the ball's the four finals
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/2/2019 The Ball's the Four Finals
1/12
APRIL 2012
Ever wonderedwhat would happen
if all decisions ina soccer matchwere made by aTV referee?
Would there betoo many delays?
Could they get thedecisions right?
The Ball decidedto take a look
By Simon Lewis(originally publishedin July 2005)
TheBallSPECIAL EDITION
THE FOURFINALS
HOW THE TV REFEREE MIGHT HAVECHANGED THE RESULT OF FOUR FINALS
A 2005 REPORT
D R E A M S D O N T D I E
N O B U L L , J U S T B A L L
www . t h e b a l l . c o . z a
-
8/2/2019 The Ball's the Four Finals
2/12
A tale of four finals
In 2005, as Editor of The Ball magazine, I appealled to FIFA to ad-
dress the issue of TV replays being used in football. There was no
immediate impact following my communication to FIFA, however,
I also CCd it to a few hundred magazines, newspapers and sports
organistions and federations.BY SIMON LEWIS (ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED JULY 2005)
Soccer, one of the leading sports, actually needs to catch a wake-
up, as almost all other sports are using video replays to aid refe-
rees, I said back in 2005. I appeal to FIFA to consider the facts of
the four finals as shown here and make the best and most positive
decision bring the TV ref to life!
At that time very few people saw any merit in using TV reviews or
any other form of referee assistance in football . The split was about
85 against to 15 for referee assistance. The split seemed to have
grown to about 50-50 in favour of helping the referees before the
2010 FIFA World Cup... and following the disallowed Frank Lampard
goal and numerous subsequent referee errors (albeit mostly impos-
sible for the referees to call correctly although most were con-
firmed as incorrect almost instantly within a handful of seconds),
the spilt is about 20 against to 80 percen t FOR the use of technol-
ogy now. Hopefully my mail to FIFA and the sports media played
some small part in this. Today the argument is not about IF we do
it.. . its about HOW we do it.
Using TV footage is the cheape st way to ensure quick and accurate
decisions by humans! And, the beauty of it is you dont need to add
any additional equipment simply use whatever TV cameras are in
place after all , the controversy arises as a result of TV footage
that immediately shows a refereeing error. If theres no TV footage
then, no problem the crowd will be none the wiser about any ref-ereeing errors and naturally the onfield referees decision stands.
WHAT IMPACT WILL STOPPING FOR THE TV REFEREE HAVE?
A CASE STUDY FROM THE FOUR FINALS IN 2005
In 2005 I took extensive notes of all the referee and linesmen de-
cisions during four high-profile soccer finals in 2005 (the FA Cup,
Champions League, Scottish Cup and Championship Playoff finals).
After watching the four finals I was amazed at how busy the refereeand linesmen actually were and, moreover, how accurate they were
with the majority of their decisions!
- In the first half of a match the referee blows his whistle every 54
seconds.
- In the second half he blows every 47 seconds.
- The number of errors remains even between the first half and the
second a referees error rate is 1 in 25 decisions.
- On average a referee blows his whistle every 50.4 seconds.
- Referees make 107 decisions per match in normal time (90 min).
- The numbe r of errors in 90 minutes of normal time is 4.25 (under
4% of total decisions), which equates to an incorrect decision
every 20 minutes.
1 T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E T H E F O U R F I N A L S D R E A M S D O N T D I E T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T . C O M
C u t y o u r b u s i n e s s c a l l c o s t s b y 3 0 - 6 0 % . N o l i e s 0 2 1 - 7 6 2 - 9 7 1 5
-
8/2/2019 The Ball's the Four Finals
3/12
Note: Most of these decisions are humanly impossible for the ref-
eree and his linesmen to always call correctly.
(Source: The Ball magazine, www.theball.co.za)
FOOTNOTEThere were a few areas where referees and linesmen erred to a
greater or lesser extent, although these were usually due to the
decisions being extremely difficult to judge with the naked eye.
Crucially , however, those instances were decisions of far greater im-
portance. Ironically, most of these could be confirmed or overruled
within 10-15 seconds of watching TV replays, which is usually the
time it takes for the players to stop arguing with the referee and
linesmen about a contentious decision. Considering that refereesessentially make so few wrong decisions in a match, the amount of
interruptions for delays linked to the TV referee would be a matter
or 2-4 minutes per match. Considering the value of getting accu-
rate decisions, it is arguably a delay worth taking, especially when
you consider how much time the players waste arguing with the
referees. In the four finals, between 8-10 goalscoring opportunities
could have resulted had the TV referee been used (ie largely relating
to offsides or penalty decisions).
