The Ball magazine, 7 April 2012

8/2/2019 The Ball magazine, 7 April 2012

1/36

7 APRIL 2012

Djokovics forehand

winner Down Under

A tale of two England

Six Nations tackles

Poor Suarez

in trouble again

Play like Barca:

tricks of the trade #1

The Proteas poor

show at Dunedin

TheBallHAWKEYECAN WE TRUST IT

AFTER THOSE AUSSIE LBWS?

EYE-AYE HOW WE

CAN HELP SOCCER

REFS NOW

THE TIGER PLANIS THIS THE GREAT

ONES NEW WAY?

D R E A M S D O N T D I E

How to watchsport on TV

Use your PVRlike a pro

N O B U L L J U S T B A L L

w w w t h e b a l l c o z a


2/36

w w w t h e b a l l c o z a

The Ball is back!THE BALL is back and although its been 2 587 days since our

first (and only!) issue to date, its good to once again be provid-

ing great sports content to sports fans around the world. But onto

the issues of the day.

THERES SOMETHING ABOUT SUAREZ

Luis Suarezs snub of Patrice Evra in the recent Liverpool-Man Unit-

ed clash was a really stupid moment. Suarez was asking for trouble.

Its so much easier to look away as you shake the hand and then

theres no hassle. It all blows over. But Suarez chose to blow the in-

cident up, partly because hes such a passionate footballer. In a way

that passion is a great thing, as hes driven to succeed like a Messi,

Ronaldo or a Tevez. The drive, the force the passion is remarkableand a great inspiration unfortunately his attitude often isnt the

best for sports-lovers to follow. To not shake hands, though, was

just ri di cu lous , and it se to ff a chain of even ts wh ic h incl uded Ri o

Ferdinand, standing further down the line, responding by refusing

to shake Suarezs hand. In the match Ferdinand appeared to elbow

Suarez during a strong tackle yet the Man United man ended up

and falling and cartwheeling over on his own head, which could so

easily have resulted in a serious injury. Playing with passion and

fire is important Suarez obviously thrives on drama and, perhaps,

even tries to create it where possible. It can work sometimes but it

can also seriously backfire and lead to serious injuries. Lesson?

Discourage your players from causing unnecessary tension.

Gordon Strachan summed it up at half-time by saying that he had

had problems with a few players during his own long career but

theyd stil l shake hands for the sake of the game. Sadly, the egos

are probably far bigger today and, with the HD cameras on the

guys, it s even more accentuated. In old days it wasnt so clear

and perhaps incidents like this are over-exposed now. Today the

camera follows players like a vulture, waiting for an explosive mo-

ment. How about a ruling that the camera stays away when there

might be tension on the handshake line?

1 T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E 7 A p r i l 2 0 1 2 D R E A M S D O N T D I E T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T . C O M

Shall we dance? Man United captain for the day Patrice Evra is not happy

that Liverpools Luis Suarez passed him up for a handshake. Not good.

W h y p a y f o r c a l l t i m e y o u d o n t u s e ? P a y p e r s e c o n d a n d S A V E !


3/36

Wayne Bridge refusing to shake ex-

team-mate John Terrys hand two

years ago was a different thing as

there was a deeper personal issue

and betrayal at stake. You quite pos-

sibly could argue that Bridge should

stil l have taken Terrys hand butprobably most people understood.

With Evra it was a very explosive

issue as racism was involved, and

that understandably becomes more

than personal it becomes social. So perhaps Evra was feeling like he was also standing up for

anyone who also felt sleighted by Suarezs alleged comments. It s a difficult one for sure, but

the lesson for everyone else is that perhaps Suarez should have done what Craig Bellamy did in

the handshake line after Bridge Bellamy held out a cold, fish-like hand for Terry to shake ashe nonchalantly looked away as his hand briefly touched Terrys before sliding away. Not many

people would have noticed this but it wasnt rude or inflammatory. Equally, anyone watch-

ing it closely would say, Good work, Cra ig

you made your point but you didnt start

a riot. Perhaps thats the way to handle

situations like these.

