Modern technology; what a wonderful progression it has been
to all of us, countless advances that have improved our everyday life. It even
has ventured into sport, cricket, tennis and rugby just to name a few,
improving the quality of decisions made to ensure a more even playing field for
all involved. Rugby, tennis and cricket
fans love the fact that they can 99% of the time be sure that the correct
decision has been made in their sport; of course if the correct decision wasn't made that would be unjust, unfair and unwarranted, wouldn't it? Sports fans
should just expect that the game is officiated to a correct standard, is that
too much to ask? Surely we should just assume that much? Clearly not. Football
has been plagued over recent years by poor, inadequate refereeing decisions
that have changed the course of a vast number of matches. In an age where an
iPhone can tell you whether or not you should take an umbrella out with you and
a train network in China can work just through magnetic forces there’s no
wonder footballs fans’ eyebrows have been raised so frequently over comparatively
simple technology that is already being used to great effect in many top sports
worldwide.
How
much longer do we as football fans have to wait for technology to be
implemented into the game? There are countless examples that merely with
technology the correct decision would have been made and the correct team would
have won. Too many times referees and their assistants have made huge errors
costing teams vital results. You don’t have to look further than Chelsea against
Manchester United last weekend; the game was anything but boring. 5 goals, 2
red cards, a host of poor refereeing decisions and a racism accusation on the
games’ referee highlighted football’s increasingly poor reputation. Manchester
United’s Javier Hernandez scored the winning goal from what looked like, in
real-time, an onside position. Replays have since proven that Hernandez scored the
winning goal from a run that started in an offside position. Had technology
been in place the goal correctly wouldn't have stood, instead Manchester United
claimed all 3 points somewhat unfairly. Not only was the final goal
controversial but also Fernando Torres’ sending off, the referee gave Torres a
second yellow for simulation but replays have shown that Jonny Evans tackled
had indeed made contact with Fernando Torres. Evans admitted contact but claimed that Torres
could have stayed up and carried on. This is one of the main issues with
technology, how far do you go with it? Do you implement it into every single
corner and angle of the pitch or do you leave it at just off-sides and
goal-lines. Another issue is that the definition of diving is somewhat loose.
Is diving going down without receiving any touch or is diving also making the
most out of little contact. I think that diving is purely going down without
feeling a touch as that is blatantly cheating, when there is contact I feel
that players should carry on but due to the increasing number of players that
do go down too easily it is no longer advantageous for players to be honest. It’s
a sad time for the game but it’s become all too common, a small touch may not
be enough for a grown man to go down but it may well be enough for them to win
a penalty and potentially win the game. That’s the reality of the situation.
Torres did get a fair amount of contact and at the speed he was running I don’t
think it was unreasonable for him to go down. At first sight I thought Evans could
have been walking off rather than Torres. Don’t get me wrong, I do not like
diving one bit but I think that now we have to accept that some contact is
enough contact for a foul to be given.
I also
don’t blame referees for this huge controversy. I think their job is becoming
increasingly difficult with the sheer number of controversial incidents that
they have to officiate. After all they are only humans, they can’t see through
players in the way and they can’t review the decision from 5, 6 or even 7 different
angles. They have to judge the issue on their first sight, their first instinct
which can often be wrong. I admit, I thought Hernandez looked onside; it was
only after the second replay that I was proven wrong. The blame, in my opinion, shouldn't be placed on officials; the blame entirely rests with footballs
governing body – FIFA. They have the power to bring in technology that would
help referees with their impossible task, the power to stop wrong decisions and
to keep football as fair as possible. So much rests on modern football that one
decision can stop a club making Champions League football or staying in the
Premier League, which can have huge consequences for the clubs’ finances.
Football has become too large and important to accept constant, incorrect
decisions.
Some
say that football’s flow and natural appeal would be ruined if technology were
to come into play. Technology would take just a couple of minutes a game and considering
the amount of fouls, injuries and time-wasting it would have little to no
affect on the current flow of the game. Think how many times teams waste
countless seconds when they are winning at every opportunity, think how many
times players waste minutes and minutes rolling around faking an injury, then
think how long it would take for a referee to refer to an official review board
to make the correct decision. In context, the small stoppage is, for me, definitely
a worthwhile stoppage. Part of me understands why football fans wouldn't want
technology, some of the appeal of football is debates but surely you’d rather
be debating tactics or the performances of teams rather than how they were
unfairly cheated out of a win or a draw. Being on the end of a wrong decision
is hard to take, especially when you've put in a 90 minute shift worthy of
winning the game, why would football fans want to talk about a wrong decision,
like I said I’d rather debate performances and potential than inaccurate
decisions.