TV or not TV?

Q: Do other sports use TV technology?

A: Rugby League uses TV replays to decide whether tries have been scored properly and Rugby Union has now followed suit for internationals. Tennis uses "Cyclops" which is not TV technology but is a gadget to help umpires. It is a laser-based machine which beeps when a serve lands over the line.

Q: Have those sports accepted new technology without complaint.

A: Tennis had many arguments about "Cyclops" but it is now accepted, although its use is limited to serves. For the rest of the time, human line-judges make decisions, and they cause more arguments than "Cyclops".
Rugby League and Rugby Union have accepted the use of TV replays without serious dissent but there have been cases of the TV replays apparently leading to the wrong decisions. When the England Rugby Union team played in South Africa last summer, two decisions over tries were decided by the video ref. Both went against England. Both were probably wrong.

Q: What about football?

A: Football is scrutinised more than any other sport, with every refereeing decision picked over by panels of "experts" on TV and shown 50 times from different angles.
At the moment, however, there is no video help for referees during the game. Disciplinary incidents (fouls, etc) can, in some circumstances, be reviewed after a game and bookings and sendings off can be revoked. But there is no provision for a referee to change his mind after a game about other matters, such as goals or offsides.

Q: Why has football resisted the march of technology?

A: Television technology poses specific problems for football because it is such a fast game without many stoppages. Imagine a scenario in which TV technology is used to help determine whether a player is offside. Arsenal are attacking against United and Parlour clips the ball forward to Henry. Henry looks offside, but when do you stop play to consult the video? If you stop play at once, you rob Arsenal of a possible goal, and the video may show Henry was not offside.
If, on the other hand, you let the game continue, what happens if Bartez saves Henry's shot and play sweeps back and forth. The video shows Henry was offside, so when do you stop play fairly?

Q: Why not have a system in which TV replays are only consulted in the event of goals? Then they could see whether anyone was offside and whether the ball crossed the line?

A: Other incidents picked up by TV cameras would still go unpunished. It cannot be fair to punish a player who is caught offside by a camera but not a player who commits a bad foul which is missed by a referee but spotted by TV. It is going to be very difficult for football to justify the partial use of TV technology.

Q: But even using TV replays would help referees, wouldn't it?

A: Not necessarily. TV replays are not always conclusive. A tackle often looks very much worse in slow motion and TV cannot always decide whether a player intended to foul someone or was clumsy. Games might be held up for ages while the TV pictures are scrutinised, and then they still might get the decision wrong.
What's more, you could only have TV replays at the highest level of the game, so the poor old referees in amateur and junior football would have to carry on as they are - and they'd probably get more abuse than they do now.

Q: So, will TV replays ever be used more than they are now?

A: It is probably inevitable that they will be introduced in football in some form and adopted more widely in cricket and other sports. As technology improves and umpires and referees are shown increasingly to have made mistakes in important international fixtures, the pressure will grow for the decision-making to be taken away from them and given to a man in the stand.
Another possibility is for umpires to have small, hand-held TV monitors which they could consult to review the action. One way or another, the age of the TV referee and umpire is coming.