There is another point which has perhaps

been overlooked in this whole issue, and


BALL OF THE MONTH Pity the penalty takers from the recent African Cup of Nations final. By that stage

the penalty spot was chewed-up, making spot kicks even more challenging. However, this penalty shoot-

out highlighted another HUGE problem in soccer that needs sorting out fast! See page 20.

WE CHALLENGED THE

SEXUAL STATUS QUO

In July 2005 The Ball produced

an indepth analysis of womens

sport yet none of the leading

womens magazines were inter-ested in publishing it , aside from

an extract in Fair Lady magazine.

This is an interesting phenom-

enon: women call for equal op-

portunities yet the women with

the power to help challenge the

status quo and bring effective

change perhaps arent helping inthe right ways. Maybe they think

sports not that important for

women, but its in the hands of

women to change. Sound unfair?

Well, in a way it is but read The

Balls report and see for yourself

the amazing potential that exists

for women to get whatever they

want in sport. No dream should be

left behind! So go get it , girls!

Its online at www.theball.co.za

A c c e s s t h e V o I P n e t w o r k s c h e a p e r c a l l s r a t e s f o r b i g s a v i n g s .

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

PARK IT AND MOVE ONsaid ex-referee Dermott Gallagher, on what refs need

to do if they make a mistake. Thats the best attitude

for players and people in all spheres of life. Park it and move on to the next thing. Dont dwell on mistakes,

errors or unfairness just get on with it and focus on

what you need to do next! Analyse later act now!


4/36

thats the feelings of Suarez. Now, The Ball is a fan of his skil l and ability, as well as the effort he

puts into his play but were not impressed with his overall attitude to sportsmanship. However,

looking at it objectively, one has to consider that perhaps Suazrez himself might have been feel-

ing hard done by over the whole situation. Its hard to know who to trust in a sport where players

dive around on the field feigning injury as a standard practice, but you should always keep an

open mind. So think about Suarez. He claimed he was innocent yet he accepted his punishment

because he and Liverpool didnt want the distraction of a long, drawn-out appeal which, usually,is not won in the Premier League or so it would seem. So perhaps he (in his own mind) bit the

bullet as he had to sit out EIGHTmatches for Liverpool. If hes guilty then he certainly deserved

that punishment however, imagine how he would feel if he was NOT guilty?

As a passionate person, perhaps you can understand that Suarez (if he truly believed he was

innocent!) would have felt himself victimised and would have believed that Evra had unfairly

caused him to sit out eight matches, along with being br anded a racist. I guess mos t of us, under

such circumstances, might also not want to shake that persons hand. Perhaps we all need tolearn to cut each other (as well as people in the public eye) some slack more often as

we ultimately will never know what it s like to walk in another persons shoes.

For controversial stars who are always in the spotlight (and this applies equally to tal-

ented young sports people who seem to constantly get into trouble on the field through

their own overly passionate attitude), perhaps they need to ask themselves if they

would perform better by staying under the radar more of the time? Sure, having some

aggro going on often helps to pump you up and focus you for sporting battle, or maybe


SPOT THE BALL APRIL 2012 (RIGHT). A perfect example to follow of crossing the ball into

the box was shown by Barcelona (see page 17). But which one is the ball? Read the article

and youll know for sure, as well as discovering a top secret about crossing into the box.

THE BALL PUT A

CHALLENGE OUT TO FIFA

In June 2005 The Ball distribut-

ed a press release appeal to the

worldwide media calling for FIFA

to implement the TV referee withimmediate effect. We didnt get

much response, but there have

been some small changes in the

game and in peoples attitudes

over the years that we like to

think might have been inspired

in part by our campaign.


Y o u r P A B X i s t h e l i f e b l o o d o f y o u r c o m p a n y s c o m m u n i c a t i o n s


5/36

its that you need the ego of the spotlight on you either way, it wont hurt to analyse this as-

pect of your life and game and maybe even try this new, under-the-radar attitude out once in

a while. As sports people we are constantly experimenting and trying new things as we look for

the winning edge so why not try tweaking your attitude and see if it makes a difference. Just

make sure you keep the passion and drive burning strong!

