Home Laws Advice Fitness SiteMap Links Set Pieces Discuss Search corshamref.org.uk   

Video Justice. by Stanley Lover

The 2006 World Cup final tournament produced a remarkable conclusion that the outcome of seventeen matches (more than 1 in 4) could have been different if video support had been available for referees.

Such a claim is difficult to substantiate 100% because no one can predict the course of a match after a contentious incident has occurred, be it penalty award or ball-over-the line decision. However, it is a considered view based on observations noted in a detailed analysis of the 2006 FIFA World Cup tournament matches.

Withholding vital evidence?

Supporters of video assistance for referees argue that the traditional ethic, that 'the referee is always right even when proved to be wrong', is no longer relevant in a high profile entertainment industry. They assert that any factor which can distort a result, whether it be corruption, drugs, cheating, or referees 'errors', demands serious attention. Also, that the stakes are too high to allow commercial objectives and ambitions to be frustrated by officials of variable competence.

To underline this view the Italian media chain RAI, which paid $80 million for TV transmission rights at the 2002 World Cup, was reported to have threatened a claim against FIFA for financial losses due to 'referee errors' which, they said, put the Italian team out of the tournament and lost important advertising income. The claim was not filed but it indicates corporate thinking about investing huge sums in the game. 
The soccer public also considers it deserves a better deal. When clear errors were shown on television a puzzled audience asked, 'If we can see these errors why can't the officials have access to the same visual information and get decisions right?'
Because it is physically impossible to see everything in a fast moving game the human referee will make so-called 'errors'. He needs help. Some is provided by Assistants and Fourth Officials but with limited viewing angles.
Recognising remarkable progress in video technology the call for such assistance has been expressed by all elements involved in the game, including many top referees (usually heard in private to avoid compromising established positions). Every controversial incident, seen in televised matches, adds to the clamour for serious study and experiment to find an acceptable and workable procedure.
An inevitable question arises; 'Why deny the referee the advantages of video playbacks, available to millions, when he is the only person required to make correct decisions?'
Such denial is like withholding vital evidence at a trial which could change a guilty verdict to non-guilty. 

Unjust and inhuman

One argument against video support is that the traditional game includes and accepts the human element of referees' decisions. That view was valid before every second of play in pro matches came under the scrutiny of a dozen or so cameras and detailed analysis of commentators. The modern world is less forgiving, thrives on controversy and is quick to find scapegoats. 
It is patently unjust and inhuman to expose match officials to ridicule and humiliation when such 'errors' (as they are described) are obvious to millions. Appeals to accept the 'human' element of refereeing have no impact on the views of those who feel cheated. They, also, do not redress the damage inflicted.
What is often overlooked in the video debate is the consequent victimisation of officials by enraged parties - be they players, fans, managers, pseudo-experts; anyone with a vested interest. All want their say in heaping derision on referees. Some, within physical distance, add violence to verbal insults, with missiles to inflict injury on defenceless officials.
The renowned Swedish referee Anders Frisk is but one, among many, to have suffered appalling pain and mental anguish for family security, under an avalanche of scorn and contempt. He had the courage to quit, but, at what price - to him, his family, and to the game? 
Apart from the climate of ridicule, sparked by 'errors' clear to all, the modern referee is at risk of life and limb from dark forces at the fringes of the game. Betting rings and mafia type power gangs, with vast money interest in results of certain matches, are increasingly targeting referees as a prime factor in securing a profitable coup. A worrying and growing trend of corruption of officials is highlighted by prosecutions of referees reported in Asia, South America, and Europe.
The risk to top referees is that an innocent 'error' can be interpreted either as frustrating or aiding certain parties to distort results. An interpretation of frustration carries an undeniable element of danger from acts of revenge by gangster elements on individuals and their families. Interpreted as aiding - to distort a result - invites vicious accusations of corruption, which are unproven but smear reputations of honest men.

Justice seen to be done

Pro-video supporters believe the game would benefit because justice of decisions would be more transparent and the credibility of referees would be strengthened.
Opponents of video help fear that the flow of play would be constantly interrupted to check incidents. But, every pro game is stopped for over 100 in-play and out-of-play events. To check a major incident - referred by a qualified observer - would take no more time than a corner kick, goal kick, or a substitution. 
Observations noted during the 2002 World Cup indicated that the results of five or six matches could have been different had video assistance been available. A similar study of sixty matches in the 2006 final tournament produced a remarkable conclusion that seventeen matches (more than 1 in 4) would have been more correctly controlled with quick reference to images provided from other viewpoints.
Sixty matches represent 5,400 minutes of allotted playing time. A video check need take no more than one or two minutes. Thirty to forty minutes spread over seventeen games is a small price to pay for the reward of more efficient match control.
It is possible to agree strict rules of procedure - the when, why, and how - with players and coaches to satisfy them and the soccer public.
Another argument against video assistance is that it will only be valid in top flight soccer and will not benefit officials at other levels. The first is true, clearly due to financial restraints, but the second is not because any strengthening of the referee's credibility at top level will reflect favourably on those who whistle amateur games in the parks.

Refined preparation and support

The introduction of professional referees has recognised their proper role in the game. They are trained and monitored as professional athletes and receive sophisticated technological back-up to achieve optimum performance. However, without assistance with unseen incidents, 'errors' will continue to be highlighted on the screen to negate much of the increasingly refined support for officials. 
Given the will to achieve a practical solution it should possible to determine the conditions and application of video assistance to satisfy all parties involved so that justice is - and is seen to be - done.

© Stanley Lover 2008
9, Boulevard Victor Hugo, 92200 Neuilly, FRANCE
e-mail: stanley.lover@free.fr