Revisiting Video Replays

Yesterday’s game at the Nou Camp was yet another reminder that video replay is absolutely necessary in football. That is, of course, if the football powers that be really want to do away with the egregious mistakes that not only mar the beautiful game, but cost millions as well.

One has only to replay – no pun intended – two of yesterday’s most glaring (and game deciding) refereeing decisions in order to realize that the problem needs to be addressed again. Thiago Motta’s red card is the first incident. Having already received a yellow card for an arguable foul on Messi (replays showed that his tackle got the ball first and the player second), Motta was given his marching orders after striking Sergio Busquets in the face while shielding the ball. Clearly there was no intent on the part of the Inter player, but Busquet’s oscar-worthy performance ensured that the Brazilian suffered the harshest consequence. The second decision, which came a few minutes before the final whistle, was not as apparent as the first, but equally as bad. Leading by one goal and needing one more to progress to the final, Bojan Krkic was on the receiving end of a lucky bounce before scoring the goal that would have sent Inter back to Italy empty handed. Much to the relief of the Italians, the goal was disallowed after the referee determined that the bounce had come off Yaya Toure’s hand. The replay did show the ball striking the Barcelona player’s hand, however, his arm was tucked into his body, and his hand was covering his stomach. Evidently there was no attempt to play the ball with the hand.

Needless to say, not everyone believes that video replay will benefit the game, and its opponents appeal to our emotions by offering arguments that seem logical at first, but are quickly debunked when put under scrutiny. So what are these arguments? And if they’re so easily discredited, why is it that Sepp Blatter and his cronies continue to ignore the call for more accountability in the game? Well, the first question is simple enough to answer, while the second may prove impossible (although there are many conspiracy theories). Before tacking the first, though, let me just point out that during the group selection ceremony in South Africa, Blatter decided it would be funny to pick up the Jubulani ball and remark that handling the ball is bad. Keep in mind that France had just qualified for the world cup thanks to Thierry Henry’s “Hand de Gaul” against Ireland.

Now, let’s take a close look at those arguments:

1. The most voiced objection to video replay is that the replays will inevitably disrupt the free-flowing nature of the game. Amusingly enough, this is the easiest argument to rebuke. Take yesterday’s game, for example. As soon as Franck de Bleeckere flashed his red card for Motta’s foul, a near melee broke out with Motta chasing Busquets demanding an explanation for his newfound thespianism, while the rest of Inter players futilely disputed the decision. The whole fracas must have lasted around three minutes. Surely it would have taken the fourth official less time to check his monitor, make a decision, and communicate it to the man in the middle. Which unavoidably leads to the second expostulation.

2. If some of the refereeing decisions are being usurped by video technology, and the fourth official, then the referee’s position will certainly be devalued. I don’t see how this would be the case. Referees are already the victims of a tremendous amount of abuse, most of it stemming from controversial calls. The video replay system would actually take some of the pressure off the referees and provide incontrovertible evidence, leaving little or no room for “discussion.” Moreover, there is plenty of evidence that suggests that referees are unwittingly influenced by fans and tend to make calls that are advantageous to the home team. This is a problem that could finally be eliminated.

3. Finally, traditionalists maintain that football has remained unchanged for over a hundred years and we should continue with the status quo. This is simply not the case. Since becoming an official sport, football has undergone numerous changes. For one thing, the ball has changed considerably. At first, balls were made out of heavy leather, and since the introduction of the vulcanized rubber ball in 1855, they have become more sophisticated. During the last few years alone, balls have become much lighter, causing goalkeepers to complain about their unpredictable movement. Some rules have also changed, especially when it comes to goalkeeping. We are only three decades removed from a time when goalkeepers were allowed to pick up back passes. Rules concerning fouls also change regularly. When faced with increased diving in the box, FIFA stipulated that players be booked if they attempted to deceive the ref. Additionally, tackles from behind have been deemed dangerous and are supposed to be severely punished.

There are other arguments in favor of bringing video replays to the game (such as the amount of money at stake in the game), but they needn’t be mentioned. Nevertheless, allow me to bring up the qualifying game between France and Ireland one more time so that I can appeal to your emotions. After playing a grueling qualifying campaign, should the Irish really have been victimized by blatant cheating, and a ref’s mistake? The whole world agreed that Henry handled the ball. Henry himself (as if he had a choice given all the video evidence) came out publicly to apologize for the transgression – albeit while placing the blame the referee for not seeing the infraction, which is tantamount to a robber blaming incompetent police for his crime. If we all agree that an injustice has been committed, why not correct it, or at least implement a system that prevents that justice from happening again? Oh, by the way, did I mention that France was playing at home in that game?