Amit Bhatia became the latest person at QPR to take to Twitter to air a grievance last week.
It does rather seem that down Loftus Road way that anything more than 140 characters doesn’t need to be said, given the way that Joey Barton and co-owner Tony Fernandes behave, but Bhatia took to that medium to become the latest person within football to call for the introduction of a “referral” system in football.
Bhatia said (one assumes in a series of tweets) "I'm convinced it's time to allow the challenge system in football. Almost all other sports around the world allow it now. We have to have some kind of video replay system so that harsh decisions can be reviewed. So much is at stake in every game. In a season when results count, every decision really does matter and I can already think of a few decisions that have cost us points [in the Premier League].
"And it's not just us, but all the other clubs too. Mistakes are made. Decisions are difficult and that's fine, but why not allow those difficult decisions to be reviewed? One challenge per half per manager wouldn't slow the game down by any more than 30 seconds. I think it's got to happen. Every fan and player in the land would appreciate a fair review of a difficult decision. It's not rocket science. And my rant isn't about today's decision. It's a general observation about football and applies to us all who want fairer decisions."
To be fair Bhatia isn’t the first person in football to express these sentiments. Other football figures have also made a call for the challenge system to be implemented, in a similar way to how it is in cricket and tennis.
It is the first of these sports that interests us at http://www.referee-jobs.com/(given that tennis isn’t a sport and shouldn’t be taken seriously….) and the bald facts are that the decision review system in cricket presents more questions than answers.
Because of the vagaries of the hawk-eye system (that is the computer generated prediction system that works out where the ball would go) cricket has to adopt the “Umpires Call” decision. Which means that if there is a big enough margin for error and the ball, say, was clipping the stumps they back the umpire, so if the on-field umpire has given a wicket then it is out, if he has said “not out” the decision is not overturned.
Which is fine until you factor in the fact that effectively means the same decision is both “out” and “not out” so exactly who does that help? And how does that stop confusion?
My worry when this is applied to football is a simple one, if a system that is supposed to help referees only creates more grey areas, doesn’t the situation just get worse?
And anyone who has watched cricket in the last couple of years has seen the rise of the so called “tactical review,” that is, when a team has two reviews left they will just “take a punt” and see whether they have taken a wicket or whether they can keep all their batsmen on the field. Usually, of course, the umpires decision is right and the game is held up for no apparent reason, but can you imagine this delaying tactic being applied to football?
Take the game between Manchester United and Stoke City on Tuesday night. It is reasonable to assume that Stoke would have appealed the first half penalty that was given for Jermaine Pennant’s foul on Patrice Evra, and its equally reasonable to assume that it would have taken a couple of minutes to make the decision, such were the fine margins involved. Ref Mike Jones would have been found to be correct and the penalty would have been awarded. So far, so good, except that all this time Javier Hernandez has been standing, waiting to take the penalty – which has everybody knows is hard to do, so in that respect were Manchester United being disadvantaged?
The other crucial thing about the system is it allows for human error. Anyone who saw the staggering decision from third umpire Billy Bowden not to give a wicket when a decision was appealed by Pakistan in the second test match last week (the ball was clearly hit by the England batsman and was clearly caught by the fielder but according to Bowden the was “no clear evidence” to overturn the on field umpires original not out decision) would have been left scratching their heads.
Bowden is not a great umpire (Sky TV pundit Bob Willis famously suggested that he should take to the field in floppy shoes and a red nose) but that rather is the point. Those clamoring for reviews would do well to think on the fact that allowing Managers to challenge decisions would undermine the referees authority (and a leading cricket umpire gave up his job in protest at his decisions being constantly questioned), and not only that it’s a far from perfect system with too many grey areas - and crucially one which still allows for human errors – and is that really something that football needs?
It does rather seem that down Loftus Road way that anything more than 140 characters doesn’t need to be said, given the way that Joey Barton and co-owner Tony Fernandes behave, but Bhatia took to that medium to become the latest person within football to call for the introduction of a “referral” system in football.
Bhatia said (one assumes in a series of tweets) "I'm convinced it's time to allow the challenge system in football. Almost all other sports around the world allow it now. We have to have some kind of video replay system so that harsh decisions can be reviewed. So much is at stake in every game. In a season when results count, every decision really does matter and I can already think of a few decisions that have cost us points [in the Premier League].
"And it's not just us, but all the other clubs too. Mistakes are made. Decisions are difficult and that's fine, but why not allow those difficult decisions to be reviewed? One challenge per half per manager wouldn't slow the game down by any more than 30 seconds. I think it's got to happen. Every fan and player in the land would appreciate a fair review of a difficult decision. It's not rocket science. And my rant isn't about today's decision. It's a general observation about football and applies to us all who want fairer decisions."
To be fair Bhatia isn’t the first person in football to express these sentiments. Other football figures have also made a call for the challenge system to be implemented, in a similar way to how it is in cricket and tennis.
It is the first of these sports that interests us at http://www.referee-jobs.com/(given that tennis isn’t a sport and shouldn’t be taken seriously….) and the bald facts are that the decision review system in cricket presents more questions than answers.
Because of the vagaries of the hawk-eye system (that is the computer generated prediction system that works out where the ball would go) cricket has to adopt the “Umpires Call” decision. Which means that if there is a big enough margin for error and the ball, say, was clipping the stumps they back the umpire, so if the on-field umpire has given a wicket then it is out, if he has said “not out” the decision is not overturned.
Which is fine until you factor in the fact that effectively means the same decision is both “out” and “not out” so exactly who does that help? And how does that stop confusion?
My worry when this is applied to football is a simple one, if a system that is supposed to help referees only creates more grey areas, doesn’t the situation just get worse?
And anyone who has watched cricket in the last couple of years has seen the rise of the so called “tactical review,” that is, when a team has two reviews left they will just “take a punt” and see whether they have taken a wicket or whether they can keep all their batsmen on the field. Usually, of course, the umpires decision is right and the game is held up for no apparent reason, but can you imagine this delaying tactic being applied to football?
Take the game between Manchester United and Stoke City on Tuesday night. It is reasonable to assume that Stoke would have appealed the first half penalty that was given for Jermaine Pennant’s foul on Patrice Evra, and its equally reasonable to assume that it would have taken a couple of minutes to make the decision, such were the fine margins involved. Ref Mike Jones would have been found to be correct and the penalty would have been awarded. So far, so good, except that all this time Javier Hernandez has been standing, waiting to take the penalty – which has everybody knows is hard to do, so in that respect were Manchester United being disadvantaged?
The other crucial thing about the system is it allows for human error. Anyone who saw the staggering decision from third umpire Billy Bowden not to give a wicket when a decision was appealed by Pakistan in the second test match last week (the ball was clearly hit by the England batsman and was clearly caught by the fielder but according to Bowden the was “no clear evidence” to overturn the on field umpires original not out decision) would have been left scratching their heads.
Bowden is not a great umpire (Sky TV pundit Bob Willis famously suggested that he should take to the field in floppy shoes and a red nose) but that rather is the point. Those clamoring for reviews would do well to think on the fact that allowing Managers to challenge decisions would undermine the referees authority (and a leading cricket umpire gave up his job in protest at his decisions being constantly questioned), and not only that it’s a far from perfect system with too many grey areas - and crucially one which still allows for human errors – and is that really something that football needs?
No comments:
Post a Comment