We have all got so used when watching football on television, to seeing every talking point being the subject of an instant replay, that when we go to watch a game live, we almost feel cheated. ‘I’d love to see that again’, I’ve heard people say after some disputed incident happens. I believe that at all Premiership grounds
- and at some others - you can watch replays on the giant screens in the stadiums. However you won’t see any controversial incident repeated, at least you shouldn’t.
Tottenham Hotspurs recently breached the ban on showing anything contentious, when they replayed on their giant screen at half time, the challenge on Ronaldo in their game against Manchester United.
If you didn’t see one of the endless replays on television, what happened was that a Spurs' defender stuck out a leg as Ronaldo went to run past him in the penalty area. Although the Spurs' player attempted to withdraw his leg, Ronaldo went down anyway, earning the penalty and United’s first goal.
When it was replayed, the Spurs fans, as to be expected, were incensed. It confirmed their already shared belief that Ronaldo had dived, something for which he has a reputation. The reason for not wanting such incidents shown and highlighted at the ground, is the understandable concern that it might incite spectators to cause trouble against the opposition players, supporters and, of course, the referee and his assistants.
There are those who do not support the ban, including Patrick Barclay, the distinguished football correspondent of the
Sunday Telegraph. In his opinion, referees have little to fear from lifting the restrictions on what can be seen during the interval or indeed at the end of the game, although he agrees that constant replays whilst the game is in progress would be too intrusive. In his submission, he quotes two television studio pundits reviewing the incident, George Graham and Ray Wilkins. One felt the referee was correct in awarding a penalty and the other felt that no contact had been made by the defender.
In any case, Patrick Barclay says, television replays by and
large tend to vindicate referee’s decisions or at least show the referee’s reasons for making them and therefore showing disputed decisions at the ground would benefit referees. By lifting the ban, he felt, it could actually reduce discontent amongst the crowds by letting them take their own views on dives, the intent involved in handball and so on.
I think that high up in the press box and with his academic view on football matches, Barclay fails to understand that football fans do not take a dispassionate, impartial, unbiased view of any contentious incident.
I remember going to a live match that was also being televised. In the first half there was a suspicion of handball in the penalty area by an away player.
It was not replayed on the big screen but it was, more than once, on the televisions in the concourse during half time. Two home supporters standing in front of me, heatedly raged that it supported their original view that
the referee had made a mistake by not giving a penalty. I calmly pointed out that the replay had shown that the player had in fact
chested the ball down. They turned on me with no small amount of hostility. Fans will never let the facts get in the way of a good moan against the referee.
Patrick Barclay needs to come down to ground level, to the level at which referees operate. Dissenting fans are unlikely to accept that the referee was correct whatever the big screen showed and what benefit would there be if it showed his decision to be wrong, as can
happen? I hope that the fact that Tottenham’s indiscretion didn’t create a riot, will not lead to a change in the restrictions.
Dick Sawdon Smith
Back
To Contents
© R Sawdon Smith 2007