penalty box. The goal stood and Ireland were sent packing. Had video technology have been in place, the referee may well have – given the ferocious Irish appeals – gone to the 5^th official for a verdict. After consulting all of the angles, the official would have rightly awarded the hand-ball, and the score would have been dead level. I’m not exactly helping my own point here – let me explain.

Video technology is all well and good when the decisions are so clear cut and obvious. Looking at two sports that already employ video technology – Rugby and Cricket. Clear cut decisions are very easy to make – in cricket for example many a time an umpire will refer a run out decision to the third umpire, they look at the replays, slow the video speed down to frame by frame to make a decision. All well and good when a batsmen is out of is two yards short of his ground.

For line calls, this isn’t very difficult, up until the decisions get close. In the 2007 Rugby World Cup final Englishman Mark Cueto grounded the ball right by the touchline. The referee went upstairs to see whether the wingers left foot had touched the white line before the ball was touched down. After referring to a number of angles mulitple times, the decision went in the favour of the defensive side – to this day, I’m still not sure.

And this is where the issue lies. Video evidence is all well and good, but how many times have you sat with friends/family watching a game and looked a the same camera angles. Take the Wayne Rooney penalty versus Arsenal a couple of months back.

There were merits for giving the penalty – there was a great deal of contact. But equally there were reasons not to give it – Rooney belts the ball into touched before the contact is made, and Rooney is on his way down when the collision occurs. What were to happen if that was referred? I would think, ultimately, that the video referee would side with the decision made in the first place.

Going back to the cricket example. England toured the West Indies last winter and the referral system was used. Quite a few decisions that were referred were not overturned, because the evidence was inconclusive. Most decisions in cricket are much more black and white – did he edge it? Is the ball going on to hit the stumps? In football the waters are much more murky and unclear.

The Henry handball was an example that people cited for the introduction of video technology. Ultimately, video technology is very easy to call for when the decision is so clear cut – for example, the Freddie Sears goal that never was. You send that upstairs and of course you are going to get the right decision. But as cricket has shown, introducing video technology doesn’t solve the problem – it just moves it upstairs.

Bob Bamber

December 7, 2009