Time for soccer’s lawmen to raise sights

FOR HOW long more can football legislators afford to ignore the merits of employing a video referee at top matches?

The quite unnecessary furore after the Arsenal/Manchester United showdown at Highbury surely pointed to the need for legislators to open their minds and bring control of the games into the 21st Century.

The events at Highbury surely highlighted the folly of allowing the results of major games and major championships depend upon the unassisted naked eyes of the three match officials when modern technological aids exist.

Rugby has shown the way. Referees routinely now enlist the aid of a video referee to adjudicate on difficult try decisions. The use of the video referee is solely at the discretion of the referee; if he is satisfied he has all the relevant information to make a correct decision he will not call on the video referee.

The officials in charge of the Highbury match did not impress. The referee appeared lenient in the first half and appeared to adopt a much more strict line in the second. Then there was the dreadful mistake that gifted Arsenal a second goal that was obviously scored from an offside position. And the final controversial act which condemned Sol Campbell to an early bath and a possible four-match suspension.

There should surely be no room in top-class football nowadays for goals such as the second one credited to Thierry Henry. What the linesman was thinking of when he kept his flag down can only be a matter of speculation, but the responsibility was not that of the linesman alone; Henry was so far offside surely the referee should have seen it?

It is wrong, of course, to call the two men with the flags who run the line by the old name of linesman. They are now referee's assistants. Which brings us to the issue of Sol Campbell. Nobody can dispute the broad facts. Campbell knew a Manchester player was closing on him from behind and he struck out to check his challenge and protect the ball. Solskjaer's reaction was immaterial, even if it was exaggerated.

Football is full of cheats and con-men and very few teams are without them. Some are better at disguising their indiscretions than others.

CAMPBELL BROKE the laws of the game by his action. He deliberately swung his arm in a reckless manner designed to check his opponent's challenge and keep him at arm's length. He had to be penalised in consequence. The questions are did he deliberately attempt to 'elbow' his opponent and did his action merit a red card?

It is very unlikely that Campbell was attempting to strike his opponent in the face with his elbow. His action was more in keeping with somebody attempting to 'hand-off' an opponent rather than somebody attempting to mete out physical punishment. Because of this, it was grossly unfair to dredge up from the past references to Gary Mabbutt and the broken jaw he sustained because of dangerous use of an elbow.

But Campbell's action was reckless and the laws of the game are very specific in outlawing the use of the raised hand in any aggressive manner. Because of his he had to go.

What would be interesting would be to discover whether the referee would have made the same decision without the input of the referee's assistant. From what we heard over the TV, the assistant was totally decisive. His contribution should be just that ... a contribution. The decision is the referee's and there are times when they seem to opt out and leave the assistant to carry the can as in the case of Henry's second goal.