As a Pompey fan you'd probably expect me to argue against video technology being introduced into the game. Not just in light of the decisions made in our favour on Sunday, but also the clear goal Birmingham had chalked off against us in the quarter final too!
Following the semi-finals at the weekend, many of the comments I've seen (in the press / on fans forums etc.) that support video technology go along the lines of: "there is so much at stake in the modern game that the correct decision needs to be made."
Now, I'm 32 and have been attending football matches for about 17 years - basically the era of the Premier League. But I don't imagine that fans going to games before the 1990's cared any less about the result for their team than I do when I watch Pompey play. I'm sure that defeat hurt as much, that the ref was the focal point for the anger of both sets of fans, that there was debate in the pub after the game.
The idea that "there is so much at stake in the modern game that the correct decision needs to be made" should really read something like: "there is so much money at stake in the modern game..." I'm sick to death of the mainstream-media driven notion that modern day football is more 'worthy' than in the past (I'm similarly sick of the way they patronise lower league and non-league football.)
Far from video technology being the answer to the perceived problem of refs making the wrong decision, is the answer not that there needs to be less at stake financially in football? Or is it just the inevitable march of progress - that even if there were no financial stakes, fans would still want technology to help get the right decision?
Personally I am against technology being introduced, because often even with a thousand TV replays from a thousand angles it isn't possible to get a consensus on what the right decision would have been in a given situation. There is always interpretation.
To go back to the semi-final against Spurs, I was sat behind the goal and had a great view of both the Crouch no-goal and the penalty call. My instinct at the time was that the goal should have stood, and that Palacios got a toe on the ball before taking down Dindane. Looking at replays, I still feel the same, but have read and heard some very good arguements from neutral fans and pundits that, depending on how you read the laws of the game, the ref got both decisions right.
My one concesion to technology might be for goal-line decisions - a 'chip' in the ball or something similar. Going back to the quarter final against Birmingham there was no way the ref or linesman could have seen what was happening through a crowd of players. I'm also undecided on retrospective punishment of players.
Anyway... thanks for letting me get that off my chest!
Following the semi-finals at the weekend, many of the comments I've seen (in the press / on fans forums etc.) that support video technology go along the lines of: "there is so much at stake in the modern game that the correct decision needs to be made."
Now, I'm 32 and have been attending football matches for about 17 years - basically the era of the Premier League. But I don't imagine that fans going to games before the 1990's cared any less about the result for their team than I do when I watch Pompey play. I'm sure that defeat hurt as much, that the ref was the focal point for the anger of both sets of fans, that there was debate in the pub after the game.
The idea that "there is so much at stake in the modern game that the correct decision needs to be made" should really read something like: "there is so much money at stake in the modern game..." I'm sick to death of the mainstream-media driven notion that modern day football is more 'worthy' than in the past (I'm similarly sick of the way they patronise lower league and non-league football.)
Far from video technology being the answer to the perceived problem of refs making the wrong decision, is the answer not that there needs to be less at stake financially in football? Or is it just the inevitable march of progress - that even if there were no financial stakes, fans would still want technology to help get the right decision?
Personally I am against technology being introduced, because often even with a thousand TV replays from a thousand angles it isn't possible to get a consensus on what the right decision would have been in a given situation. There is always interpretation.
To go back to the semi-final against Spurs, I was sat behind the goal and had a great view of both the Crouch no-goal and the penalty call. My instinct at the time was that the goal should have stood, and that Palacios got a toe on the ball before taking down Dindane. Looking at replays, I still feel the same, but have read and heard some very good arguements from neutral fans and pundits that, depending on how you read the laws of the game, the ref got both decisions right.
My one concesion to technology might be for goal-line decisions - a 'chip' in the ball or something similar. Going back to the quarter final against Birmingham there was no way the ref or linesman could have seen what was happening through a crowd of players. I'm also undecided on retrospective punishment of players.
Anyway... thanks for letting me get that off my chest!
Comment