The A-League Final Proves Tech Isn't Ready To Replace Human Referees

Image: Fox Sports

I'm not a big fan of soccer. I don't mind watching the occasional game but it's not a game I particularly care for. This weekend, Melbourne Victory and Newcastle Jets played out a match that was decided by an umpiring error. But it was an avoidable error being blamed on a failure in the technology that detects players when they are offside. The system broke down meaning that a clear violation of the rules was missed and the only goal in the match stood when it ought to have been disallowed. But the role of technology in sport has been vexed for some time.

Tennis, soccer, Australian Rules, cricket and others have been looking for years to eliminate one of the most frustrating elements of their sports - human error from umpires. Tennis had the Hawk-Eye system for some years that detected when the ball went past a line, emitting a beep. But that system was ditched from the professional ranks in favour of one that players can request a limited number of times if they think the human adjudicators have made an error.

A similar is used in cricket for run-outs, stumping and LBW decisions. Australian football has been using a score review system for moments where the umpires are not certain if a goal that has been scored should stand and rugby league uses it to ensure that a try is legitimate.

The technology was introduced to reduce the number of umpiring errors. But is that a goal worth pursuing?

The technology has been deployed to complement or supplement the referee or umpire doesn't always work. Technology is meant to be remove any potential for an erroneous decision. Instead, it pisses fans off as it results in delays to the flow of play, can result in misuse by players and, as anyone who has worked with technology knows, it can fail and leave lots of people red-faced.

As a sports fan, I understand the frustration of being a fan and seeing the umpire make a mistake. But I don't want to see that human element gone. Sport is a battle between a person and an opponent. And another human decides if what happened falls inside or outside the rules. No-one likes it when a mistake is made but the technology being applied to helping umpires is not making many of our sports any better to watch.

Part of the wonder of sport is its unpredictability. And human referees and umpires are part of that unpredictability. Technology doesn't remove the errors and it often only adds to frustration in the form of delays when the flow of play stops for a review or anger when the technology fails.

What do you think? Should sport ditch technology that is used to overrule umpiring decisions? Or does it make sport better?


Comments

    We keep talking as though there wasn't a line ref standing right there staring at a decision that shouldn't even require video technology....

    Also, I don't think anyone has said VAR is to replace human officials. The idea of technology is to complement human decision making in instances where visual verification is difficult given the fine margins and short timeframes.

    I disagree.

    In the rules of the game, being in an offside position is not an offense in an of itself. It is only if the player gains an advantage from being in an offside position that the other team gets a free kick.

    In this case, it can be argued that the player who received the ball did not gain an advantage from being in an offside position because all the defenders moved to cover him before the ball arrived.

      Sorry @sebg but you are incorrect. The rule states, "A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:" "interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate".

      In this case, one of the players in an offside position touched the ball.

      https://football-technology.fifa.com/media/1245/lotg_17_18_en.pdf

      That's fundamentally incorrect.

      A player is in an offside position if: He is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the
      ball and the second last opponent in active play. Active play is considered to be interfering with play or an opponent, or by gaining and advantage. Interfering with play is playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

      It doesn't matter if all the defenders cover him, if you're offside when the ball is played and you interfere with play, you are offside.

      That argument doesn't hold up when its based on the last point of contact from the attacking team. What the defenders do after that is largely irrelevant.

      Assuming him being offside, he gained the advantage of being there first, its that simple.

      For me, I think its so close that its irrelevant. Let the play go on, and stop letting technicalities ruin the event. If he's offside, it would only be a matter of centimetres for him to be onside; a distance that would play no relevant role in what happened after. Plus what you say - the defenders get there well before the ball, and negate the advantage.

      But that's not how they decide.

        Centimetres could make the difference on whether a defender manages to stop the shot at goal or not. If the defender attempts a tackle and misses the ball by centimetres because the attacker was offside, it's hardly irrelevant.

        If he's offside, he's offside. No exceptions.

    I'm not a bug fan of soccer.Only four words in. Is that a record?

      Fixed. Sorry for the error. 20 hours of travelling makes for tired eyes.

        I'm also willing to accept that you are not a bug.

    Bring on the technology. How many arguments have there been over watching a replay where a fateful decision was made by a guy who couldn't see from more than one angle? I remember Italy vs Australia soccer match in the 2006 world cup that was later announced a wrong decision? https://youtu.be/Rh2KLm4DpXE

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now