FIFA WORLD CUP PREVIEW: Let The Players Decide The Game?

The incidence of poor officiating or outright biased refereeing deciding the outcome of football games have repeatedly been a sore point with a myriad of allegations being tossed around by players, fans, journalists and team management alike.

We have all witnessed celebrity players getting a pass for blatant fouls and even red cardable offenses. Case in point the recent Barclay's EPL match involving Liverpool's Steven Gerard and Portsmouth's Michael Brown. The English FA has decided, not surprisingly, to not levy any sanction against the Liverpool captain and England starter.

I would imagine that the need to safeguard against making such an unpopular decision ran more paramount to ensuring that fairplay is upheld in the game. The pressure to limit the distractions and not wanting to add to the John Terry fallout were as much a motive as to agree with a referee that was in full view of an incident that warranted a red card. Were Brown the offending party would the decision have been the same? We can hazard a near precise guess but, er .. lets just say it. It would not.

Interestingly enough, similar decisions have been made that have had the opposite effect on star players. Football's highest paid player and Real Madrid star was given a 3 match ban for having extended his arm while having his opponent attempting to relieve him of his jersey before the customary jersey exchange that takes place at the end of the match.

Indeed his opponent got a mouthful of his hand but with CR9's back turned and the winger attempting one of his trade mark surging runs, there was no ill will or mal-intent evidenced. He never the less because of his reputation of whining and perhaps being a primadonna was harshly sanctioned with a red card and a 3 match ban.

A similar faith was bestowed on Didier Drogba and Ivanovic of Chelsea. With replays clearly showing the defender pulling Ivanovic to the ground with both arms around the player in a full embrace. Drogba on the other hand was sent packing even though replays show his back was turned to the Inter player and he inadvertently stepped on the player who had lost his balance and was on his way down to the turf. 

Opinions on these incidents will vary and many will agree that its not unusual to see players tussle, pull and tug on each other in what is a contact sport. However the impact of the subjective interpretation of the rules of the game by the officials has resulted in the outcome of not only that game but also the immediate three that followed.

To have a single decision color the outcome of any competition particularly one so closely contested that every match counts in deciding its winner, is not in keeping with FIFA's credo of FAIR PLAY.

Of course this diatribe would not be complete without the mention of players having a hand, literally, in the outcome of a game and the referees failing to ensure that these infringements whether intentional or otherwise go unpunished. Of course this brings to mind the most recent debacle concerning Thierry Henry's handling of the ball that ultimately led to a goal for France thus earning the 1998 champions a berth in this year's World Cup final.

Swedish referee, Martin Hansson, failed to see the infringement and despite his apparent questionable competence to officiate high stakes international matches, he was selected to officiate at this years world cup in South Africa. Not only has he made the cut but he has been publicly vindicated and supported by FIFA President Sepp Blatter.

How can we forget Maradona's famous "Hand of God" goal against England in the 1986 world cup. Would disallowing that goal change the result of the match? How has it aided his image? Many followers of the sport may argue it has given him an infamy that takes away from his other great and jaw dropping exploits on the field. Others say its a strong talking point that makes the game exciting and peeks interest to garner new followers of the game. Reality TV at its best with drama and all.

Then Tunisian referee, Ali Bin Nasser, failed to catch the world's great with his hand in the cookie jar. But to be fair, it would have been difficult for any human to detect the split second act that resulted in a 2-1 win for Argentina.

I for one believe a game should not be decided by the willful or accidental infringement of a player or manipulation of the ball. The moot point is therefore, how effective or reliable is a referee if he fails to deliberate or observe key moments in a game. Is he or she then qualified enough to officiate. The excuse of "he is only human" doesn't fly as the player then can posit the same excuse. I'm only human, its in my nature to retaliate or to lie and cheat. As a man am I not fallible?

With the FIFA World Cup around the corner, this issue is even now more critical as we all enjoy an occasional dose of drama and tragedy in our movies but not so much in our sports. Let the better team on the day win. Let the player who wants it more, who leaves his heart out on the field and gives his all for his country achieve success based on his talent, skill and effort and not the ineptitude of a referee or the injustice of an ignored infringement. So whats the solution and where do we go from here?

Well there has been raging debates, studies and commissions established to deliberate on the solutions to this longstanding dilemma. Strong arguments have been put forward for the introduction of technology in the game to aid in the referee's decision making. Among the proposal was the placing of a microchip in the ball that will transmit a signal to a computer that confirms whether a ball had crossed the goal line or not. Others include the use of video replay and ball tracking technology, from Hawk-Eye innovations, similar to that now being employed in tennis.

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) flatly voted against both proposals on March 6, 2010.
 
"It's an end to the potential use of technology within football," said FIFA general secretary Jerome Valcke in response to reporters after the IFAB meeting.

"Technology should not enter the game and that was a clear statement made by the board."

Indeed the argument can be put forward that the human element is what makes the game more exciting and interesting. That the referee's powers and decision making would be diminished and the game would devolve into constant stops to dispute more and more decisions made by the referee. Was that a corner kick or a goal kick? Is it a throw for the attacking team or the defending team deep in their own half?

There is no escaping controversy and drama in sport with or without technology being involved. In addition, every sport has benefitted from evolution and advancements in technology. There use in tennis has not served to throw the game into disrepute or create constant starts and stops.

In tennis, the game has been allowed to flow more freely likewise in basketball. It has been more efficient to have a player allowed a set number of contests to an umpire's decision with the use of video replay and ball tracking technology indisputable by either side. Technology has been used to provide definitive answers that has allowed the game to resume expeditiously without players embattled in constant bickering and arguing with umpires that would, in my opinion, distract them from their game and rob patrons and fans from seeing athletes compete at their best. So why not in football?

The game has benefitted from technological advances with the ball being redesigned ever so often to allow for better flight through the air and more durability. Soccer boots and uniforms are now made of space age materials (according to Nike and Adidas) that allows players to run faster, turn quicker and kick the ball better. Are these players then more or less skillful than the Peles, Eusebios, Garinchas, Platinis, Bests and Cruyffs of old?

I think not. If anything it has allowed the current generation of players to build on the moves and skills developed by their predecessors and enhance them for the entertainment and enjoyment by all.

Evolution is a good thing. We have all reaped the rich fruits it has produced with the advent of the world wide web. We can all watch more closely whether on our I-Pads, I-Pods, Smart Phones, PDA's, laptops and netbooks and never miss a game. We can stay tuned while in our cars, at work, at that boring party and even while at the alter during the exchange of vows. (Disclaimer - not recommended if the spouse is not a football fan).

Millions will be rooted to their seats at home, at the bar/pub, at work  watching the spectacle on Projector, Plasma, LCD and now even 3D television sets. The more fortunate will be sitting in the stands but still with their smart phones nearby to aid in their viewership.

Technology has therefore enhanced our access to and ultimately our enjoyment of the game. Why then the contempt for its inclusion in the decision making process. In every other sphere it has helped to improve accuracy, minimise errors and enhance the achievement of the optimal decisions IN THE AID AND TO THE BENIFIT OF MAN.

If not its inclusion in the game let us at least then employ it in the selection of the referees. Maybe we can then benefit by having the most suitable human beings available being selected after undergoing rigorous assessment of their knowledge, integrity and judgement to officiate at this years showcase.

So I am officially making the call for us to evolve and let the game of football do the same. Since not on the field then at least allow us to select the keepers and holders of the fortunes of the games to be competed at this year's world cup in South Africa - the Referees, by using all the technology created by man for man's benefit.

Probably would not prevent human error, right? Likewise if we were to use it on the field it would not completely detract from the human element in the game. What say you?