|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |
Four eyes better than two Double-referee system a welcome improvement
Posted: Tuesday October 19, 1999 09:19 AM
Referees are coming under more scrutiny than ever before. You've got to feel for them. When they are brilliant, they get no praise, when they're awful, they get lynched (literally, in some cases). Questionable refereeing has influenced the outcome of each and every World Cup ever played. Players get sent off and then suspended unjustly, not because the referees are stupid or evil, but simply because they are human and make mistakes. With this in mind, FIFA took a step in the right direction when it allowed the Italian federation to implement its double-referee experiment. Last week's Italian Cup games had not one, but two referees running around the pitch. It was the perfect place to test it out. The Coppa Italia, like most domestic cup competitions, has lost much of its importance, but it is still more than just a tinfoil bauble (at least for the time being). By the same token, any major mishaps or botches won't have any effect on Serie A, which is what people really care about. And the double-referee system gets tested at the highest level, with some of the world's best players. Both refs have equal powers. To avoid mix-ups each one is roughly responsible for one half of the pitch, though on dead ball situations (free kicks, corners, etc.) they can both take up positions in the same half. And, more importantly, each can blow the whistle at any time. How many times have we seen a referee make a bad decision because play was switched to the other side of the field and the poor guy just couldn't make it across fast enough to get a decent look at the play? How many times have we seen a referee shielded from a nasty foul by a gaggle of burly defenders? And how many times have we seen off-the-ball incidents take place behind the referee's back? The experiment earned nothing but praise in Italy and FIFA has said it would closely monitor the evaluations. It's a rule change whose time has come. Simply put, four eyes are better than two. Heck, if you could find a place to put them, you should have ninety-nine referees on the pitch. The stakes are now so high that refereeing is of paramount importance. The only people who have reason to be opposed are the hatchet men, divers and other assorted cheats -- and, frankly, the game doesn't need them. There are two arguments against two referees, and both are misguided. The first is the usual wail of the purists who contend that referees are part of the game, as are questionable decisions, and that in the end it all evens itself out. Well, first of all, it does not all even itself out. If the Swiss referee Dienst had not ruled that Geoff Hurst's shot crossed the line in the 1966 World Cup finals, Germany might well have taken home the title. If the Mexican referee Codesal had not ejected two Argentine players (Monxon and Dezotti) and granted a dubious penalty to Germany in the 1990 World Cup final, Maradona might have won one more world championship. These were controversial decisions which influenced the outcome of the game's biggest tournament. The fact that they might somehow even themselves out later -- say, when Argentina gets a dubious penalty in some friendly against Ecuador -- is utterly irrelevant. As for referees and questionable calls being part of the game, no argument there. But then, the dual referee system would not put an end to dubious refereeing, it would simply help reduce it. The essence of the game would remain, as would the human factor. You just would see less cases of referees missing incidents altogether. The second argument is that the game has to be the same at all levels. Amateurs playing in Tuesday night leagues face the same rules and restrictions that Ronaldo and Rivaldo contend with. Since it would be difficult and unwieldy to force all amateur leagues to have two referees, the thinking goes, we can't have two referees at any level. This makes little sense. In case you hadn't noticed, the professional game is already radically different, if only because the players are fitter, faster and much, much better. Simply put, you need two referees to control them. At amateur level, when people play for fun, it's a different story. Unless you play with homicidal psychopaths, it's unlikely that you'll get smacked in the face behind the referee's back. The pace is slower, so there are less controversial incidents, the stakes are lower, so there is less reason to rant and rave at the referee. So if we're going to have two referees, why not introduce other changes, particularly technological ones, to make the game more fair and more transparent? The problem there is that you don't want to turn soccer inside out. That's why instant replay is not a viable option. It is used in some sports, such as American football, but the outcome is that it simply slows down the game and is often inconclusive. Stopping every few minutes while a play is reviewed may be fine for the gridiron, where it's all stop-and-start anyway, but it would be a disaster in soccer, where the flow of the game is crucial. Video evidence used after a game, to assess suspensions for foul play and to judge the quality of refereeing is fine, provided each match in a particular league gets the same level of coverage. Obviously, if you have ten cameras at, say, the Palmeiras-Vasco da Gama match, but only one at Bragantino-Vitoria, the players at the latter match will have a much easier ride. The one change which should be implemented immediately because the technology is there and it is relatively cheap is having an "electronic eye" to judge when the ball has crossed the goal line. Too often, referees and linesmen are out of position and are in no condition to judge whether to allow a goal or not. The system works in ice hockey and it doesn't slow the game down at all. Kudos to FIFA for acknowledging the game has evolved and weighing up the best way to introduce change. Who knows, if an electronic eye had existed in 1966, Germany might have four World Cup titles today...
Extra timeTeenage sensation Javier Saviola is already drawing comparisons to Diego Maradona. Any Argentine youngster with his skills will inevitably be compared to the Great One, but the River Plate virtuoso is justifying the hype. He was instrumental in River's 2-0 drubbing of age-old rivals Boca Juniors and half the big clubs in Europe, from Real Madrid to Inter Milan, are already queuing up for his services. His skill on the ball, coupled with his vision and his radar-like precision passing make him truly special. He's one to watch. PSV Eindhoven is continuing its steamroller-like march to the Dutch title. On Sunday, it won its eighth consecutive game, a 7-0 whitewash over Den Bosch. Right now, it is still the only unbeaten, untied club in Europe and coach Eric Gerets is drawing rave reviews. Now if he could only replicate that magic in the Champions League, where PSV are in serious danger of being bounced out of the competition... Spain's Betis has been having a rough ride in the Primera Liga this season, but goalkeeper Antonio Prats served up a bit of entertainment over the weekend when he did his best Jose Luis Chilavert impression. Prats scored on a free kick in injury time to sink Atletico Madrid, 2-1. London-based Gabriele Marcotti writes a weekly column on international soccer for CNNSI.com. To submit questions or comments to Gabriele Marcotti, click here.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
