Is sport trying to be too clever for its own good?
There has certainly been a shift in the type of people who become involved in sport. While the top end of most sports are sloshing around with money the reality is that this would make up less than 5% of the sport. Yet all of the decisions are being made within the various sports with a focus on this small percentage of people.
Whereas in the past there were men and women who would quietly go about their business of running sport, and trying to do the best for the sport they were employed by, now we see many involved who are pushing at every opportunity to share the limelight with the top athletes.
With smaller staffing levels across the board the workers in the past were too busy ensuring that everything ran smoothly to have time to attend functions and accept freebies on a match day or at an event, because they were working. That was their job. Many today do not see things that way and believe it is more important that they be seen hobnobbing with past players and other important guests.
With much of the focus is on the top end of sport, and with the advances in technology we have seen many sports looking to try elevate the lower levels of the various sports to appear to be the same as the highest level. Is this viable and is it necessary? Ultimately the key question is why are you doing it?
As we have seen the betting companies have latched onto this and have been quick to offer free cameras for sports to be able to stream games, purely so they can gather all the data they require to then be able to offer betting on those games, legally or illegally. No one gives anything away for free, and in many cases with a little digging one can soon establish who is behind the company offering such services.
Some of those offering streaming services actually feed data to the betting companies unbeknownst to the sport that employs them.
While streaming games is a great innovation, again you have to establish why you are offering such a service. If you are looking to have this available at every game is the quality of each broadcast of an equal standing?
Even the professional sports have found that television can create issues that they sometimes do not want to face.
The famous incident when Thierry Henry used his hand to keep the ball in play for Willaim Gallas to score for France to qualify for the 2010 FIFA World Cup in November 2009 is a case in point. This was an incident that occurred before the days of VAR (Video Assisted Referee). It was a goal that saw France qualify for the FIFA World Cup in South Africa at the expense of Ireland.
France had won the first leg of this qualification play-off 1-0 in Dublin. In France Robbie Keane had scored to have Ireland leading 1-0. That was the score after 90 minutes. So with the tie level at 1-1 the game went into extra time. The ball was played across the Irish goalmouth, Henry kept it in play with his hand and then passed to Gallas who scored. France went to the World Cup.
FIFA tried to play the whole sorry episode down. In 2015 the Football Association of Ireland published details of the timelines that resulted in a €5million pay out not to sue over the errror which cost Irish football and their kit supplier Umbro millions.
Many have claimed that this, and Frank Lampard’s “ghost goal” for England against Germany at the World Cup finals in South Africa – where everyone thought he had scored to level teh scores at 2-2 in the Round of 16 – were why FIFA eventually agreed to bring in VAR. However, it is vital to remember that when it was introduced it was brought in to eliminate clear errors in big games such as these and avoid weeks, months or even years of discourse on these controversial moments.
Lower down the sporting pyramid is such technology available? So should it be used after the event?
There are many professional competitions which state that a player cannot be suspended after the game if something is spotted post game on video that the officials missed. This would appear prudent.
The only exception to this rule is if there has been violent conduct.
Last week at 10.38pm on Thursday evening Hale Hockey Club were advised that a Premier League player had to attend a tribunal the next day at 5.30pm. An initial email had been sent at 3.01pm on the Thursday to which Hale had requested the hearing to be delayed due to the late notice of the advice to attend a hearing.
The alleged incident had taken place on the Friday evening the week before.
It was claimed that “This incident is regarded as a violation of the Code of Conduct. Under the code, relevant persons and organisations must ‘act and operate within the rules and spirit of hockey’. The umpires were both unsighted during the game, which meant that no sanction was recorded at the time.”
This last sentence would appear to be completely untrue based on the same video evidence that the player was being judged on. The umpire was approximately five metres from the incident, with no players standing between him and the incident, so one questions how he was “unsighted.”
in every sport officials are accused of being blind. It is an interesting word to use in this situation as if you look up the definition of “unsighted” it actually says “1.lacking the power of sight.”
The competition rules state that “A person may be reported by any other person to Hockey WA for an alleged breach of, or conduct prohibited by, a Sports Integrity Policy.”
However, if a team wished to lodge a complaint they must do so “with Hockey WA no later than five Business Days after the occurrence of the incident that is the subject of the report.”
