Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Let the participants decide!

By Hugh Brown - posted Friday, 15 September 2000


The Grand Finals of the major winter sports in this country were resolved as they were meant to be – without the aid of off-field electronic gimmickry.

Although the technology was available, and occasionally called upon, the teams that won were the teams who had been obviously the best all year (the Broncos and Essendon) and the team that had learned from hard experience how to win a final and had the better of the match (Canterbury). This is a good thing.

So it was more than a little depressing to discover that this summer’s cricket will be further soured by that most gratingly unsatisfying of sporting developments – artificially enhanced decision-making.

Advertisement

It appears that German company Siemens is going to adapt some missile-tracking technology to assist officials in deciding whether a batsman should be declared out leg-before-wicket.

Apart from the obvious marketing edge of using missile-tracking devices to follow the efforts of fast bowlers (I can hear the ads already), I fail to see what this adds to the enjoyment of the game.

It may well reduce the number of debatable decisions during the match, but at what cost to the sporting public’s patience and peace of mind?

Experience, particularly in Rugby League, has shown that technology is far from perfect and worse than ineptitude. There remain calls that, based on the electronically enhanced evidence, are still too close to call. Other situations are such that the video evidence is useless. There have also been, sad to say, decisions made during a game that have, on later review of the evidence, been deemed incorrect.

That the debatable awarding or not of a try, touchdown, dismissal or goal should change the outcome of a match is not new. Neither is the timeless process of gathering around the urn at lunch on Monday, spewing about the blind referee and pontificating on how he should have got it right. This is the nature of fandom.

But the agony is made worse when the so-called advances did not help the officials arrive at the correct decision. If the referee/umpire has nothing but his (and his colleagues’) eyes to help him, it’s understandable that he might make an error, but when he has the benefit of expensive technology that cannot help him, it appears nothing but a frustrating waste.

Advertisement

Having to sit through endless ultimately-inconclusive video replays of the event is one of the more nail-biting (as opposed to suspenseful) pastimes of the sports fan. It’s even worse when the electronic adjudicator provides an obviously incorrect ruling through the process of pressing the wrong button.

When I was growing up and learning to enjoy competitive sport there were two important sayings I learned: "Play the whistle" and "What goes around comes around" (the latter not necessarily relating to the fortunes of the game).

The importance of these was that as long as we kept playing, abided by the fortunes of the match and did our best, we would most likely win the games and/or competitions in which we were the better team. This proved to be the case.

Part of the virtues of leaders like Wayne Bennett, Kevin Sheedy, Steve Waugh and Todd Blackadder is their ability to motivate their charges to overcome the adversity. If they are successful, as they have been, their teams will ultimately win the close matches and triumph, as they have done. This has nothing to do with getting every close decision to go in their favour, it has everything to do with overcoming the misfortunes of sport (and life).

Denial of a scoring opportunity or appeal for dismissal can be seen as either a failure or an indication of imminent success – it’s up to the competitors to choose which. In the ebb and flow of a match or a season, it is the reaction that is more important than the change of the score. In the normal course of events the good luck, from bouncing ball, whistle or finger, will probably balance out the bad luck.

Which raises the other issue of technologically-enhanced decision-making: it can’t be applied everywhere.

There are other decisions made during a match that can be far more critical than whether or not someone actually grounded the ball or was in line with the stumps. As a classic example, the decision to penalise Bill Peden for not standing up to play the ball in the Newcastle–Sydney Roosters NRL semi-final was the turning point of the game.

Up to that point Newcastle had dominated. Just before that decision, the Roosters had hit back and at that point Newcastle had the opportunity to counter-punch and move further ahead. They were hot on attack and the turnover cost them not only that attacking opportunity but their confidence in their ability to build momentum. The Roosters gained territory and confidence and won a cliffhanger.

That particular penalty, the only one of its kind during the game, could have gone either way. A case could be made that the tackler was holding Peden such that he could not play the ball correctly. Had the penalty gone to Newcastle, the resulting pressure on the Roosters may have proved too much for them.

It’s hard (and futile) to argue against Bill Harrigan’s decision but the point is that this crucial decision was never eligible for a second opinion – and neither should it have been. If the myriad of decisions leading to a point-scoring opportunity can’t be reviewed, why make a fuss about the final one?

In the pre-technology days, and in amateur sport still, these close decision tend to go with the "justice" of the game. If a brilliant attacking move resulted in a player crossing the line beneath a pile of cover-defence and "deserved to score", the play was usually rewarded. If a batsman is being bamboozled by some brilliant bowling, it is only a matter of time before a close call goes the way of the bowler.

Game officials become inured to the inevitable criticism from the unfavoured side.

That’s the nature of sporting success – a little bit of talent, a lot of hard work and an unknown quantity of luck. That unknown quantity is tantalising, that’s why we keep coming back for more.

If the technological path is pursued to its conclusion, the players may as well not take the field. We’ll just enter the probability factors into a computer: 60 per cent for the home team less 5 per cent for each injured player plus 10 per cent for the favourable weather conditions, add a little for history, crowd size and cheerleaders and BINGO! – the computer produces a winner. Wouldn’t the bookies love that one?

This is not to suggest that there aren’t improvements that can be made in the standard of officiating. Bill Harrigan’s famous State Of Origin miss will go down in history as a blunder that changed the outcome of a game and possibly a series. In fact, the more that can be done to improve the standard of on-field refereeing the better. Using microphones to allow match officials to communicate has been a great innovation. As has recognition that referees need to be regarded as professional athletes just as much as players do.

Another great saying that young players learn is "What goes on the field stays on the field". That’s the way sport should remain for both players and officials.

Unlike the business world that seems to be taking over sport, there are a lot of sporting factors that cannot be predicted, controlled, perfected or eliminated. That’s what makes sport the wonderful experience that it is.

The fallibility of the officials, like the fallibility of the players, is part of the beast. To try to change that state of affairs reduces the enjoyment factor for all concerned.

Let’s have more sporting action and less electronic interference.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Hugh Brown is a PhD candidate in the Creative Industries Faculty at QUT and teaches communication at the University of Queensland and QUT. He was editor of On Line Opinion from June 2000 until August 2004 and has a degree in journalism from the University of Queensland, for which he was awarded a University Medal. Before joining On Line Opinion he was editor of the now-defunct Tr@cks e-zine, based in Brisbane, and inaugural student editor of The Queensland Independent. He has also freelanced for a variety of publications.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Hugh Brown
Related Links
Australian Cricket
Australian Fottball League
National Rugby League
Photo of Hugh Brown
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy