INSTEAD of criticising television replays, isn’t it time for professional football to join the 21st century and take advantage of modern TV technology (“Rodgers blast TV stations over pressure on refs”, Herald Sport 23 September)?
In rugby, all internationals and top-level league matches are now covered, with the referee alone able to call for an instant TV review in cases of possible foul play or when it is not clear if a try has been scored. In professional tennis each player is entitled to three appeals per set, usually regarding difficult line calls. Each review delays the game for only a few seconds, but ensures the right decision is made. Most other sports also have TV replays at top level.
In football every top league fixture is covered by TV, and every week controversial incidents are shown and discussed in weekend sports programmes. Often the referee’s original decision is shown to have been correct, but on other occasions a clear error is proved to have been made. Yet the injustice cannot be rectified in retrospect, except in cases of appeals against ordering-offs or when retrospective disciplinary action is decided on.
Yet FIFA, UEFA and national associations all still stick rigidly to the out-dated concept that “the referee’s decision is final”. I imagine most referees might welcome the chance to use such immediate on-field assistance when unsighted, if able to see the incident from a different angle. Surely making the right decision and getting the right result is the most important thing, rather than ignoring the use of modern technology just for the sake of outdated tradition?
Of course instant live replays would slightly delay the end of a game, but most football matches already run over the allotted time to allow for injury delays, and another two or three minutes would make no difference. Football today is big business with millions of pounds at stake, and can easily afford the relatively minor extra cost of TV coverage and replays.
Iain AD Mann,
7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel