IAIN AD Mann makes a familiarly superficial case for instant television reviews of debatable decisions in football. (Letters, September 27). A number of years ago, when the SFA indicated their willingness to pilot goal-line technology, in response to my inquiry as to how the game could be restarted in a manner fair to the attacking side should replays show that the ball had not crossed the line, John Fleming, the referees'
Supremo, replied that a bounce-up on the six-yard line would follow, a clear indication of the shortcomings of judgment by television.
Apart from the technical differences between football and the sports he cites as desirable examples, Mr Mann fails to address the fact that every refereeing decision in a football match has a direct bearing on the eventual result. For example, should a goal-kick be wrongly awarded at one end and the outcome of the ensuing passage of play is a goal at the other, logic would then dictate that every questionable decision by the referee should be subject to immediate review, a nonsensical proposition for a game in which continuity is a paramount feature.
An extension of off-the-pitch adjudication will only serve to further undermine the authority of referees, who are obliged to make speedy and often split-second decisions on the spot, nor is it guaranteed to eliminate controversy, as the endless debates about diving or not diving in the penalty-area readily prove. The on-the-park unpredictability of football has sustained its attraction down the years and if this is eroded by the increased involvement of technology, its appeal will diminish accordingly.
Duncan Macintyre, 2 Fort Matilda Terrace, Greenock.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here