As much as both parties may not like the comparison, goalkeepers and referees/umpires have a lot in common.
In both cases their mistakes are extremely public, and they can end up costing a team the match. That is why in both roles you have to have a thick skin.
It also pays to acknowledge your mistakes and learn from, them doing your best not to repeat the same mistake in the future.
As we have seen globally at the highest level of sport video technology has been introduced to try and minimise the errors made on the pitch. It was always intended to be there as a back up, with so much money riding on many of the games in terms of league position, or the qualification for lucrative or world competitions it was introduced to ensure that key decisions that affected the outcome of the match were not missed.
Of course at levels below this there has never been the same technology to safeguard their competitions.
One thing that has become abundantly clear since the dawn of video technology assisting match officials is that if you are going to go down this path it is vital that you do not scrimp on it. If this is to be done properly there has to be the right investment in the equipment to ensure that right decisions are made. If you are not prepared to commit to such an investment it is best to revert to the days of old where players, coaches, and fans had to rely on the decisions of those in charge. All knew that some days things went you way, other days they didn’t, but overall things evened themselves out.
There are many sports where the official in charge gets to watch the replay and is left with the option to change their decision or not. It takes a big person in a packed arena to admit that they made a mistake. This is why it is often better to have a third party make the call, or the decision is made in consultation with the official on the pitch.
Cricket is one sport that appears to have got things right; however it is still not flawless. First of all the video replay gives the players and the public evidence as to what has actually happened. The review system has also brought a higher level of honestly to their game. If you know you have edged the ball and are given out in the interests of the team it is best to walk, and not use up a review, which the team may genuinely need later in the innings.
The introduction of the “Umpire’s call,” which means that if the decision is marginal when viewing the video evidence the outcome sees everyone stick with the Umpire’s original call. This allows for the possibility of an error with the equipment and also maintains the authority and integrity of the official, and their judgement.
Cricket has also managed to make the review system a money-spinner. With the conversation of the third umpire being shared not only with the television audience, but also those inside the stadium, a crucial factor! As the decision is pending the TV cameras and the crowd turn their gaze to the electronic scoreboard which carries a sponsor’s logo and then the decision comes up.
In sports where emotions are know to run high, such as football FIFA always ruled that no replays were to be shown on the big screen inside venues. This was a wise decision in many leagues around the globe, as showing those at the ground that the official has made an error, or that a player dived to claim a penalty could have a very ugly outcome.
As we saw at the Commonwealth Games in the Men’s Hockey Tournament the world number one side Australia asked for a video referral only to be denied because the officials claimed that the replay had been shown on the big screen at the venue. The Australian captain Eddie Ockenden pointed out that he had asked for the referral before the replay, but was over-ruled. Which raises an issue as to the protocols in place at such events. Is there an agreed time lapse before the broadcaster shows the replay?
Once again this backs up the strong argument for replays not to be shown at live venues. By all means show a goal, but do other moments in play need to be replayed unless the officials or a team requests them when asking for a review?
Hockey WA has invested heavily on erecting a big screen at the Perth Hockey Stadium and once again its presence has raised this issue during the current finals series.
As one would expect clubs are very parochial about their team, and in finals the intensity is ramped up a notch or two. In the past week there have been decisions made on the pitch, which have then been replayed on the big screen, and have shown that the unfortunate official has made an error. Understandably the fans of the team penalised have become far more agitated. As they quite rightly state there is evidence on the screen for all to see that it is the wrong decision, so why do the umpires not look at the screen to ensure that they are correct?
The reason is simple the big screen is superfluous to them, the game, and the job that they are doing.
One problem with this argument is the umpires have been waiting for the clock to count down on the big screen before a penalty corner can be taken, even though both teams are ready within the allotted 45 seconds.
This is unusual and one wonders where the direction has come from as the FIH Rules of Hockey state in section 13.3 sub section a) “time and play is stopped after a penalty corner is awarded and re-started when the teams are ready. Teams should take as little time as possible to take their positions for the taking of a penalty corner.”
Having the big screen showing replays has the potential to put the officials under more pressure in what are already tense affairs. As the noise of the wronged fans of one team are soon going to make them aware that they may have made an error, a very public error, exacerbated by the replay. In addition to this the players are watching the replay, and when they see that they were right to protest their frustration mounts.
With so much club pride on the line, and passions running high, and not to mention alcohol flowing, is it wise to persist with the replays on the screen?
Imagine if one of the finals this weekend is decided on the back of a wrongly awarded penalty corner being converted. The replay on the big screen confirming that it should not have been a penalty corner…
Not only will everyone at the venue in that moment know that this is the case, but the players who can watch the replay and their fans are going to be far from happy. While it is acknowledged that hockey fans tend to be far more reserved than those from other sports, there is still the potential for the officials to cop undue abuse for the rest of the game, and after it, which they simply should not have to endure. Throw in the fact that people that there may be betting on the outcome of these matches and suddenly another potentially inflammatory component is thrown into the mix.
Hopefully commonsense will prevail and the replays will be stopped for the finals, and in the future, as if anything were to happen to any of the officials on whose shoulders would that responsibility fall?
Maybe we should all recall the words of Baseball umpire Doug Harvey who said “Instant replay ought to be thrown out. Period. It’s a game of imperfections. Why is that so bad for the game? Really, I think they are trying to make the game perfect. I’ll tell you what: It will never, ever be perfect.”
