Sepp's U-Turn: Is More Video Technology A Good Idea?

When you think of famous and historic U-turn moments, you think of the 10p tax rate, the pasty tax and the poll tax. But video technology in football? Ask me just four years ago, days after the infamous Frank Lampard non-goal, and I'd have said not a chance. However, with Sepp Blatter's announcements at Soccerex last week that he is in support of video challenges, the pendulum seems to have swung full circle.

But why is this? As with many things, you can take the conspiracy or sensible route. The conspiracy? That goal line technology was only introduced once it had benefitted England. After Lampard's goal, not a whisper of discontent. But after Ukraine had a goal wrongly denied against England at the Euros, suddenly Blatter, and Platini (I have ranted often about his potential bias against English football before) are all for it. This theory is supported by Blatter's side-swipe and the FA once his scheme had been announced, namely that the English FA do not respect fair play (ironic when you consider the diving and biting that goes on from players not from these shores) and that they are sore losers following the failed bid for the 2018 World Cup. Funny that Blatter delivered this speech in the heart of England's current footballing capital - know your audience Sepp!

However, the real reason behind the change in heart is perhaps equally cynical, but considerably less likely to make you look like the sore loser Blatter claims we are. It's all about maintaining power. With his term set to come to an end in the upcoming months, and the seeming success of goal-line technology in both club and international football, a bit of bandwagon jumping is required to ensure that Sepp keeps his place at FIFAs top table. I don't believe for an instant that he would be making these statements if he had years of his term left to run.

So if we assume that this is a PR stunt to retain power, why did he pick technology a subject that had been so controversial over the past few years? Because it's been almost unanimously accepted the world over. The goal-line technology has been a revolution in both domestic and international competition (the Karim Benzema goal/no goal debacle at the World Cup ignored), and though technology to a lesser level, the cheers that have greeted the disappearing spray at every Premier League ground since its introduction clearly demonstrates that not all change is negative.

With technology very much in favour at present, it is hardly surprising to see Blatter sling his weight behind it. But I'm not so certain that the idea he came up with for Soccerex is that good. Let me say that I am a huge advocate of technology in sport - tennis and cricket have proven that Hawk-eye style systems work, while rugby league and union have shown that video referees are also successful. However, Blatter's idea that coaches should have a number of challenges to use during each half is, in my opinion, not the best way to handle this.

As we have seen on many occasions, football is a game of taking advantage of momentum. The very phrase that "2-0 is a dangerous scoreline" shows this, as teams frequently level having pulled one back. Often the most exciting moments in football are when one team has their tails up and have momentum on their side - look at the way Man City won their first Premier League title. Should Blatter's system be implemented, shrewd managers will be able to minimise this impact, affording their team the opportunity to recollect their thoughts and go again. If coaches are afforded the opportunity to break up that momentum and slow the game down by making frivolous challenges, it will have a hugely detrimental impact on the game for spectators.

However, as I said before, I am all in favour of technology in football, and I have a suitable solution. Ex-referee Graham Poll, when interviewed about the concept, said that referees can tell from the reaction of the players around them when they've made an incorrect decision. If this is true, there is absolutely no need for coaches to have the power to contest decisions and slow the game down. I would certainly have a video referee, but only so the officials could check that they have made the right call. It may not have saved Poll from handing out three yellow cards to Josep Simunic in the 2006 World Cup, but it will help in many other situations! This would minimise the risk of tactical use, while helping the referee to do their job to the best of their ability.

Should Blatter be re-elected (re-elected in the same way that dictators like Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi were "re-elected") it will be interesting to see whether this new policy goes any further. Maybe it's just my cynical mind, but I doubt it. As soon as he is safe in his job, this will conveniently go on the back burner, and I suspect we'll see the Swiss take a slowly more technology-sceptic mindset.  

Diving: A Red Card Offence?