After United won the match in question, Evra did a dance right in front of Suarez as he cel-ebrated with the crowd. All things considered, you could understand Evras reaction but great

credit goes to Suarez for, in that instance, not reacting in any way, keeping his control and

simply heading off to the change-room. Whether his previous actions had been bad or simply

misinterpreted, that reaction was one that earns him a gold medal from The Ball.

Red card problem

If a team loses a player due to an injury or a red card, wouldnt it be more sporting to see the

team with an advantage keep one of their players standing on the touchline by the halfway line?Make the game 10 v 10 to ensure its a better spectacle for the fans. The team with a numerical

advantage would be able to keep rotating their resting player, with the result that the tagged

player would come back refreshed each time. Teams ironic ally often play better when they do go

a man down as they have to be more determinded and have to fight harder and perhaps they

also benefit from having a litt le bit more space open on the field? The Ball would love to see that

happen, so if you want to try it out in your school or club games let us know how it works.

Good luck watching, playing and working in sport and remember always that, in sport as well as

in life, dreams dont die.

SIMON LEWIS

Editor, The Ball magazine [email protected] @push_theball


WE CONTINUE TO

CHALLENGE THE ICC

For years The Ball has advocated

the implementation of an Aerial

Umpire in cricket. After the 1998

Headingley Test (England vs SA)I wrote a report and sent it to the

ICC, Cricket Boards and the world

media. Slowly bits of this report

have been added to the game

but why slowly? Interesti ngly, the

aerial view is (as we predicted)

now an exciting new addition to

sports coverage worldwide. Any-one whos sat on a committee

or had to answer to a board will

have good answers to that ques-

tion, and we know its not easy

to make sweeping changes and

there may be good objections to

our report, but read it for your-

self and decide for yourself what

needs to be done to get umpiring

right. Then start talking.


d o n t m a k e y o u r s t a f f s t r u g g l e t o m a k e m o n e y f o r y o u r b u s i n e s s .


6/36

The ones that got away...The 12th of December will go down as a memorable day of Test

cricket. Exciting Aussie opener David Warner scored his maid-

en Test ton, New Zealand secured a dramatic seven-run win over

Australia (their first in 26 years against their Trans-Tasman neigh-

bours) and Hawk-Eye threw up a couple of odd replays that got

The Ball thinking.

Im a huge fan of the Hawk-Eye sys-

tem. It s innovative, dynamic, reveal-

ing, exciting and entertaining. It also

adds monumentally to the education

of players, officials and fans, in ad-

dition to improving the enjoyment ofthe game as a TV spectacle, which

is obviously vital for everyone who

makes their living from any form of

televised sport.

However, Ive always harboured se-

rious doubts about the system being used to make decisions. It

should be used to HELP and guide, but an off-field TV umpire (or

even the onfield umpire) should have the chance to review the

normal footage as well as Hawk-Eyes info and then THEY need to

make up their minds. The thought of a machine or computer soft-

ware spewing out a decision sits badly with me. Firstly, the biggest

argument against using a simple TV replay to help make decisions

has been criticised far and wide because people dont believe that

the powers of the onfield umipre should be negated by a man view-

ing a replay off the field of play. Yet theyl l now allow Hawk-Eye

to be used? A thousand praises for

Hawk-Eye for it is a magical piece of

equipment.. . but its not a man or a

woman. Yet were happy for Hawk-

Eye to overrule the onfield umpire?

Strange logic

For 20 years weve gotten so used toTV replays being used for stumpings

and run outs.. . but, oh, only when the

umpire requests th em. So we now ac-

cept TV replays helping with certain

decisions just not all decisions. And

now the rules have changed so that

teams can request that an umpire reviews a decision if they want

it reviewed but yet this can happen only three times per innings

and, mostly, with Hawk-Eyes computer passing judgement.

It s like watching a glacier creeping along quietly during an ice age.

For 13 years The Ball has been a staunch advocate of TV replays


New Zealand had two LBW decisions overturned by Hawk-Eye in favour

of Australia and both times a Phantom Ball appeared!

