THE technical sub-committee of IFAB (the International Football Association Board) met in Cardiff this week and decided that the AARs (that's additional assistant referees), tried out in the Europa League last season, will be used in the Champions League in the new season.
No immediate introduction of goal line technology then, although it will be on the agenda when the full IFAB meeting goes ahead, back in the Welsh capital, in October.
News at Ten on ITV last night covered the decision in a very interesting manner. They managed to get a camera angle on Frank Lampard's non-goal in the World Cup tie with Germany, the incident which put goal line technology onto the October agenda. ITV's pictures were shot from roughly where the AAR would have been standing for the game, and they proved conclusively for me, there would still have been an almighty row. Because, in real time, it was impossible to say definitely that Lampard's shot had crossed the line.
There would surely have been doubt in the AAR's eyes; but, here is where we go into the detail which is always the devil in such cases.
Assistant referees (linesmen) and assistant assistant referees (goal judges) are there, as their title suggests - to assist the referee. The man in the middle, with the whistle has the final call. An AAR who can only say: "the ball might have fully crossed the line, but I cannot be sure" is no real assistance.
If he cannot definitely say: "Goal" and the referee himself cannot definitely say: "Goal", then regardless of ten replays from ten different angles apparently proving the ball HAD crossed the line - it's no goal.
Look at it from the referee's angle: he thinks there might have been a goal; he looks to the assistant referee on the touchline and doesn't get the goal signal; he also looks at the AAR behind the goal and again doesn't get the goal signal - play goes on. Or, one assistant says goal, the other says no goal. It's back as the referee's call. If he backs the wrong assistant, we've got another refereeing boob on our hands once the slo-mo replays have been aired.
With no uniform goal line technology in place, the rows will continue. With goal line technology there would have to be a protocol for its implementation.
Let's go back to our referee, he's got one signal from the touchline, another from behind the goal. He has to decide finally - goal or no goal - by stopping the game and refer the matter to the chosen method of goal line technology.
Would it be his call? The fourth official's call? By the way, with the AARs in place, the fourth official is now the sixth official; or would a seventh official now be needed? A TVMO (Television Match Official) to give him or her their rugby designation.
In rugby, by the time the man in the middle goes to his TVMO, the game has already stopped. The usual question in rugby is: "Can I award a try?" The award decision is still the referee's, he will be told: "You can award a try" or "You cannot award a try" (because there is no clear view, the scoring player was in-touch before he grounded the ball, or a previous infringement had occured). In football the usual question would need to be: "Did the ball cross the line?"
It may be a pedantic point, but, unless football obliged a referee to ask that question, the game's rulers would be under-mining a basic tenet which has held good for over a century and is enshrined in the Laws of the Game: Law V (i): "The referee is the sole judge of fact".
And let's not forget, rugby is a stop-start game; its fans are used to breaks in play and far more tolerant of them than football fans - would they enjoly breaks in play while some unseen man in the stand settles, or doesn't settle, an argument?
Perhaps the best answer would be to make the technology available, to a monitor pitch side, to which the referee could refer. That monitor would probably be placed around the fourth official's stance, in which case, you can bet your shirt on the fact the referee would have the "bus queues" from both technical areas around him while he was adjudicating on the TV pictures - with the usual argy-bargy and attempts to influence him.
Given that Law passed in a hurry is usually bad law, I just hope IFAB takes its time on this one and gets it right. In fact, might this implementation of goal line technology not be the good reason to kick off the thorough, root and branch re-jig of the laws, done over a period of time, which football needs?
No comments:
Post a Comment