Figures, stats and workingsfrom The Four Finals
Compiled by Simon Lewis
EOT = viewers can confirm decision from live footage.
RBP = the referee or linemen were in the best position. ERR = a clear error spotted live using the TV replays shown.
FIGURES AND STATS AND WORKINGS
FA Cup final Arsenal v Man United
90 min EOT RBP ERR extra time EOT RBP ERR
1st half 48 4 3 1st half 13 2 0
2nd half 47 9 1 2nd half 18 0 0
PENALTIES: The keepers were off the line before the kick for five
of the 10 kicks, most were only a slight jump off the line. The one
penalty that was saved the keeper was well off his line before the
ball was kicked.
Champions League Final AC Milan v Liverpool
90 min EOT RBP ERR extra time EOT RBP ERR
1st half 23 16 1 1st half 13 2 0
2nd half 45 11 3 2nd half 17 3 1
PENALTIES: The keepers were off their line before the kick four
times, three of which were saved.
2 T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E T H E F O U R F I N A L S D R E A M S D O N T D I E T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T . C O M
G e t t w o b u s i n e s s t e l e p h o n e l i n e s f o r j u s t R 1 5 0 ! Y a , b r u . 0 2 1 - 7 6 2 - 9 7 1 5
-
8/2/2019 The Ball's the Four Finals
4/12
Scottish Cup Final Celtic v Dundee United
90 min EOT RBP ERR
1st half 42 10 3
2nd half 51 7 5
Championship Playoff Final Preston v West Ham
90 min EOT RBP ERR1st half 50 7 1
2nd half 53 5 0
OVERALL AVERAGES
90 min EOT RBP ERR extra time EOT RBP ERR
1st half 163 37 8 1st half 26 4 2
2nd half 196 32 9 2nd half 35 3 1
Total 359 69 17 61 7 3
NORMAL TIME FOR THE FOUR FINALS
1st half 180 minutes total
200 blows of the whistle
8 decisions missed / unseen on TV
Referee blows every 0.9 min (54 seconds)
2nd half 180 minutes total
228 blows of the whistle
9 decisions missed / unseen on TV
Referee blows every 0.78 min (47 seconds)
EXTRA TIME FOR THE FOUR FINALS
1st half 30 minutes total
30 blows of the whistle
2 decisions missed / unseen on TV
Referee blows every 1 min (60 seconds)
2nd half 30 minutes total38 blows of the whistle
1 decision missed / unseen on TV
Referee blows every 0.78 min (47 seconds)
TOTAL OVER THE FOUR FINALS
428 in 360 min (normal time)
Referee blows every 0.84 min (50.4 sec)
20 errors (1 in 21 decisions)
496 blows in 420 minutes (incl ET)
Referee blows every 0.85 min (50.8 sec)
17 errors (1 in 29 decisions)
SUNDRY STATISTICS
On average, the referees made 50 decisions in the first half of nor-
mal time (45 min) and 57 decisions in the second half (45 min).
The increase from the first half to the second half was 200 decisions
up to 228 decisions (the total over the four finals), no doubt as the
players take more risks looking for a winning goal. This equates to a
3 T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E T H E F O U R F I N A L S D R E A M S D O N T D I E T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T . C O M
W h y p a y f o r a f u l l m i n u t e w h e n y o u o n l y s p o k e f o r 1 5 s e c o n d s ?
-
8/2/2019 The Ball's the Four Finals
5/12
referee and his linesmen making a decision every 54 seconds in the
first half and down to 47 seconds in the second half, seven seconds
faster in the second half.
The number of errors remains even between the first half and the
second in both cases, the error rate was 1 in 25 decisions.
On average, the referees made 107 decisions per match in normal
time (90 min). The number of errors in that time was 4.25 (under
4% of decisions), which equates to an incorrect decision every
20 minutes.
STATISTICAL NOTES
Times are based on an average time of 45 minutes per half. Stop-
page time is classed as dead time, as the ref wouldnt be makingdecisions. Decisions listed are when a referee blew his whistle.
EOT = viewers can confirm decision from live footage (including
the replays shown live). Note that the officials dont know what
will be a close or an easy decision and are fully focused for the
full 45 minutes of each half they cant relax for a moment.