C u t y o u r b u s i n e s s c a l l c o s t s b y 3 0 - 6 0 % . N o l i e s 0 2 1 - 7 6 2 - 9 7 1 5


7/36

being used for every possible decision. The Ball first threw its hat

into the ring in publishing The Aerial Umpire in 1998, after the ap-

palling Headingly Test where South Africa were denied a deserved

victory by some truly awful, truly horrendous umpiring decisions.

And lets not forget those horrid memories of the 1993/94 series

Down Under when South Africa suffered seven revoltingly bad um-

piring decisions at Adelaide, decisions which played their part in

enabling a somewhat stunned Australia to claw their way back to

draw the series against the never-say-die fresh new faces from

South Africa. After the glory and triumph of Sydney where South

Africa and cricket shone brightly, Adelaide stood out like a boil on

a bald mans forehead.

However, for some reason the powers-that-be keep avoiding using

the simplest system and instead vote for expensive, convoluted sys-tems to be used to help enable us to get better umpiring decisions.

TV replays alone with a human making a decision can solve every

controversy in no time at all with almost no time delays. But, before

we go there, lets look back at 12 December 2011.


With 20-odd runs to win and one wicket left Lyon was trapped in front

and the umpire didnt hesitate in lifting his finger. With a review in the

bag the Aussies naturally appealled the decision. Hot Spot showed the

ball hitting Lyon on the line of leg stump, yet the Hawk-Eye predictive

view (which took an unusually long time to be played) showed the ball

pitching just outside legstump and hitting him outside leg (pic 1 +2).

On closer inspection, the spot where the ball pitched was different to

the real footage and the virtual ball that appeared as Hawk-Eyes view

(pic 3+4). In truth it was an awayswing delivery that pitched right on leg

(pic 5) and was swinging back enough to hold its line to hit leg stump

as it hit him on the pad in line with leg stump (pic 6). The onfield umpire

made the correct decision, yet the Hawk-Eye footage showed a different

point of impact on the pitch and with the pad. With such a close decision

if the point of impact is shown 5-10cm to the side its enough to radi-

cally alter the outcome. When you examine the live footage then surely

this decision needs to be thoroughly audited by the ICC and Hawk-Eye,

as clearly either the system has a major error or else there was human

error. Either way, if this sort of gross miscalculation can occur then

surely Hawk-Eye cannot be trusted with making binding decisions?

G e t t w o b u s i n e s s t e l e p h o n e l i n e s f o r j u s t R 1 5 0 ! Y a , b r u . 0 2 1 - 7 6 2 - 9 7 1 5

Actual ball

Hawk-Eye

virtual ball


8/36

In that 2nd Test, Australia were cruising to victory after winning the

1st Test by 9 wickets. With 241 required to win the Test, the Aus-

sies were 159 for 2 before a sensational spell from Doug Bracewell

saw Australia lose seven wickets for 40 runs. It provided a couple

of hours of truly compelling Test cricket as well as being a great

sporting battle. With last-man Nathan Lyon at the crease, David

Warner kept hammering away at the bowling (and, although hes a

terrific talent, he certainly gives the bowlers plenty of hope with his

shot selection and execution!) and the target got closer and closer

until, with just seven runs needed, Bracewe ll bowled Lyon to secure

an astonishing win.

New-boy Warners ton saw him rewarded with the Man of the Match

award, despite Bracewells match-winning performance of scoring

12 in a vital 45-run 1st innings partnership, along with taking 9for 60 in the match which included securing the final wicket to

