Letters: re: Revisiting Video Replay

Video replay is perhaps an inevitability, but not for any of the reasons you cite, and there are good arguments against it.

First, it will take loads of time. Even in the NFL, which has had a couple of decades to perfect the system, it's not a simple matter of viewing and communicating in 20 second swoop. Be prepared for 5 to 10 minute breaks in games.

And it's hardly workable for a game without regular stops. What if the scandalous call does not result in a break in play - for example a takedown that's stopped a goal scoring opportunity that's unseen by the referee? Do you have the fourth official blow a whistle to stop the game? And what determines which calls are reviewed? Will coaches have a way of signaling that play should be stopped once or twice a half like the NFL? Of course, it would disrupt the flow of the game -- the question is whether that disruption is tolerable.

Second, it will devalue referees. The press and governing bodies would immediately begin keeping track of which officials had their calls overturned, how often and for whom. And do you expect that home team favoritism or corruption will stop once video replay is introduced? It simply provides another forum for it -- the potential riot when the tension grows over a critical penalty call.

Third, no one says that the game has remained unchanged for over a hundred years. That's a red herring.

I will put forth one argument that makes this sort of tricky, which is similar, however. FIFA must pass rules that can be implemented anywhere -- ROTG or Rule Of The Game. A rule for the World Cup final must also be usable for a third division match in Bolivia, an Asian Cup qualifier in Nepal and district matches in North Korea. The reason it's opposed to video replay is that it is not workable in most FIFA-sanctioned matches or other matches that follow FIFA rules.

Most of these games have no video, no capability of video replay. Even where they are televised, it might be by one or two cameras. What happens when there's no clear video? Or no clear video that's part of central feed -- e.g. the controversial Tore Andre Flo penalty against Brazil in 1998, where the feed that supported the referee was only discovered a couple days after the match ended?

Finally, how would it work in the instances you site -- the Thiago Motta red card and the Toure handball? Yes, Busquets acted terribly, but would video show that Motta did not swing his hand backwards, or did not intend to strike the man in the face? That's a red card by the book. Even if Busquets was "cheating" it was still within the referees field of expertise to adjudge it a red.

The same goes with Toure's handball. There's a moving target of handball calls, like the strike zone in baseball. What you have to do to get a handball is unclearly defined and that's the real problem -- if it's ball to un-extended hand but the hand benefits the player, it's often called a hand-ball. If it's ball to an extended hand but the hand benefits the player, it's often not called a handball (e.g., Frings in 2002 vs. US). The problem here is the certainty of handball calls, not video replay.

Jay Eversman
New Jersey, USA