Probably the time when any mistakes happen is if they do lose
concentration, which is a normal human failing, or when the deci-
sion is not humanly possible to always call correctly.
RBP = the referee or linemen were in the best position, and live
footage did not show evidence to suggest an incorrect decision
was made. Additional replays might show errors within this cat-
egory. RBP means no replay shown essentially. Taking time to
rewind tape often provided confirmation of the decision, and ac-
cessing other footage and angles would have done so probably
in almost every single decision or appeal. You could make all
decisions using TV replays, although obviously the refs and lines-
men are able to make 95% of decisions with 100% accuracy andprobably twice as fast as the quickest TV replay would allow.
ERR = a clear error that can be seen by TV viewers live using the
TV replays shown live.
There were less RBP decisions in the English FA Cup and the
Championship playoff English footage seems to show more re-
plays and, possibly, has more cameras in position. In a short spaceof time English TV confirms the majority of referee decisions.
The error statistics might actually be higher than would normally
be the case, as in one match one linesman made three clear
offside errors (when viewed on live TV replays) in a short space
of time.
SI MON LEWI S The Ball magazine
[email protected] www.theball.co.za
4 T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E T H E F O U R F I N A L S D R E A M S D O N T D I E T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T . C O M
C a l l u s f o r a f r e e a n a l y s i s o f y o u r p h o t o c o p i e r a n d P A B X n e e d s .
-
8/2/2019 The Ball's the Four Finals
6/12
Soundbites from the article30 seconds to fair play
If the players are going to be tricking and cheating the referees,
their opposition and the fans, then they dont deserve much of
a voice in deciding about the use of technology, do they? If the
players know that they cant get away with trying their luck on of-
ficials, if they know they will be found out, exposed and penalized
then they will simply have to start playing their games in a more
sporting manner. That makes the game fairer and certainly makes
the referees role a lot easier. And why not? Where does it say in
the rules of any sport that we must test the referee as much as
possible, see if he can spot the right decision? Their purpose is
not to be tested, but to be an arbiter.
Traditionally, the referee or umpire was always in the best position
to make a decision. Think about the 1950s! However, today cam-
eras are all around the stadiums and THEY now provide the best
views. Plain and simple. If I were the umpires I would be picketing
hard for the implementation of TV replays.
In football any controversial decision is followed by 45-60 sec-
onds of players swinging their handbags above their heads and
crying to the referee. Surely if everyone waits for 20-30 seconds
for a TV umpire to spot any glaring errors it would be quicker than
the handbags hit parade and would be fairer to all .
Your boss at work would nt say, oh, you made us R200,000 profit
last year .. . unfortunately, this year you lost us R200,000. Dont
worry, though, you can keep your job as it all evens out.
HOW TO USE THE TV REFEREE?
To refer a decision to a TV referee is awful it s slow and more
embarrassing to the official as he is asking for assistance without
having the chance to prove his ability to get the decision right. We
should empower the referee (and cricket umpire) by not allowing
them to refer any decision to a TV referee (or umpire). Let them
prove their decision-making ability on the field. At the lower levels
of refereeing or umpiring they have to make those calls, so now
when you get into the televised arena suddenly you stop calling it
as you see it but ask for help from your TV buddy every time there
is a close call? The onfield umpire / referee should make the deci-sions, with the knowledge that if they get close calls wrong, the TV
umpire/referee will be able to correct them, for the benefit of the
game, the fans and the players. That sounds a lot less embarrassing
for the referees.
WHAT ABOUT MATCHES WHERE THERE IS POOR TV COVERAGE
The four finals showed me that referees CAN be trusted they do
a good job. They can be trusted! It follows, then, that if there is no
TV coverage or inferior standards of broadcasting, then at least we
have already discovered that officials can be trusted as far as is hu-
manly possible. Sure, the finals would have had the top-rated refe-
rees and linesmen officiating, but their performances do offer proof
5 T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E T H E F O U R F I N A L S D R E A M S D O N T D I E T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T . C O M
L o s i n g b u s i n e s s b e c a u s e y o u r i n c o m i n g l i n e s a r e a l w a y s e n g a g e d ?
-
8/2/2019 The Ball's the Four Finals
7/12
of their ability to get it right under pressure and heavy scrutiny.