complete the dramatic win. New Zealand fans must have been a bit

miffed as it seemed like Australia was somehow being favoured

and these feelings would have been exacerbated by two LBW inci-


Earlier, with the score 199/7, Bracewell trapped Pattinson leg before and

the umpire gave him out, no hesitation. Australia appealed and Hawk-

Eye showed the ball to be missing the stumps BUT again the Hawk-Eye

footage took unusually long to appear and, when it did, there was again

a discrepancy with where the ball pitched (pic 2) and where it hit the pad

(pic 3). This was a very, very close decision, but as it was so close the

benefit would have reverted to the original decision. Its difficult NOT to

think conspiracy when you add the perception that it seemed to take

longer than normal for the Hawk-Eye footage to appear. The Hawk-Eye

viewed showed the ball just missing the stumps (pic 4 + 5) but if you

consider that the ball really pitched 2-3cm to the left of where Hawk-Eye

showed it pitching, and that it hit the batsman 2-3cm to the left of where

Hawk-Eye showed, then if you recalculate the projected flight of the ball

it would surely be a few centimetres closer to the stumps, in which case,

based on Hawk-Eyes projection, it WOULD have hit the stumps. Lets

presume (and hope!) that it was not human manipulation that created this

error in which case Hawk-Eye remains unreliable enough that its deci-

sions cannot be trusted. Yes, its revealing and can assist a TV ref, but

surely, based on this evidence, no-one can claim its accurate enough?

W h y p a y f o r a f u l l m i n u t e w h e n y o u o n l y s p o k e f o r 1 5 s e c o n d s ?

Actual ball

Hawk-Eye


9/36

dents which were referred to Hawk-Eye. Both decisions went in favour of

the Aussie batsman. To be fair, there was enough benefit of the doubt that

the one could well have gone in the batsmans favour, which is always pref-

erable in LBW decisions. However, there was something extra in the footage

which concerned me.

Firstly, in both instances it took an unusually long time for the Hawk-Eye

footage to be shown on TV. If you are a Conspiracy Nut youll be looking

sideways now, but what concerns The Ball is that something funny appeared

to happen with the Hawk-Eye footage itself. Aside from taking extra time to

be shown, the actual path of the ball and impact with the batsman seemed

to be different compared to the actual path of the ball and Hawk-Eyes im-

pression of the impact points. They seemed to exhibit relatively dramatic

inconsistency.

In both instances the onfield mat appeared to not 100 percent accurately

represent the actual line of the stumps. If there is any error showing the

line of the mat then it impacts directly on how Hawk-Eye and the viewers

analyse the validity of any decision. Secondly, the points of impact were

truly bizarre: watching the replay slowly frame by frame (play the footage

at the slowest speed on your PVR) you can see how the ball landed and

the Hawk-Eye digital ball suddenly appeared onscreen as it always does

to represent the actual point of impact. However, in both instances it was

not on the EXACT spot on which the ball actually landed. It was amazing that

the commentators didnt point this out because it was so glaring, but then

commentators often dont point out (or spot) goalkeepers moving before

a penalty kick is taken in soccer (see page 20). For the one LBW appeal


GOOD JOB, HAWKEYE

Hawk-Eyes bril l iance was il lustrated on the first

morning of the 2nd Test between South Africa and

Sri Lanka. A graphic showed exactly where Paranavi-

tana has been dismissed against seamers since July

2010. All were balls delivered in a bunch on the line

of stumps and just outside, and all between knee and

elbow height. Hawk-Eye is a great tool for guiding a

player to spot his errors and its perfect for show-

ing bowlers where to target a batsman in order to

get him out. Of course, that doesnt mean you must

only bowl to a batsman in a certain area, as it might

be that he scored hundreds of runs in that time and

that those specific balls he got out to were suddenlapses in concentration. Or he might have lost his

wicket to some of those deliveries while pushing for

the declaration. It s important to look deeper and

analyse statistics and Hawk-Eye graphs with great

care, insight and understanding. More important,

you need to remember what happened before each

dismissal. He might often get out to balls in a cer-

tain area but, for instance, these shots might have

followed him scoring a boundary or being scared by

a bouncer or perhaps being frustrated by five dot

balls in a row. Always look deeper!

C a l l u s f o r a f r e e a n a l y s i s o f y o u r p h o t o c o p i e r a n d P A B X n e e d s


10/36

(against Pattinson), in addition to the discrepancy with where the

ball pitched, there was also a vast difference between where the

ball hit the pad and where Hawk-Eye showed the point of impact.

The digital representation of the ball suddenly appeared to the side

of the actual ball, not on the exact spot where contact was made.

