The Parlour incident in Helsinki is not an
isolated incident. From Geoff Hurst's match
turning effort in 66, to Euro. 96 when Romania's
campaign was ended abruptly at St. James park
with a similar incident when Munteaneu's shot was
ruled a no goal despite being a foot over the
line. More recently, Sunderland's Julio Arca's
legitimate goal was ruled out despite again being
over the line. There has been constant indecision
over this area in football and I for one feel
that it is now time to put it right.
These decisions shape matches and tournaments,
and in an era when money talks and winning is
vital, it seems that these scenarios can no
longer be tolerated in the modern football game.
We all love football for its pace, passion and
continual action. No one wants football to be the
stop start stuttered four-hour game the Americans
prescribe to. If we scrutinised every decision
from an offside to a penalty decision, we could
end up never completing a 90-minute game. These
decisions that a referee has to make, are
opinions, and honest ones at that. People often
disagree but that is football and why it fills up
so much time in our lives. With technology now so
advanced and money being ploughed into the game,
the antiquated approach to video evidence seems
incongruous with footballs image now. The fourth
officials even have glitsy electronic scoreboards
nowadays. The boundaries for video evidence would
have to be drawn tightly. Offside goals that were
ruled out should not be privy to such decisions.
These decisions happen on a regular basis but
video evidence would complicate matters too much.
Defenders could claim that they had stopped and
allowed the player a free run on goal.
Claims and counter claims could lead to never
ending controversy and games ending in farce.
Other sports, such as cricket and rugby league,
have embraced technology and made the sports
better for it. Decisions that are not at first
clear-cut are replayed on video by a panel of
experts. Football could use a similar policy for
goal-line decisions and it would only take a
panel thirty seconds or so, to decide whether a
ball had crossed the line. This is the same
length of time as a substitution and wouldn't
hinder the flow of a football match.
The manner in which video evidence is best
utilised, is surely the only thing now that stops
it playing a direct part in games. These are
issues that need to be ironed out in pilot
schemes before going live. The world club
championship, in its inaugural year would have
been the perfect opportunity for the governing
bodies, but future club and international
tournaments can be used as guinea pigs for
enhanced use of technology.
Incidents like the Ray Parlour one should not be
happening in the modern football environment.
Too much is at stake and despite wanting to
maintain the traditional components of football,
technical sophistication should be utilised as a
means of producing fairer results. Shailesh
Shah
|
|
