Like a grumpy old grandfather in his second childhood, Sepp Blatter, president of the world governing body of football, rails against the newfangled evils of modern life.
When inexperienced, ill-qualified football referees make blunder after shocking blunder, it gives fans ammunition for arguments, he believes, and this is part of the charm of the game.
Don't know about you, but I would rather debate furiously why that sweet pass into the box was not met by a lazy star striker, how a team rattled by going a goal down lost its structure and discipline, how a pair of strikers operate in tandem with almost telepathic skill, whether it is advisable to sit defensively on a one-goal advantage, how a heroic goalkeeper kept out a shot that would have blown a hole in the back of the net, or how a prima donna took a dive trying to win a free kick.
I do not enjoy watching a ball go across the goal line, only for linesmen to swallow the protestations of a cheating goalkeeper (England versus Germany), or goals being disallowed because of mistaken offside calls by the linesmen (USA versus both Slovenia and Algeria), or goals being allowed from handballs (Brazil versus Ivory Coast).
We can see, on television, how easy it is to use replays to rule on any of these atrocious decisions. It takes television producers mere seconds to highlight the offside line as a ball is passed forward, and determine whether anyone in an offside position was involved in the play. In living rooms and bars everywhere - and even in the stadiums themselves, fans know what really happened before the game has even had time to restart.
The objection that it would slow the game down holds no water. It would be even less time-consuming than rugby try-line decisions, where you need multiple replays from different angles to try to discern ball and line, in the same frame, at the right time, underneath a ton worth of grunting bodies.
Installing goal-line technology, introducing micro-chipped balls that activate sensors once they are completely across a chalk line, and television replays adjudicated by a fifth official, will make correct decisions easy, accurate and fast.
Football could introduce a tennis- or cricket-style appeal system, which gives the captain of each side the right to challenge up to three (or five) decisions. If he's wrong, he has one challenge less for the remainder of the game. If he's right, the decision gets corrected and everyone is happy. Even incorrigible traditionalists have been converted to modern technology in sport.
Another Blatter objection is that it would compromise the authority of the man in the middle. How absurd. Like the referees in this World Cup have any authority left? Many of them aren't even professionals and have seldom refereed at top level. A number of them have had to be suspended because they proved to be incompetent. Those suspensions will be cold comfort to teams who feel, justly, that they were robbed.
Even incorrigible traditionalists have been converted to modern technology in sport.
Ivo Vegter, ITWeb contributor
I strongly suspect that Kaka, who got sent off because a cheating Abdul Keita walked into him from behind and pretended it was a mortal blow, has fairly little respect left for Stephane Lannoy - the same Frenchman who awarded Fabiano's double handball.
Respect is earned by a willingness to correct mistakes, not the ability to make them without consequence or right to appeal. Admittedly, Blatter, as a king in charge of an empire, might not appreciate the civilised subtleties of governance in a modern world.
His last argument is the most ludicrous. Apparently, it would make football a non-standard game, and if technology were introduced to assist referees, poorer football associations and clubs would not be able to afford to play the game.
Does the fact that the FA requires heated pitches for major tournaments prevent lower-league clubs from playing football at their chilly grounds? Does the fact that Super 14 Rugby has a third match official in front of a television mean your kids can't play rugby at school? And how expensive can a few video cameras be, in the context of a multibillion-dollar industry?
When our government thought cellular telephones would be toys for the rich, with a total market of maybe a million, were they correct? Or do even the poorest South Africans now have cellphones in their pockets, despite the fact that early models were expensive and clunky? What merit is there in banning new technology because not everyone can afford it immediately?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but King Blatter's concern for the poor is laughable. How can anyone take this claim seriously when FIFA seems intent only on exploiting host countries such as South Africa, avoiding the taxes everyone else has to pay, suing small-fry entrepreneurs for daring to make football-related keyrings, and excluding local businesses by levying massive (and unequal) licence fees on them in foreign currency? What credibility does FIFA secretary general, Jerome Falcke, have, when he patronisingly says 80% of Africans wouldn't play football without FIFA's financial support? That aid is roughly equal to the development budget of a single European club. Besides, last time I checked, Africans were perfectly capable of getting up a game of football without the Big Bwana's help. How can you believe the charitable claims of a man who says: "God helps those who help themselves," when asked about FIFA's support for legacy projects?
Even if his arguments about poor-country football held water, the man doesn't give a flying about the poor. And his preferred solution, namely to employ extra linesmen, would be just as prohibitive to cash-strapped clubs in any case.
Blatter is a classic Luddite. Just like the 19th-century followers of Ned "King" Ludd believed automation in the textile industry would cause unemployment and destroy the bucolic charm of medieval life, King Blatter is a backward, conservative and narrow-minded saboteur of the modern game of football. He's a senile old man, who needs to be replaced by someone younger, smarter and more in touch with what football fans really want.
Sadly, he is up for re-election next year, and like any experienced tyrant in his dotage, hosting sham elections to keep an iron grip on power, he will almost certainly win. To see how he does it, read BBC journalist Andrew Jennings at http://www.transparencyinsport.org/.
He almost certainly will have South Africa's vote. After all, not one, but two South African presidents showered him with medals. The anachronism of such old-fashioned decorations in a modern world is perfectly fitting for Blatter.
Let him keep the medals, and ship King Ludd Blatter off to an old-age home.
Share