The Pittsburgh Steelers were approaching half-time when Ben Roethlisberger, their quarterback, went in for a touchdown on a key third-down play. He was grounded short, and with the naked eye it seemed clear that he had not broken the plane of the goalline with the ball. Bewilderingly, one of the officials signalled touchdown.
The NFL’s procedure is that the decision of officials on the field can be reversed only if the video evidence is absolutely conclusive that their decision was wrong. For me, it was never a touchdown on the video replay, but the tiny element of doubt meant that, quite wrongly, the score had to stand.
During last weekend’s Ireland- Italy game, we never even got as far as a replay. Dave Pearson, the referee, awarded a try to Ireland when Tommy Bowe crossed. Replays showed clearly that he had not grounded the ball. The first Ireland try also appeared dubious. Yet Pearson did not call for the video replay in either case.
There were allegations that Pearson’s insistence on relying on the instant evidence of his own eyes reflected an arrogance. In my experience, Pearson is not only a fine referee in the making, but the least arrogant of men. In my opinion, he failed to go to the replay because in his heart he has some of sport’s reluctance to rely on electronic evidence. In all sports where video replays are possible there is still a resistance. Strange, because this resistance militates against finding the correct decisions in sporting events of enormous significance. Pearson, apparently, simply wanted the game to run without one of those pregnant pauses while somebody up in a booth twiddles his knobs.
However, in any battle between the need to keep the action flowing and the need to get the decision correct, there could only be one winner for the good of the sports and for the reputation of officialdom. Yes, occasionally we get wound up when a blatantly fair touchdown is referred to the video simply because the referee doesn’t want to make a prat of himself. But it is time that rugby union and other sports went flat out to use the electronic eye at every opportunity.
Advertisement
In cricket we are reaching the stage where all the technology that was originally intended simply to enhance the pleasure of the viewers is being incorporated into the decision-making process. There is no excuse for this process not to be extended wherever it is valid. Rugby union could do itself a favour by increasing the drama. At present, when the video is being replayed, the officials on the field stand around like dummies, often bawling down a crackling line above the noise of 75,000 people. The technology can surely be improved and the dissemination of the video official’s decision far more dramatic — rugby league has it right as it emblazons the decision across a giant scoreboard.
Union needs one further step in the process. In the case of a driving maul, when the referee could not see the ball being touched down, he can often find, when he refers the decision, that the video official did not have a camera angle on it. But it is absurd to rule out a try simply because the touchdown was not witnessed. There should be a final chance for the referee to declare an unseen try on the grounds that, say, seven attacking forwards have driven over the line, opposed by one defender.
Otherwise, let us trust the eye in the sky and not be afraid of usurping a little of the authority of the men in the middle.