Video would help referees

THE recent refereeing controversies have only heightened the growing lobby for the introduction of video technology.

First there was the Reading goal that never was at Watford and then at the weekend there was the penalty that never was for Manchester United against Bolton, while City manager Mark Hughes was spitting feathers after his side conceded a debatable spot-kick in the defeat at Wigan Athletic.

The argument against technology - which is already used in cricket, rugby and tennis - is that football would become stop-start if there were frequent breaks while decisions were challenged . . . something I once feared as a dinosaur who won’t even entertain a mobile phone!

But if you take a closer examination of the facts, there is little to fear from the introduction of video technology, which at the moment has only been suggested for goalline incidents. I would extend those boundaries even further.

As Hughes pointed out, long gone are the days when there was just one camera on the television gantry at games.

The action at Premier League matches is covered from every conceivable angle and the technology has advanced to such a degree that replays take a matter of seconds.

There is a monitor placed by the dugout at each Premier League game for the benefit of the television production staff so why couldn’t the fourth official, who is standing close by, use that to determine contentious decisions. It appears a logical step to take.

But there would have to be some ground rules because you couldn’t have Sir Alex Ferguson or Arsene Wenger dashing down to the touchline every two minutes question decisions. Not that they ever do!

I would argue that a manager be restricted to a maximum of two, possibly three, challenges during the course of a match so they only pick key moments such as penalty appeals and incidents of serious foul play which might directly influence the outcome of a game.

That worked well at Wimbledon where tennis players are permitted to make a couple of challenges each set and ask for a ‘Hawk-Eye’ ruling for disputed line calls.

You only have to look at the way refereeing decisions are scrutinised on television to see that officials have an almost impossible job as diving, shirt pulling and feigning injury has never been so prevalent in a game played at a whirlwind pace.

Referees only have one pair of eyes and they don’t have the benefit of viewing incidents from multiple angles as television pundits and viewers do.

They have to make a split-second decision in the heat of the moment - and more often than not they are proved right yet are pilloried when they make the odd mistake.

Rather than admit their own failings and shortcomings, it is far easier for a manager to slate the referee who all too easily becomes the fall guy for a defeat.

Let’s help referees all we can, especially as the technology is already available. Why wait when so many of the controversies could be eliminated at a stroke?