These days I don't often have the luxury of qualified neutral assistant referees when I referee. Instead I have to be content with someone from each club running the line. To try and get the best out of them, I give a couple of practical demonstrations beforehand.
One of them is to illustrate what the law means, when it says the ball has to wholly cross the line. I place the ball with its base clearly over the line but with a small part overhanging the line. A few games ago some of the players wandered up and looked at my demonstration. I could see the incredulity on their faces when I was stating that the ball was not out of play. I explained that as the line was part of the field of play, if the smallest part of the ball overhung it, it was still in play. I hope I convinced them but most players, spectators and television commentators don't realise how far the ball has to be over the line before it can be said to be out of play
Now I'm not trying to say that the ball in the Tottenham Hotspurs game against Manchester United, didn't cross the line. The assistant referee sprinted as fast as he could, immediately the Spurs player kicked the ball speculatively at the United goal from the middle of the field. Even Lindford Christie wouldn't have got to the line, before Carol, the United goalkeeper, fumbled the ball and then let it go over his shoulder into the goal.
From the television, it looked clearly over but from the position the assistant referee had reached, he couldn't see if it had or not. There's an old saying in refereeing, 'If you don't see it, don't give it'. What it did, was to give rise yet again to that old question, isn't there a better, more accurate way of telling whether or not the ball had crossed the line?
Sepp Blatter, President of FIFA, wanted to experiment with a goal judge at either end of the field. That would have been extremely useful in the United/Spurs game, because there was not another player within thirty yards of the goal. Usually however, these incidents occur when there are a number of players mingling around the goal line. Even someone on the line would not be able to look through the bodies to be certain whether or not the ball had crossed the line.
Brian Barwick, to be the new head at the FA, comes from television and is said to be in favour of having cameras on the goal line. If they can have cameras on cricket stumps it would seem relatively easy to fix them in goalposts.
However there are two problems. First and most important is that a camera would be no better than the human eye, if the goal line was congested with players blocking its view. Secondly it would need someone watching the television screen all
the match, for that one possible occasion when there is a dispute.
Surely with the advanced state of electronics today, it must be possible to create a
device that would give a bleep to a receiver carried by the referee, telling him the ball has crossed the line between the goalposts and under the crossbar.
There are still difficulties of course. As I explain to my club assistants, the centre of the ball is a long way over the line before it becomes out of play, therefore the sensors would need to be positioned behind the goal line and not on the goalposts. However, I am sure that someone will come up with the answer that will make episodes like the United/Spurs game, past history. With the cost however, I doubt if it will ever help me and my club assistants on the local park.
Dick
Sawdon Smith