Try or no Try?

I'm a rugby league fan. I'm used to seeing video referee decisions that, to say the least, raise more questions than they answer.





I could go on and on about how I've seen video referee decisions that have caused outcry in the game. I remember seeing a decision go against Bradford Bulls which effectively cost them the Grand Final in 1999, I've seen my own team Leeds have plenty of decisions go against us and for us since the idea of video replays was first introduced to the sport in 1995.

Obviously, such instances are not unique to rugby league, as was proved less than a hour ago in the Rugby Union World Cup final.

England, trailing 9-3 early in the second half, make a rare clean break for the South African line, which ends in this very scene just seconds later:


A video referee is called in to adjudicate on the decision. Did Mark Cueto leave the field of play before he grounded the ball? The people watching my TV set as the action was replayed from various angles couldn't agree and, from that second picture at least, the fourth official was being asked to decide whether a certain blade of grass was painted white or not, such was the margin.

After plenty of deliberation, the try was ruled out. In the end, it would have made little difference as the Springboks came out 15-6 winners in Paris to clinch their second World Cup.

In the end, you'd have to say that it was a fair result and concede that the "right" team won the tournament. England have been poor in the years leading up to the tournament, they were poor when they first arrived in France and, long story short, they aren't the best team in the world. South Africa on the other hand, are unbeaten in the tournament, thrashed England 36-0 in the group stages and knew how to play England's game tonight.

Lewis Hamilton could cheer the nation up tomorrow, as at the age of 22, he looks to become the first ever F1 driver to be crowned World Champion in his debut season.

Where the Future is Just Too Complicated

For what seems like forever, football managers the world over have been campaigning for the introduction of advanced technology to be used in the game.






Saturday's match between Manchester City and Bolton stirred up the debate once more, as the blues had a Paul Dickov header ruled out, with Bolton boss Sam Allardyce claiming that, despite TV replays proving inconclusive, the correct decision would have been reached "within a minute or two".

The supporters of video technology point to other sports where video replays are used to good effect. Cricket, both codes of Rugby and American Football all take advantage of video replays to determine the right course of action. The doubters however, argue that in the above sports the video referee is only used in cases where the ball is already out of play whereas in football, play could continue for several minutes without stoppage following a goal-line incident.

But one sport has the answer to the very same problem that football is struggling to solve, and has had it for decades.

Forget the notion of slow motion cameras, ultasonic chips in the balls, logic gate devices or Andy Gray's virtual picture, in the low-tech sport of Ice Hockey they've been using old-fashioned human intuition to make that crucial decision.
Behind each goal is one bloke with a button. When he sees the puck cross the line, he hits the button to illuminate a big red light. What on earth could be simpler?

It'd be even easier in the beautiful game too. Rather than the goal official being sat a good few yards behind the goal as they are in the NHL, our referees can get close to the action.

You know it's so simple, it just might work.