Referees’ debate over tackle on Luke Shaw shows limits of technology

There is always something profoundly sad about seeing a young, thrilling footballer at the peak of his game being cut down by injury and in the case of Luke Shaw the misfortune is so appalling it is a shame, perhaps, that Roy Keane could not have conjured up a better word than “brilliant” to describe the tackle that inflicted the damage.
At the same time, it has been intriguing to see the different reactions to what happened in Manchester United’s game at PSV Eindhoven and Keane is certainly not alone when he says that just because there is a victim it doesn’t necessarily mean there is a guilty party. Dwight Yorke’s conclusion was the same and, most pertinently of all, Howard Webb’s verdict after watching several slow-motion replays, from all the different angles, was that the referee, Nicola Rizzoli, was correct not to punish Héctor Moreno.


Louis van Gaal, in stark contrast, described it as awful, arguing it should have been a red card and a penalty, and signalling his displeasure again at Friday’s press conference, when he was informed that not everyone thought Moreno was to blame. Owen Hargreaves, who was covering the game on television, agreed with Van Gaal that it was reckless and out of control, therefore warranting a red card, and Peter Schmeichel’s reaction to Moreno winning Uefa’s man‑of‑the‑match award was that he “shouldn’t even have been on the pitch”. Then the other ex-referees weighed in, Graham Poll and Mark Halsey both insisting the player should have been dismissed for dangerous play and that Webb, their former colleague, was completely wrong.
Confusing, isn’t it? On the one hand, there is the argument that Moreno’s challenge was an automatic sending‑off judging by Uefa’s guidance for any tackle that has “excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent”. On the other, there is the counter‑argument that it was hard but fair and that, unfortunately in sport, injuries can happen without culpability having to be attached. It is a split jury. Nobody is going to disprove the other case and the only real conclusion to draw is that this surely kills, stone dead, the argument that video technology will solve these cases.

Advertisement

That might not be a popular view when there is clearly a strong weight of feeling that referees need help to decide, for instance, whether a penalty should have been awarded or if a foul was serious enough to send off the guilty player. The International Football Association Board is due to revisit the idea when it meets early next year and Greg Dyke, chairman of the FA, is among those supporting the idea of trials, primarily by having another official, monitoring video replays for key decisions relating to goals, penalties and red cards, wired up to the referee. “I believe we will look back in 20 years’ time and say: ‘Wasn’t it quaint that we didn’t use the available technology to help referees?’” Dyke says. . This posts are taken from the original authorized page. Authorized by the original author.