We have seen it time and time again: human error changing the outcome of a game. Whether it is two free throws given for the smallest of touches or an imaginary pass interference, the rules of the game ultimately come down to those officiating. Some sports have taken measures to prevent human error by implementing video replay. But soccer, the world’s most watched sport, has not.
Discussions about video technology have resurfaced after a controversial decision in last weekend’s English Premiere League game between Manchester United and Sunderland. Wes Brown of Sunderland was given a red card for a foul on his teammate, John O’Shea, that was committed in the penalty box. The strange decision to give Brown the red card changed the dynamic of the 2-0 loss and forced Sunderland to appeal Brown’s next game ban to the Football Association.
Some league officials think this officiating blunder could have been avoided if the proper technology was in place. What they have in mind are live updates being relayed from referees watching replays in the studio to the main official on the pitch.
But FIFA said that they would not be rushed into implementing or even testing the technology.
No surprise there.
It took Frank Lampard’s obvious but disallowed goal: one of the worst officiating calls in World Cup history and four additional years for FIFA to finally adopt goal-line technology. Since then, it has become one of the most positively received changes to the sport.
But allowing for live video help would be the biggest decision in soccer history.
The Dutch Federation already started testing technology that offers video assistance to referees, but the International Football Association Board said that they will not allow the Dutch to test in-game trials.
Why? FIFA’s general secretary, Jerome Valcke, thinks that it would take power away from the on-pitch referee. Valcke thinks the head ref would lose confidence in his own decision making and always refer back to video evidence.
The question is one between traditionalists who understand that human error is part of the sport and those who want the “rule book” decision.
I think it should be implemented as long as it does not interfere with the pace of the game. Soccer is engaging because there are two periods of consecutive play: no commercials or timeouts. FIFA is correct (never thought I would say that), they should not rush this technology. But what is the harm in allowing for trials? It will be several years before we see this technology put in place, or even official FIFA testing to begin. That is several years and many bad calls too late.
Until then, players will continue to worry about getting red cards, even those who have not committed a foul.