Tennis meets football: a challenging discipline

So, the start of the football season is nearly upon us, prompting questions in these columns about who will win major silverware. But another question is: will we enjoy watching it? What will be the quality of the spectacle offered up for our entertainment? For this columnist, there is just the slightest trepidation that the beautiful game will continue to be tarnished by player misbehaviour (on-pitch), general abuse of referees, and by the sorts of incidents that become the one or two big ‘talking points’ of each match and that get in the way of the actual football - controversies about penalty decisions or red cards and so on. Is there another sport that is so constantly spoiled by foul play and obsessing over refereeing decisions?

Now, contrast this with another sport that has featured in these columns and that we’ve been watching a fair bit of recently: tennis. It’s fiercely competitive yet extremely clean and remarkably free of umpiring controversy. Yes, a player may make an occasional outburst, glare at a line judge, engage in a heated discussion with the official in the chair, or even face a reprimand for some bad language or racquet abuse. But, in general, the fractious “You cannot be serious!” moments are few and far between. At this year’s Wimbledon, it is hard to think of a single occasion where the match ended up centring on an umpiring or similar controversy, rather than the quality of the tennis.

Why is tennis so clean? Part of the reason is the “challenges” rule, whereby a certain allocation of challenges per set allows players to contest line calls they feel were incorrect, with a video replay showing whether the ball was in or out. (It was suggested here and there on commentary during Wimbledon that a player might use a spare challenge to take a breather at a psychologically important moment, but that is certainly not the principal function of the replay). Players may look briefly disgruntled or disbelieving if a replay doesn’t go their way, but there’s no disputing the technology: everybody leaves the court knowing that the result was fair and not talking about line-judge controversy.

Now, call us crazy, but we’ve been thinking: could the tennis challenges rule have a place on the football pitch? You’d give each team say one or two challenges per half to be able to contest the most hotly debated refereeing decisions as they were made. The respective captains of the two sides could be made responsible for raising official challenges, perhaps by means of some standard, pre-designated sign, phrase or request. The most obvious and talked-about area where there have been calls to introduce video replays in football is the ball-bouncing-on-the-goal-line situation. This is certainly one case where an appeal could be made, on the odd - but sometimes very significant - occasions when a goal-line decision is in doubt. Penalty awards could be another prime candidate.

The challenges system could be used in other situations too. Let’s say a centre forward and a centre back go up for an aerial challenge. The defender goes down clutching his face and writhing in agony. It looks like he has been the victim of a nasty elbow and the referee shows the offending player the red card. The forward protests his innocence, but the red card stands. His manager and the media are left dwelling on the impact the incident has had on the match. But what if an on-field appeal were possible? - the captain could go up to his forward and say, “Look mate, did you elbow him?” If the player was still protesting his innocence, the captain could formally challenge the red card and ask the referee to consult video evidence with his fellow officials. If the replay were conclusive about the elbow, the player heads for an early bath and looks daft. If not, he stays on the pitch.

The referee gains here because, when surrounded by a crowd of angry players, he can simply say: “Is this a challenge?” If not - and the captain would take on added responsibility here in terms of policing the players - the referee has called the protestors’ bluff and they have to walk away. Also, by potentially eliminating the controversy surrounding the (usually) one or two big talking points that occur in each match, the position of the referee would cease to be continually undermined in the post-match analysis. Yes, play would have to be delayed for the replay, but without it just as much time could be lost through argument.

Of course there is much that would have to be thought through in terms of how the whole thing would work in practice - how many challenges allowed, what sort of decisions covered, and so on. It would doubtless be tricky to introduce the system in cases where, for example, the referee had “missed” a decision and waved ‘play on’. But still, it’s an idea. So - FIFA, UEFA: you heard it here first. (At least, erm, we think you did). But seriously, this could work... couldn’t it??

 

Thanks by the way to Dupin for his involvement on this topic.

Comments

[The Dude]

PS - I have nothing against Arsenal in particular; all teams are pretty much the same in the diving stakes nowadays, including my own. Though having a diving goalie (good old Jens) was an amusing innovation by the Gooners :-) Instead, I tend to get more wound up by certain players who do it the whole time in a whingy kind of way (Drogba, Cristiano Ronaldo). So while I'd oppose goalline technology, I do like the idea of a being able to challenge when you think someone's dived. Best idea I've heard since the proposal that in the event of a game going to penalties, both teams lose.

[The Dude]

I think every free born Englishman should oppose goalline technology - if it had been round in '66 this country would have no World Cups and maybe not even two World War wins after a challenge ('so you see, our tanks VERE over das line'). It's also unbritish to oppose anything that reduces the element of chance and human error in football - doing so just makes it more likely that the big boys will win the day, which they do far too much of already. Of course there is a price to pay: I can still remember Pompey being ahead and confortable at Highbury half a dozen games into Arsenal's unbeaten season, only for perennial diving Frenchie Robert Pires to go down as if shot by a Hun sniper; they score the penalty and their 18,000 year unbeaten run against us goes on. But I think that's the exception that proves the rule.

[Dupin]

Well argued but it's very hard to see how it could be viably implemented for most controversial human interaction scenarios - it might sometimes even exacerbate ill-feeling towards the ref, if he's seen to willfully go with one angle after having seen the replay. Certainly, goal-line technology is a no-brainer because, in analogy with tennis, it's pure geometry and basically irrefutable.

[Speedball2]

I think this is a great idea, and just the threat of a challenge will help keep the players more honest. Imagine the howls of derision from home and away fans alike the next time Morten Gamst Pedersen throws himself to the ground as he did at the Emirates last season, as it is replayed on the big screen followed by the challenge result from the 4th (5th?) official... "DIVE!".

He won't do that again in a hurry.