Less of this for a start…
The long-standing argument has been that the introduction of video technology would find beautiful flowing football descending into a stop-starty eyesore, with referees blowing up every ten seconds to do the charades sign for “television programme”.
But, as pointed out in today’s Times, it’s a ploy that has worked very well for cricket and rugby, and it would certainly take some pressure off referees. Plus Ireland would have survived Henry’s urge to molest the ball in the area, the likes of Drog-Drog might think a little before they go clattering down like a rucksack of spanners, and old women in flowery dresses wouldn’t have their Sunday afternoon step scrubbing therapy ruined by their drunken husbands shouting incoherently about being robbed.
But what do you think? Would it seriously cripple the game? Or would it make everyone a lot happier? Let us know with a vote and a comment…
























Loading ...
1 response so far
1 Bokolis // Nov 23, 2009 at 10:32 pm
It the ref has even half a brain, he knew right away that he fouled up. The linesman on the far side had an unobstructed view, albeit from 30 yards away, and missed it.
Before y’all get into video replay, consider putting more officials on the pitch. Why is there one referee and two on the touch line to patrol that much area? This is the same amount the NBA uses over less than 1/10 the area…granted, the NBA needs that many to fix matches.
Anyway, you should have at least 6 for a football match. At the very least, the two assistants shouldn’t be confined to the touch line.