The question here is why wait five days for such a complaint to be lodged? Surely if there is an issue the opposing club should submit within 24 hours or at most 48 hours after the final whistle. This ensures that the information is fresh in everyone’s minds.
It is understood that no complaint was lodged officially by Melville Hockey Club, who were Hale’s opponents when the alleged incident occurred.
The footage that was submitted showing the alleged incident was not taken from the livestream of that game, so had to have been submitted by a third party, however that third party was not named.
It appears that the charges were being laid by the governing body itself, as they wrote;
“A Tribunal will convene a hearing pursuant to Section 21.4 of the Hockey WA Competition By-Laws:
5.1 Reportable Incidents
•Hockey WA, in its discretion (regardless of the receipt or otherwise of a Complaint Form), may investigate any game and deal with any incident in that game under and under Bylaw 21.4(i).“
The governing body are within their rights to look into such matters as like most sporting organisations they have the clause quoted.
Although the next clause 21.4 h states “Hockey WA, in its discretion, may dismiss or choose not to investigate a Complaint.”
So who makes the call on whether a complaint is followed up on or not? Is there transparency in the process? There certainly should be and the member clubs should demand that in order to protect the integrity of the sport. One would think that a report would be attached to any complaint received advising of the parties who looked into it, the findings, and how they reached the final conclusion.
It has been claimed – not by the governing body – that Hockey WA were simply going through the footage and picked up on this incident. What footage were they watching as on the livestream the contact between the two players was missed. So who supplied the footage of the clip that was being used? Did they supply footage of the whole match to give context? If they had they would have seen how the challenges had become a lot more physical after Hale had come from behind and taken the lead?
The interesting fact is that no cards were issued during the match, when there were a number of incidents that could have seen players sitting on the sidelines.
One of the big issues with this particular complaint is the use of video evidence. Is this, or should this be allowed?
Having commentated at international events I have been shown footage of foul play by the video analysts that has been missed by the umpires, and often the broadcasters. On occasion the offences would have clearly warranted a yellow card as a minimum suspension. Sometimes those international sides have lodged the footage with a complaint, sometimes they have opted not to. Rarely do players receive a suspension based on this video evidence, they usually receive just a warning.
That is not always the case, as in one event where a player struck an opponent with his stick behind play, the player was suspended for the rest of the tournament, which was three games and a number of games after the tournament had concluded.
At an international event you usually find that every game is being televised or filmed, so every team is playing under the same circumstances.
When you come down several rungs on the playing ladder where not every game is being filmed, and the quality of the footage of those being filmed is varied, should such footage be used in such circumstances?
If a player has been hospitalised due to deliberate foul play such as striking a player with a stick, one can argue the case for footage being used, but should it be used in other situations?
Clubs will argue that they may want to use footage to try and prove a player’s innocence, and that is a valid argument. The problem is if one player in one game has video footage to defend themselves and another doesn’t is that fair?
Surely unless every team has the same level of coverage video footage should not be used. Certainly footage from third parties should not be used at all. Or only if there is a truly violent issue that has resulted in serious injury, and it is required for legal or insurance purposes.
There have to be protocols around video evidence for it to be used at a hearing. Who does the footage come from is it authorised footage, (livestream or team analyst) is it available for every team? These protocols are even more important now that AI is beginning to create very real imitations of life. Do any of those looking at the footage have the expertise to know if footage is AI or been tampered with?
Except when actual bodily harm has happened is there really a need for video footage? We coped for decades without it.
At the tribunal the player in question was found to be not guilty. However, the concern is how the issue ended up in front of the tribunal and hopefully those officiating at that hearing will be asking that same question. As the circumstances behind this particular case appear to be less than clearcut.
So many sports have a clause whereby the governing body is allowed to use its “discretion.” As the members, the clubs really need to be on top of this clause and ensure that if the administrators of the game opt to use their discretion there needs to be a record as to why and how they reached this decision, as they are after all acting on behalf of the clubs.
Discretion has to be transparent and fair to all.
It is not acceptable, as we have seen in some sports, for the competition rules being changed midseason just because of this discretion clause. This affects the integrity of the game and the competition.
The clubs need to remember that the administration is there to serve them, and that they elect the board, who are there to guide the administration. Therefore they have a very big say in controlling how the game is run. It is vital that they stay on top of that.
(The author is contracted by Hale Hockey Club to livestream their home games, and commentated on this particular game. They were not requested to write this piece, but chose to do so independently).
