For those of us of a certain age it seems like a lifetime ago that the old adage the ‘referee/umpire’s decision is final’ was something all sports people and fans understood.
It is no coincidence that as our sports stars wages rose, and the financial rewards for winning most tournaments increased, the officials came under more scrutiny. Suddenly the decisions that they made could cost a team a vast sum of money, qualification or the advancement in crucial competitions. All of these were at risk, and that could cost hundreds of thousands.
This had been the case for decades. Every sport was riddled with stories of dubious decisions. Were the officials crooked? Were they not up to it? Or did they simply get caught up in the game and the atmosphere?
In the early to mid last century English County Cricket sides each had to supply two umpires for approval from the powers that be. These umpires would officiate all of their games that Summer. One would travel with the team to officiate on away games. On one occasion, the umpire, a former player, actually joined in the appeal from his county, before giving the unfortunate batsman out!
During the iconic 1970-71 Ashes series in Australia, England famously had no appeals for LBW (Leg Before Wicket) go in their favour across the entire seven-match Test series. This is a remarkable statistic. Incredibly, some writers put this down to the Australian Batsmen’s superb technique. While not surprisingly English writers put this down to home bias; as the umpires in that era were from the host country. England still won the Ashes series 2-0, but this is one of the most remembered statistics of that tour.
Today we have neutral officials to try and ensure that there is no bias due to the money at stake and avoid the risk of teams losing out.
It was only a matter of time before technology was used to allegedly assist the officials. As sports fans we were told that the introduction of video technology would ensure that blatantly wrong decisions would be overturned and we would see the right outcomes in games.
Cricket was one of the first International sports to opt to use technology. The third Umpire was first used over 30 years ago in Durban, South Africa and their series against India. It was to ensure that catches carried, that batsmen had not made their ground when it came to run-outs, and to judge LBW decisions. Sachin Tendulkar was the first player to be dismissed using video technology.
It was interesting that during this time umpires were directed to use the technology, especially with run-outs. Experienced English umpires David Constant and Dickie Bird were it has been claimed told to stop using their experience and judgement and use the technology. However, when they checked back on the decisions made by both respected umpires, they had not needed it to make the correct decisions.
However, the authorities wanted this technology to be used as they believed it would add more drama to the game. Over time it has meant more revenue, with the “Decision Pending” on the scoreboard at the venue and with the television cameras also panning on it, has become the most valuable piece of sponsorship to the game, as it attracts everyone’s attention.
The concept of a player referral did not come in until 2006 and was not officially accepted by the ICC until 2008. “Snicko” arrived in 2009.
Rugby Union which is regarded by many as having the best video referral system in top flight sport introduced the TMO in 2001 and it was used only in high level competition, the first event being the Heineken Cup semi-finals in 2002.
Rugby League like many sports in the USA had been using a video referral system since the 1990s. Football introduced VAR in March 2018 and it was first used at the 2018 FIFA World Cup.
Football adopted this after for years refusing to do so because it could not be used at every level pf the game. Despite having the opportunity to see how other sports use video to ensure that right decisions have been made on the pitch, football has not done a great job with VAR, and the main criticism is that it is killing those moments of joy when a goal is scored. It is also frequently ruling out goals for reasons that are hard to comprehend, let alone justify.
In 2006 at the Champions Trophy Hockey introduced Umpire referrals and three years later in 2009 at the same event in Melbourne brought in team referrals.
With all of the sports we were told that the video official was introduced to ensure that the sport ended up with the right outcomes. Just as with the officials on the field of play and the players themselves, occasionally even the video officials make a mistake. Sometimes a mistake that seems obvious to the viewer at home.
The reaction when it appears to be a wrong decision results in plenty of comment on social media, and at times an unreasonable backlash for the officials concerned.
This would make a good argument as to why such referrals should not be aired inside the stadium at the game itself. As the reaction of the crowd and the subsequent pressure on the officials could ramp up a few notches. However, in many sports the replays are shown on the main screen along with the interaction between the officials and how they have reached their decision is aired inside the venue, making it clear to all as to why and how they reached that outcome.
One question that has to be asked, especially if sport is indeed entertainment, and people have paid good money to actually attend an event, should this be the norm? If a venue is unable to provide the replays that the video official is watching or relay their conversations to those inside the stadium, should video no longer be used for these games?
Certainly as a spectator it is infuriating to sit there and wait for an outcome without knowing what is being discussed. At a time when many sports are desperately trying to fill stadia, why should those who fork out their hard earned money to attend a game miss out on such information, while those at home have access to it?
Then there is the issue of how far do you go to ensure that the outcome is correct?
In Hockey the video umpire, the teams, and officials may only look at reviewing goals and violations within the 23 metre area. As one official advised you have to put a limit on the area or we will be having reviews all over the pitch. That is a reasonable argument, but should the video umpire have the authority to check the legitimacy of goals even if the passage of play commenced outside the 23 metre area?
If it is about ensuring the right outcomes then you would think this would be the case.
In the recent Sultan Azlan Shah Cup in Malaysia there were three matches where the outcome could have changed if this were the case. In two cases it would have impacted the final standings on the league table.
The first was in the Belgium v Canada match. The opening game of the tournament for both teams. Canada had taken a surprise lead and were clinging onto it defending valiantly with their goalkeepers Zach Coombs and Ethan McTavish in commanding form. With three minutes left in the match Roman Duvekot returned to the field of play after serving a two minute suspension, and surprised the Canadian defender on the ball on the halfway line. He stole possession Belgium broke forward and scored through Thibeau Stockbroekx. Canada were convinced that when possession was stolen there was a backstick, but could only refer inside the 23 metre area. They did refer, the replay went back to the tackle on the halfway-line and it did appear to be a back stick. Should the video umpire half alerted the on pitch umpires that there appeared to be a back stick, even though there were no infringements inside the 23metre area?
If the video official is there to ensure the right outcomes then one would think that they should have.
Had that game finished as a win to Canada they could well have found themselves playing off for Bronze rather than fifth place.
Unfortunately, there was another incident involving Canada in their match v India which ended up being a very one-sided affair, India winning 13-4. Canada had missed a penalty stroke in the opening minute, but there was controversy soon after when India took the lead. The umpire on the Canadian side of the pitch signalled for a sixteen. The Canadian players moved out, but then after consultation with their umpiring colleague the decision was changed to a long corner. India took it with Canada out of position and scored. The Canadians argued that they should have been allowed time to regroup once the decision was changed, they referred the issue but the goal stood. While this decision may not have changed the outcome of the match it did affect it, as the Canadian players clearly lost their cool, and their focus ending up with one defender receiving a five minute yellow card.
In what was to be a vital game to see who would progress to the gold medal match India and New Zealand met. With the game tied at 2-2 and New Zealand having come back from two goals down the game was on a knife edge. With six minutes to go India’s Karthi Selvam scored a winner. However from the free hit that lead to the goal the ball had not been stopped by the Indian players. So like in other sports had the video umpire automatically reviewed the goal would it have stood? Should it have stood?
It would appear that some sports have found a way to make the video evidence a part of the game, and that in most cases it ensures that the right decisions are being made. Others are still trying to work it out and maybe they need to be reminded as to why the video umpire/referee was introduced.
With video officials in most sports having been in place now for at least 20 years the honeymoon period should be over, and their powers and job should be clear to all. Without doubt the only thing that fans, players and coaches want are the right outcomes.
