Eduardo Alves da Silva's Dive: Perhaps Now Is the Time for Video Replay

Brian SonCorrespondent IAugust 26, 2009

With the spectacular dive from Eduardo being a major controversial topic today after the Celtic game, I began to think about the old arguments about using video replays in football.

First off, I know the quality of the picture kinda sucks. I couldn't find a picture of the dive, so I had to crop a youtube video by butchering it in paint.

Anyways, on to the dive: While I immensely enjoyed it because of the fact that I am an Arsenal fan, I do think that football needs to have video replays to a certain extent. I really don't think Eduardo can be be put to fault too much about this either.

Its a risk to dive because of the off-chance that you'll get a yellow card if its blatant enough. Personally, I think its the fault of the system that allows people, like CR9 Drogba and now Eduardo, to exploit it through some theatrics.

I don't think every minor decision needs to have a video replay consult, but realistically, big decisions, such as the penalty, need something more than just the whim of the referee to be given out.


Pro-Video Arguments

One argument for videos is that while refereeing is a very respectable and sovereign job, they are still humans and are prone to errors, especially at such high pace levels that football produces.

While I don't follow American football much at all, I'm pretty sure they do use video replays on big plays that possibly lead to a team scoring or not. It seems to work out for them, so why must we just blindly follow the judgement of referees who aren't anywhere close to perfect?

We already use small forms of video replays. Post-match reviews of controversial decisions can hand out bans, like in the case of Juventus versus Napoli back in 2007.

Why then should we endanger fair results by not using it during the game?

Some people argue the need to keep keep trust in the referees and controversial calls are nice topics of discussion afterwards, but really, that's ridiculous. Do we want correct calls and results or pampered refs and 10 minute conversations about bad calls during the weekend?


Con-Video Arguments

Michel Platini, the president of the UEFA, said that video replays would kill the game. We would be stopping play every 10 seconds to check things and referees would become nonexistent.

He also said, "Football is a human game and the mistakes are human. We need to help solve the mistakes, but we must not lose the human feeling of our sport." Obviously, no one wants to lose touch with their human roots, and perhaps that "human feeling of our sport" is what makes football the most popular and greatest game in the world.

He also gave a counter solution to the problem of wrong calls. He said "We need to help referees to stop making mistakes and these two extra referees will focus on the two 18-yard boxes, so this will help solve this."

His idea of adding two extra referees around the 18 yard boxes was stated in late 2007, but I haven't heard much of it since, so I don't think it worked out in the end.



Some people favor human error over correct calls. Others want less wrong game-changing calls. I guess it's a difference in opinions, but I don't really think there is enough evidence against the video replays.

I assume Platini's attempt at putting more refs to watch the 18-yard-box failed since it would just clutter the field and sidelines even more and throw off players.

Anyways, I'm tired, so I'll stop typing and you all can give me your opinions on video replays.