The only problem with referees is that the phrase humanly possible
becomes a grey area with penalty decisions and offsides (as well
as certain goal decisions), simply because it is only with slow mo-
tion replays that you can get 100% accuracy with these decisions,
and even then sometimes you need to watch 2-3 replays, as well
as sometimes another angle or two. Sure, mistakes will happen in
non-televised matches, but these would have happened anyway. TV
referees can only improve soccer, they cant lower standards in any
way or harm the sport. Cricket uses TV replays for certain decis ions,
yet there are matches with no TV coverage. The important thing
is to get the high-profile obvious decisions right, even if it means
over-ruling an official. The end result is that the correct decision
gets made that has to be good as the public and players view of
referees can only be improved if there are fewer controversial errorshitting the headlines.
MANY PEOPLE ARE AGAINST THE USE OF THE TV REFEREE
I appreciate the delicacy and care required by the people in charge
of soccer any such major change needs a good deal of talk and
careful consideration. But it s reached the stage where brain surgery
is no longer required soccer, one of the leading sports, actually
needs to catch a wake-up, as almost all other sports are using video
replays to aid referees and umpires. I appeal to FIFA to consider the
facts of the four finals as shown here and make the best and most
positive decision bring the TV ref to life!
THE PROBLEM WITH OFFSIDES
Incorrect line calls halt play, breaking down legitimate attacking
situations. This frustrates the fans and the players, especially as in
around 40% of instances the attack er would have been on a virtual
or actual one-on-one face-off with the keeper. These decisions are
sometimes almost impossible to judge even with TV replays, so for
a linesman it is unthinkable for them to always call these correctly.
Linesmen in general do phenomenally well in their adjudications,
but the impact of any wrong decision is so huge that prevention
should be implemented. The solution is for the linesman to raise
his flag when he believes the players are offside, while play carries
on (thus not affecting the players or frustrating the fans). The TV
ref can overrule or confirm the offides without play having been
stopped. Rather have a goal overruled by the TV referee than have
incorrect offsides being called.
IN A TIGHT CORNER
The goal-kick or corner kick decision is potentially a big decision
to get wrong a corner kick is an opportuni ty for the attacking side
to drop the ball right in the goalmouth and look to score a goal . Its
a great attacking opportunity, and being denied it is potentially a
huge disadvantage, especially for weaker teams who rely on dead-
ball situations for a goal against the run of play. Refs and linesmen
cant always get these decisions right as it is humanly impossible to
spot some tiny deflections. A TV replay usually confirms this before
the players can take the goal kick or corner kick.
6 T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E T H E F O U R F I N A L S D R E A M S D O N T D I E T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T . C O M
H i - t e c h C C T V s y s t e m s 4 , 8 o r 1 6 c h a n n e l w w w . a d v a n c e d t e l c o m s . c o . z a
-
8/2/2019 The Ball's the Four Finals
8/12
THE BEST POSITION
TV commentators themselves sometimes cant agree on decisions,
and perhaps they arent well enough versed with the rules, but the
point is that the referees and linesmen are best placed to judge
decisions that are often open to interpretation and which require
you to be placed in the thick of the action to best ascertain impact,
cause, effect and intent. However, there are some decisions made
by officials that a TV replay can quickly confirm or reject with abso-
lute certainty. As these are often of major significan ce in the course
of the match, TV replays should be incorporated into the referee
and linesmens decision-making armoury for the start of the next
European football season.
30 Seconds to fair play
If a spaceship from a planet far, far away landed on earth tomor-
row, how would you convince them that not using TV replays is a
good idea?
By Simon Lewis (from The Ball magazine, May/June 2005)
There are three main arguments against the increased use of
technology in assisting match officials to arrive at the fairest
decisions:
- They say it dissipates the referees powers.
- They say it isnt reliable.
- They say it takes too long.
All three are good arguments in their own right, especially whendelivered by a big name player, manager, coach or ex-player. You al-
ways need to remember, of course, that any comment or statement
carries with it a degree of bias.
The players obviously want and demand fairness, but in reality the
whole debate can be unravelled to reveal one shining pearl of truth:
The fans, who pay and pray in support of their teams, deserve the
right decisions!
Remember the guy who scored that long-range goal against Man
United, the one where keeper Roy Carroll literally shouldered the
ball and almost the blame, before diving backwards to scoop it back
7 T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E T H E F O U R F I N A L S D R E A M S D O N T D I E T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T . C O M
U s e C C T V f o r r e c o r d i n g s p o r t s m a t c h e s a n d t r a i n i n g 0 2 1 - 7 6 2 - 9 7 1 5
-
8/2/2019 The Ball's the Four Finals
9/12
from across the line. TV replays would have ruled a goal in two sec-
onds, and that poor unknown player (in terms of the masses) would
have become a household name. Instead, today no-one except the
diehards remember his name or his team?
