DO WE NEED INSTANT VIDEO REPLAYS TO HELP REFS?

According to Mark Hughes, the manager of Manchester City, instant replays should be used within the Premier League to help referees make their decisions, given how much is at stake with a wrong decision:

“We’ve had a number of decisions go against us. People will say that we have had possibly one go for us, so there is a balance with what happens over a season. But, obviously, these decisions have a direct bearing on the outcome of a result. The ones that have gone against us have been significant and they do affect the outcome.”

Hughes added: “It’s the call for video technology to be introduced and the arguments and debate is there for everyone to take part in”.

According to FIFA president Sepp Blatter: ‘We have to help referees and have correct control but we must never stop the match with videos or monitors to look at what has happened. ‘It would take away the spontaneity and fascination of our game, we must keep football with a human face. ‘As long I am president, it will only be goal-line technology. Until I am no longer president, there will be no chance (for video replays)’
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=393895&&cc=5901

Most people who are against Instant Video Replay give the reason that the natural rhythm of the game will be affected if there’s TV replay. People want Instant Video Replays mostly for penalties given due to diving, send off due to hard tackle, etc. I don’t know how Instant Video Replay would affect the natural rhythm of the game when the play is being reviewed before a player is about to take a penalty or when a player is being sent off.

The NFL Instant Video Replay system in use since 1999 is prompted primarily by coaches’ challenges. Each coach has two challenges, when he can stop play for review. But after the two-minute warning, only the instant replay officials can stop play for review. With assistance from the replay booth, the on-field referee makes the final call. So, if FIFA can have a similar system there will not be too many stoppages. After all, it only takes about a minute to review the call if you are using the advanced technology.

By limiting two Instant Video replay reviews per team, FIFA can give players/teams/fans a recourse for bad calls while avoiding unnecessary delays to the game and possible gamesmanship by players hoping for a little rest or to break another team’s rhythm. If a team wins a challenge, that team retains the challenge. There will be an element of strategy as teams may want to save their challenges for only the most crucial incidents.

On top of just getting the calls right time after time, which will be nice, it’ll add another aspect for TV viewers. If a team has used up its two challenges, it will add drama and excitement to soccer and will take out a lot of human error.

Instant Video replay will help the refs do a better job. If the technology can hold them more accountable, they are going to think twice before making a bonehead call. If Blatter doesn’t want it then there needs to be much more publicity surrounding the bad calls that are made and the refs that make them. To keep the integrity of the game, we should hold the officials accountable; in the same fashion that those of us who work for a living are held accountable for our mistakes. We should be advised when Football Associations have acted on any official that has repetitively been involved in questionable calls.

“Am Sorry” isn’t enough:

Ref Styles apologises to Rafa
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/article265295.ece

Ref Styles apologies for Ronaldo ‘penalty’
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/storyid=577261&sec=england&campaign=rss&source=soccernet&cc=5901

Ref Styles ‘rested’ after mistakes
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/02042008/1/ref-styles-rested-mistakes.html

Rest him only to come back to make another mistake? Refs can cost you a championship. If a ref admits that he made a mistake, then the Liverpool Chelsea game for example, the Chelsea goal should have been null and void.

“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I don’t like that attitude. I can assure them it is much more serious than that” – Bill Shankly, In Sunday Times (UK) Oct. 4 1981