VIDEO EVIDENCE IS NEEDED TO SAVE OUR BEAUTIFUL GAME

The time has come for use of television replays on ambiguous decisions.

Recent events have made this scenario a must, otherwise the game will become more and more farcical, not to mention un-watchable.

All of the old concerns about video evidence can be discussed until we are blue in the face. But nobody can tell me it will destroy football more than it has been already.

So what are the arguments against video evidence?

The most frequent argument used is that it will slow down the game. This is nonsense.

Video replays can be shown twice at two different angles to determine the right decision. This process should take been 30 and 45 seconds.

This is much quicker than the time it takes for a player to get up after play acting or how long it takes for a referee to usher away angry players. Even goalkeepers sometimes take up to 45 seconds to take a goal kick.

The other argument the old fashioned fan will put across, is that bad decisions are what the game is all about. Without them, what would we discuss down the pub?

Well, down the Rose and Lion, we can discuss how video evidence has improved the game, and how many matches a player should be banned for, for diving.

Diving has been a major topic discussion in recent weeks. The main headlines have concerned Eduardo’s antics against Celtic.

Firstly, lets get this straight. It was a dive and the Brazilian born Croat deserves to be banned. But he is not the first to do this. What about Carlos Tevez versus Tottenham at Old Trafford last season.

The Argentine forward went down in the area but was clearly not touched. This crucial decision cost Howard Webb his reputation, but was Tevez reprimanded? No.

It’s good that the Arsenal striker has been punished, but if we had had video evidence at the game it would have been quicker to make a correct decision than it took the Celtic players to complain about the decision. Eduardo would have been sent off and presented with a two or three game ban immediately.


Instead we had endless discussion and the usual bureaucracy trail coming out of UEFA, while they were trying to decide the best course of action.


I have my own solutions to diving.

Video evidence should be used on every penalty decision if the referee is in any doubt. Ninety per cent of the time, players spend 20 seconds appealing anyway. But there should only be one replay in my view, as not to waste too much time.

If it’s a clear penalty, then an easy decision can be made.

If the referee thinks the player was barely touched but fell over, the referee should book the player for diving.

If the player fell over and was not touched at all, that should be a straight red card for simulation and a three match ban. No questions asked, it is usually always clear.

There are other ways of stamping diving out of the game.

I was listening to a phone in on Talk sport radio on Tuesday and a caller made an excellent suggestion.

The fan, an Arsenal fan ironically, said that the other team should be awarded a penalty if a player dives in the opposition area and is not touched. This is an excellent suggestion, but again only after use of one video replay.

These ideas may come across as radical, but there are too many rash decisions given these days.

I remember when I first began to like football in the late 1980s. A penalty was an exciting event as they were given so rarely.

Now, due to players fundamentally cheating, but also changes in the rules, three or four seem to be given every weekend. Many of the spot kick’s given are not clear cut.

Two recent events have also made me believe video replays are the future of the game.

The first is the Freddie Sears’ goal for Crystal Palace against Bristol City that was not seen by the officials (although this rarely happens in football). The second, was an incident which happened in the Bolton v Liverpool match on Saturday which reinforced the use of video evidence.

Fernando Torres cut into the Bolton penalty area and was cleanly tackled by Zat Knight, the Bolton centre back. The Spaniard went down under the challenge, but did not look for a penalty and did not dive.

Both Knight and Gary Cahill preceded to shout aggressively at Torres accusing him of cheating. This would not have happened if the recent media frenzy on diving had not occurred.

If players are now going to accuse players of diving when they haven’t, we have moved full circle and they too deserved to be punished.


If video evidence is used, decisions on diving and any other debatable action in the game can be dealt with more quickly and efficiently

Of course there are grey areas. Referees are given less responsibility, but it also makes their job easier. To some extent, it also adds to the drama of the game, like it does in Rugby.

I do believe the evidence should only be used when a decision is within the penalty area and not outside. This would, of course, mean that Emmanuel Eboue’s disgraceful dive at Old Trafford last weekend would not be punished. But it can be punished at a later date.

The important factor is that if the offence is outside the area it leads to a goal far less frequently.


Nothing is perfect in football and that’s why we love it.

However, without video replays, many of us are in danger of falling out of love with the game completely.