He is Spurs Pedro Mendes. Salute, Pedro!
The same applies to free kicks and penalties when the ball is hoofed
upfield and the referee cant see if a player dives, is tripped ac-
cidentally or on purpose, or even who trips himself (accidentally
or on purpose!) . Unfair red cards, penalties and free kicks have
changed many a game, yet a TV replay could so often have ensured
the correct decision before the players even stopped arguing with
the referee.
DONT FOOL THE REF
Players: stop appealing for free kicks and penalties when you know
you dont deserve them. Stop appeali ng for the throw-in every time
the ball goes out. Dont you realise that the referee will make deci-
sions even if you dont appeal? Maybe everyones been watching
too much cricket! Get on with the game and concentrate on your
efforts rather than trying to weasel out false decisions. That way
you are more likely to have a fairer balance of decisions anyway:
if you and your opponents play fairly and in the right spirit there
wont be fake appeals for referees to rule on in the first place. The
amount of referee error must surely, therefore, be reduced.
Perhaps thats too simple to be practical and perhaps it has more
chance of happening than a woman becoming president in the US or
SA, or for thousands of men to start turning up to watch womens
rugby or netball , but it is relevant in terms of one thing: what the
players say they want!
If the players are going to be tricking and cheating the referees,
their opposition and the fans, then they dont deserve much of a
voice in deciding about the use of technology, do they?
BIG BLUBBER
Heres the best part: if the players know that they cant get away
with trying their luck on officials, if they know they will be found
out, exposed and penalised (sorry, that does sound awfully dramat-
ic!) then they will simply have to start playing their games in a moresporting manner. That makes the game fairer and certainly makes
the referees role a lot easier.
And why not? Where does it say in the rules of any sport that we
must test the referee as much as possible, see if he can spot the
right decision?
No, no, no. I say NO! The more invisible the referee is the better
and referees (mostly!) agree. Their purpose is not to be tested, but
to be an arbiter. They share the field, enjoy some limelight, make
good money, and get to enjoy a physical activity that is also a big
test of the grey matter. The ref aint there to play Big Brother be-
8 T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E T H E F O U R F I N A L S D R E A M S D O N T D I E T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T . C O M
A c c e s s t h e V o I P n e t w o r k s c h e a p e r c a l l s r a t e s f o r b i g s a v i n g s .
-
8/2/2019 The Ball's the Four Finals
10/12
tween two spoilt playground brats!
But do you know whats absolutely, unequivacably BEST OF ALL?
Do I even need to say it?
If players start behaving normally and with good sporting grace on
the field . . . oh dear, think of the massive effect on club and school
sportsmen and women! Your hero no longer dives for a penalty in
a tough Premiership match .. . you no longer dive for a penalty in a
tough school or club match.
A Test rugby player no longer makes dirty, high tackles, or punches
in the scrum, or stands on someones face .. . and you no longer dirty
your name or your clubs name in a crunch match.
Isnt that enough argument for the TV referee and umpire to be
used much more?
HOUSTON, WE HAVE A REPLAY!
My worry about technology in sport is that, as with most of the
other problems in sport, MONEY is at stake. The top players, teams
and managers generally would rather leave decision-making to an
onfield official. Consider this: a lowly team such as Exeter can draw
with Man United. Doesnt that show that in the competitive world of
sport, a one-on-one contest between two vastly uneven foes can, in
fact, be a very even contest. I think the top people know this! I think
it scares them. They have a lot at stake. However, we as fans also
have a lot at stake. Firstly, we want a fair contest and, secondly,
if we think the contest is not fair, we spend our money elsewhere.
We need to wake up and think for ourselves about what we want
our sport to be. Do not be taken in by big voices convincing you of
things. History has shown often enough how dangerous that can be.
To il lustrate, it s a well-known fact that officials are often more
inclined to rule in favour of the better player, or bigger club - not
because they are cheating or applying favouritism. Please do not
even consider that for a moment. No, its simply that the official is
more likely to believe that the better player or team is deserving of
the benefit of the doubt in any close call . Call it a form of subcon-
scious sporting goodwill .
No wonder, then, that so many top teams arent picketi ng for great-
er use of technology!
