The just concluded FIFA World Cup 2010 has raised several points for further debate as to how and whether the world governing body FIFA can iron out and resolve some of the flagrant deficiencies in the game and maintain its status as the world’s number one sport.
True to form the final match turned out to be a boring physical and ugly anti-climactic spectacle with record numbers of bookings and infringements, as well as unpunished infractions including chest stamping, body checks, and wrestling among a litany of other disgraceful acts. Sadly following from the last world cup of 2006 no goals were scored in regulation and both teams played “negative” football to the hilt rather sitting back to absorb pressure and “hoping” for some kind of miracle to pounce on to victory. The fact is fans will have to look back to 1986 as the last truly “exciting” world cup final. Since then football enthusiasts have had to endure grueling scoreless ties, penalty kicks, or single goal outcomes in the match which is supposed to represent the ultimate in the sport.
The competition itself was well organized from the perspective of the hosting, coverage and facilities. The South African people should be commended for putting on such a superlative tournament in what was thought by some to be still regarded as the “dark” continent. However certain flaws in the game become quite apparent and potentially marred the legacy of the tournament. This article will discuss some of these flaws and offer solutions for the way forward in the future in order to save fans the agony of witnessing further controversy and chaos.
The reality is football remains a sport where the hardest working, most skillful, talented and better team has no guarantee of winning. The era of the flamboyant south American teams, the total football of the seventies and before has faded into oblivion replaced by regimented chess matches where teams aims are to prevent the opposition from scoring, praying on refereeing blunders from diving , awarding controversial penalties, offside traps, retaliatory attacks on players behind the officials backs and other underhand strategies to gain advantage. This attitude is killing the game and making world cup tournaments the ugly farcical spectacles they have become in this era. One wonders if FIFA has any intention of moving football along with the times or simply carrying on in the same old way due to some tradition.
As it stands there appears to be no consistent standard of officiating. Refereeing is based on the prerogative o f the so called “man in the middle”. Even at this level. So infringements such as incidental handball results in penalties and red cards in the preliminary stages, (Ghana versus Serbia) but stamping an opponent in the chest results in only a free kick in the final match (De Jong of the Netherlands).
The fundamental issues for reform in this writers opinion are therefore two fold a) officiating, and b) conduct and purpose of the game.
Officiating must be standardized and not subjective as we have seen. In order to do this technology must be applied. The notion that refereeing mistakes are part of the game is not acceptable. The following examples should be considered.
1. Goa line technology: Goal line technology has been advocated based on the England goal that was not awarded in their encounter with Germany. This technology should actually not be just goal line it should be for all lines – “over”, throw ins, corners etc. Tennis has had this technology since the eighties. American football from college level and above has been using it at for least two decades. So it begs the question of how football has somehow missed the train on this issue with the obscene amounts of money involved in the game today.
2. Video instant replay: To this day instant replay has not been adopted resulting in inconsistent and confusing officiating. Currently we see numerous cases of players kicking, butting, lashing out at opponents in many cases in retaliation only for the last culprit who was seen by the officials to be dismissed from the game while the original culprit goes scot free. The case of Nigerian Sani Kaita is a case in point, he retaliated to rough play but he rather was shown the red card. David Beckham and Diego Maradona himself were all caught in this web of nastiness. In the final of the 2010 contest, Spaniard and winning goal scorer Iniesta kicked a Dutch player which went unseen to the referee (but was picked up by the replay) and the Dutch player who retaliated was shown the yellow card, and was subsequently red carded in another incident. Iniesta however went on t o score the winning goal in extra time. A very shameful scenario for football. Instant replay to review such situations has been used in rugby for years, again it begs the question of how football with all its multi-million dollar players cannot implement such systems.
3. Offside: The recent tournament shows that the offside rule is now based on the discretion of the referee and his ability to see the infractions. Offside enforcement should be turned over to a video referee with a better view of the entire field from the stands. Argentina’s first goal against Mexico would not stand if this was the case. But one has to be reminded as to what the objective of football is. In that case the question begs does offside make any sense at all. It should be abolished. In this world cup for the first time we heard that a player cannot be offside from a throw in or corner, and that close situations shall be overlooked. The purpose of football is to score goals, offside should be abandoned. If it is necessary it should be restricted for example to cases where say three or more players are offside.
4. Infraction Calls: Referees blow the whistle for free kicks etc without telling anyone what the infraction is. The United States had a potentially match winning goal disallowed for an infraction no one knows till this day except the referee who blew his whistle. Calling the infraction over a microphone attached to the referee’s shirt for all to hear would make such mysteries and rumors go away. Rugby, American football, Tennis, have this technology in use. Others have some form of “sign” language and gestures that are clearly displayed by the referee on every single infringement called. An example would be in cricket. In addition teams should be able to challenge the referee s decision on the field through an instant replay system and have poor decisions overturned. It can be limited to say the head coach only and for say two chances per game. Rugby, Tennis, American football, basketball all have systems in place.
5. Time Keeping: Currently no one knows the official match time except the referee. The Injury time is called towards the end of the official time which nobody knows. Nobody knows how the injury time is assessed except the match officials. This is unacceptable. The official time should be displayed for all to see. The formula for assessing injury time should also be known so all can assess it for themselves. FIFA can learn from American football even at the high school level where an official game clock is in plain view and stoppages and delays due to injuries clearly seen by everyone. Why does the time have to be a secret?
6. All the above can only work if professional referees are used. Refereeing should become a professional endeavor so that they can have the time and resources to be trained and upgraded as necessary. Currently volunteer referees come from all walks of life – teachers, civil servants, businessmen etc etc which is not a bad thing. However with the discussion of video technology etc etc , professionalism is the way to go. All the major sports in North America exclusively employ professional referees and umpires.
The next issue regards the purpose of the game. The means to win a match is to score. In recent years however this objective has been downgraded at international tournaments with teams displaying willful lack of aggression to attempt scoring but to rather play out draws and go for penalty kicks etc. To restore scoring the main objective of football the following can be considered.
1. Offside: This should be abolished. It serves no purpose. Players should be free to score from any position they so choose. Defenders will have to upgrade their skills and fitness to match the strikers.
2. Throw In: Teams should have the option of throwing the ball in or kicking it in like a “free” free kick. This option can be used when a team is in the opponents half of the field. Throw ins to goalkeepers or back to your half from the opponents half should be prohibited.
3. Back pass. Some form of back pass prohibition can be implemented for example no back passing into your own half once you are in the opponents half of the field. The abolition of back passes to goalkeepers has worked very well and must be taken a step further.
4. Points for Games: Currently winning teams are awarded points 3 for a win 1 for a draw etc. In the past however, in the pre World War II world cup, points were based on the number of goals a team scored. That is what today is called goal difference. In the past goal difference was the actual points a team earned. In the 1930s Uruguay won the world cup reaching the finals from this system. The system was abandoned in the 1950 world cup under the new unified rules in what many consider the “first” world cup in the modern era. Points based on goals will restore scoring as the main objective of the game. This system survives to this day in Cricket and Rugby.
The current way things are done cannot go on and reforms are needed. FIFA must adapt or face more confusion and lack of credibility to develop the game. It is the intent that this article will stimulate necessary debate on the relevant issues.
kb ©July 2010
Copyright © 1994 - 2024 GhanaWeb. All rights reserved.