                             Last weekend's events, most notably David Moyes's comments after Manchester United's home victory against Crystal Palace, has brought the topic of diving back into the public eye. So many players are accused of it, and there there are discussions in pubs up and down the land assessing what the appropriate penalty for divers is. The current system of a yellow card for 'simulation' is widely considered to be too lenient. However, is the answer really, as Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish has suggested, a straight red card for diving offences? This post will look at the offence as it is currently defined, before examining the possible new punishments for the crime.

                               In order to fully understand the topic in question, it is worth consulting the FA definition of diving (or 'simulation'). Diving constitutes: 'an attempt by a player to gain an unfair advantage by diving to the ground and possibly feigning an injury, to appear as if a foul has been committed'. This seems relatively clear, and you would expect to see fairly regular punishments based on this definition. However, it proceeds to state that: 'a referee should be 100% certain that a player has simulated (feigned) an unfair challenge before cautioning the offender for unsporting behaviour. The referee must be convinced that there has been no physical contact whatsoever by the player challenging for the ball.' This is the cause of the controversy, as this clause means that referees tend to be overly lenient on simulation, not wanting to call a player a cheat, and this sometimes leads to miscarriages of justice when the referee gets it wrong. We will examine this in more detail later.

                                 Looking purely at the definition as it stands, we should perhaps compare it with other offences. By examining both those considered to be worthy of yellow and red cards, we will be able to see which category this offence more resembles. If we look at the options in both categories, I would say that 'unsporting conduct' would most easily be comparable from the yellow card section. The red card section does not appear to have an easily comparable alternative, with neither serious foul play, nor violent conduct accurately describing the act. If we run with the unsporting conduct offence, there are clear parallels between the pair. This indicates that perhaps the initial classification of diving as a yellow card carries weight.

                                 However, two alternatives have been suggested by prominent men in English football. We will begin by the suggestion made by Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish, that diving should constitute a straight-red card offence. Despite my above paragraph, there is evidence to suggest that this may be a possible alternative. Diving is a scourge in world football, and needs to be stamped out. If we look at another offence that has been 'stamped down upon', we find that racism has been much more heavily punished in recent years, in an attempt to eradicate it from the game. Now, I am not for one moment saying that diving is as bad as racism, however, I am merely making the point that if you want rid of an aspect from a game, you must penalise every instance heavily. Therefore, a case could certainly be made for the introduction of a heavy-handed penalty for diving, at least until the act is not so prominent. However, there are a couple of problems with this. Firstly, there will be the inevitable comparison between diving and the other red card offences, which illustrates the gap in severity. Simulation does not seem on the same page as intentionally breaking someone's leg, but, under this rule change, they would be considered equally severe. Secondly, there is a more pressing issue with the rules. As the current idea of diving is so open to interpretation, there are already many instances of referees making the wrong call. Under these new rules, a referee making the wrong call could irreparably change the outcome of the game, potentially ruining a team's season. Until we solidify what is considered a dive, I feel that a red card could not be awarded for the offence.

                                     The second alternative is one that appears far more reasonable. David Moyes, having stated that he wanted to stamp out diving from his own club, with Ashley Young coming in for further criticism, then suggested that video technology should be used to retrospectively ban players who have been proven to have dived. As much as that will be a dagger to the heart of Michel Platini, I think that this is an excellent idea. It lowers the fear of referee's getting a decision woefully wrong and costing a team a game in an instant, whilst ensuring that those guilty of diving are rightfully punished. I would introduce an initial ban of 4 games for a diving offence, meaning that there is that aspect of over the top punishment with a more accurate justice system, which I believe forms a nice middle ground. Once simulation has begun to die out of the game, a reduction in the ban could then be enacted. However, I suspect that none of these will be considered, players will be allowed to con referees and dive all over the place. This will continue to cause a horrible Catch 22 situation for referees, who will be blamed as much if they fail to penalise a dive, than if they wrongfully penalise one. And it will continue to be the topic of pub gossip for years to come.