sportsbarWho'd be a referee? Where does technology fit in?
August 14th 2007 06:31
Whistle Blower
Play to the whistle is the credo of every junior team ever to grace the field - officials have always made mistakes, of course they have; their human. Is sport losing its charm? At a young age we are taught to accept these mistakes because it will all even up in the end. The world of professional sport however is completely different story, it is a cut-throat, multi-billion dollar industry and results are paramount. A player’s livelihood and career could be ruined by one bad decision.
The Video Ref in the NRL has become a highly contentious point of conjecture. Every week fans stare at the screen in disbelief as the video ref dissects footage with a fine toothcomb. Some of the decisions have left players, commentators and fans alike totally bemused. Which raises the question, if you can have 10 replays and still not be sure of the correct decision, what is the point of technology? Three weeks ago, video official took over 5 minutes to make his decision, this is ridiculous. A joke! Let the referee on the field make a decision and get on with the game.
The modern day video official started with cricket with Sachin Tendulkar making history by being the 1st batsmen in the world to ever be given out by the 3rd umpire. The run-outs in cricket are fair enough, everything happens so quickly and the technology usually delivers a definitive answer- usually…
Hawkeye, whilst not actually used to make decisions is taking over cricket! It is not being used for lbw decisions, yet, but it is putting unbelievable pressure on umpires. Decisions are scrutinised more thoroughly in cricket than in any other sport known to man. This is due to the long nature of the sport, every decision is analysed to the umpteenth degree. Hawkeye however is constantly making umpires look 2nd rate, it really has placed them firmly under the microscope.
Federer against the system
The Fed Express commented later this year; "It's a weird thing I still don't trust 100 percent, I probably never will.” For one of the highest profile athletes to be questioning the use of technology and its infallibility, obviously not all is what it appears.
There are sports that have defied the technology craze and for the most part – satisfied to leave decisions on the ground. AFL and soccer have ignored the hoopla of video technology to adjudicate decisions, preferring the umpires on the ground have all responsibility. In a sense, these sports are some of the purist left. But is use of technology a mere formality? Are sports clinging on to traditional values delaying the inevitable?
Ultimately there are two arguments;
1) Traditionalist Approach: Referees make mistakes; we should accept them and move on.
2) If you have the technology and the ability to get the decision right; utilise it.
Sports fans and players are divided on the issue, if you could guarantee that the technology always go t the answer right, there would be no debate. However as we have seen with rugby league this week, the video ref seems to get it wrong 50% of the time. Until we remove the doubt associated with technology the debate will always be on the horizon…
| 44 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by DuskDevi
Rucks and Rolls
Rugby World Cup 2007
My husband used to play Rugby back in the days when just grounding the ball and jumping up and down in jubilation was enough proof that a try was a done deal...great if your team does it!
Now...it's endless replays of the same situation from every bloody angle...and as proven with the last Bledisloe match...not always conclusive. Nor correct.
However I am all for it. The Video refs prove the Refs stupidity on many occasions in Rugby...especially when the Ref decrees player infringement or awards a penalty and is proven wrong.
I used to agree with the Tradionalist Approach... problem is, the Refs don't pay for the consequences of their misguided actions.
A great read Andy. As usual. Hope you are well.
Dusk