A bleeper in a ball costs money, in research and development, and
to supply the balls. And Hawkeye. . . it wasnt just lying on the side of
the road, or plucked off a tree.
Im not suggesting that any of these methods are in any way unsa-
voury, but I am saying that they are unneccessary. Tennis has the
cyclops to call l ine decisions - but why is it sometimes over-ruled?
How reliable will Hawkeye or a bleeper in a soccer ball ever be?
9 T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E T H E F O U R F I N A L S D R E A M S D O N T D I E T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T . C O M
C u t y o u r b u s i n e s s c a l l c o s t s b y 3 0 - 6 0 % . N o l i e s 0 2 1 - 7 6 2 - 9 7 1 5
-
8/2/2019 The Ball's the Four Finals
11/12
Why not leave the power in the eyes of the referees and umpires!
Have a system where the referee or umpire always makes the best
decision he can onfield, backed up by his umpire or refereeing part-
ner watching a TV monitor. He can then radio the onfield ref if a
more accurate decision can be given after a QUICK viewing on the
monitor.
Traditionally, the referee or umpire was always in the best position
to make a decision. Think about the 1950s! However, today cameras
are all around the stadiums and THEY now provide the best views.
Plain and simple.
To be honest, if I were the umpires I would be picketing hard for
the implementation of TV replays. Many peopl e use shock appeal to
make the public fear that technology will make the referee disap-pear. Oooh, lets not use the replays, as it will dehumanis e the sport
and make the referees redundant. Oh no lets avoid technology
today! Its the plague of the new century.
However, in three weeks time when the same authorities smile and
announce tests of this format or that format of technology, we all
rejoice. Thank heavens - they have found a way! Hallelujah! We are
now all saved.
Referees and umpires thanks for all your hard work, but if the hi-
tech technology goes much further, you guys are going to be back
home in your slippers! If I was brave and dedicated enough to stand
among your ranks, I would be DEMANDING more low-tech decision-
making, such as the increased use of TV replays.
BUT IT TAKES SO LONG!
Back in the 90s everyone moaned about crickets Third Umpire rul-
ing on run outs. Today its just part of the game. In football any con-
troversial decision is followed by 45-60 seconds of players swinging
their handbags above their heads and crying to the referee. Look,
we dont need the right decision always. Sometimes thats too dif-
ficult to achieve even if you watch a tape for months and I mean
that! What we can do is spot the really big mistakes quickly, which
an onfield official might have missed (because hes human). Surely
if everyone waits for 20-30 seconds for a TV umpire to spot any
glaring errors it would be quicker than the Handbags Hit Parade. . .
and it would be fairer to all .
BUT IT ALL EVENS OUT ...
Its just stupid to say we shouldnt use an easy and available re-
source to help make high-impact and high-pressure decisions. In
club or school sport theres no alternative: you have to accept the
referee or umpires decision, and it all evens out is relevant (well ,
theres also no choice in the matter than to accept that and
hope!). Not in professional sport, however. Selectors dont worry
about things evening out, and neither do league tables.
Your boss at work wouldnt say, oh, you made us R200,000 profit
last year .. . unfortunately, this year you lost us R200,000. Dont
1 0 T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E T H E F O U R F I N A L S D R E A M S D O N T D I E T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T . C O M
G e t t w o b u s i n e s s t e l e p h o n e l i n e s f o r j u s t R 1 5 0 ! Y a , b r u . 0 2 1 - 7 6 2 - 9 7 1 5
-
8/2/2019 The Ball's the Four Finals
12/12
worry, though, you can keep your job as it all evens out.
In the old days rugby never allowed substitutions: it was a great
mystery to me, as a soccer lover. In fact, as recently as the 70s
soccer didnt even allow substitutions! Of course, the players and
management found a way, and phantom injuries allowed players to
be substituted. Today substitutes are a big part of rugby, and are
taken for granted.
Funny how things change!
Is it really such a difficult decision to say that all televised sports
should have a referee watching a TV screen, ready to overrule wrong
decisions?
Article extracts from The Ball magazine, May/June 2005
SI MON LEWI S The Ball magazine
[email protected] www.theball.co.za
1 1 T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E T H E F O U R F I N A L S D R E A M S D O N T D I E T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T . C O M
W h y p a y f o r a f u l l m i n u t e w h e n y o u o n l y s p o k e f o r 1 5 s e c o n d s ?