The point of impact is incredi bly important as this is what the com-

puter uses to create the flight path of the ball from one point of

contact (with the pitch) to the next (the batsmans pads). Any error

in inputting these points will drastically alter the digital represen-

tation of the ball as well as its anticipated and projected future

path. My understanding is that these points are manually inputted

or verified if that is completely correct then it opens the system

up to either human error or human manipulation.

In addition, the LBW appeal against Lyon showed a front-on viewwhere the ball clearly hit the batsman in line with the stumps, yet

when the Hawk-Eye projection was shown the point of impact was

shown hitting outside the line of the stumps. Or, at least, just on

the line but with the ball angling to leg it would then have passed

wide. From what Ive read about Hawk-Eye there is a potential

explanation in terms of different camera views and angles. So my

mind is open in terms of this. However, the other two points are a

big area for concern.

The Hobart Hawk-Eye controversy is enough evidence to argue

that Hawk-Eye simply cannot be used as a closed system for giving

decisions well , unless Hawk-Eye can explain these inaccuracies

convincingly. So, whats the solution? Heres how The Ball believes

umpiring decisions should be made going forward.

HOW UMPIRES CAN USE TV FOOTAGE

TV replays can be used so easily and effectively to eradicate glaring

errors. The onfield umpires should make all their decisions boldly

and bravely with no referrals not even for run outs or stumpings!

The TV umpire (or umpires) then reviews the action and if (using

replay footage they request on the spot from the broadcasters

production crew) they spot an error then they message the onfield

umpires to inform them and request a reversal of the decision.

Its at this point that administrators, journalists and most of the

public will cry out: But it will take too long!

On the contrary, using this system we would have less time delays

than under the present system. Under The Balls system the off-

field TV umpire would have to review any required footage during

the time it takes for the bowler to walk back to his mark. If the off-

field umpire cannot spot a mistake or error before the bowler turns

to begin his run up then the chance for overturning the decision

is gone. Simple. No decisions or requests for reviews of decisions.

No waiting for a TV replay. Theres a 30-second buffer for an

umpire to watch between two to three rep lays of the action and if

he cant see a mistake from those replays then the onfield umpires

decision stands. No delays at all and, arguably, no glaring errors

will slip through.


L o s i n g b u s i n e s s b e c a u s e y o u r i n c o m i n g l i n e s a r e a l w a y s e n g a g e d ?


11/36

Think about this whenever theres a run out or a stumping or a

review under the DRS system then there is usually a one to two

minute delay. Thats because there is an obsession with trying to

find PERFECT decisions. However, well never get perfect decisions

all the time anyway, no matter what technology is used. What we

do need (and what is easily achievable) is a quick, cheap solution

to make sure that no glaring errors slip through and often these

errors are the sort that can change the course of a game or a play-

ers career! And thats not being over-dramatic.

Errors such as these can be spotted by everyone in the stadium

if theres a big-screen TV, along the entire worldwide TV audi-

ence. Embarrassing. Ridiculous. Unneccessary. It also demeans the

umpire in question and makes his error a major part of the result

and theres no reason for this to be the case.

If a decision is not glaringly obvious on a TV replay, or if it is so

close that the TV umpires need to watch five, six or seven replays

then, obviously, his final decision will sti l l be in doubt. Think about

it : if it wasnt stil l in doubt then the decision would have been made

quickly after one or two replays. Doesnt that make sense to you?

The solution? Lets go back to the core spirit of cricket and give the

benefit of the doubt to the batsman if a rep lay is unclear and then

we get on with the game without any delays.

Result? No glaringly obvious errors are made.

Result? No-ones unhappy.

Result? Cricket is the winner.

The TV umpire will have to be quick in reviewing these decisions

so he will l iterally have enough time for a medium or fast bowler

to walk back to his mark and turn to deliver the next ball . Bear in

mind that only after deliveries when the bowling team made an ap-

peal will the 30-second buffer really be of any relevance so only

after those few deliveries would a bowler wait at his mark for the

TV umpire to use his 30 seconds. When that 30-second buf fer is up

then the bowler has to start his run-up. Consideri ng how much time

players waste between balls changing field-placings and so on, this

30-second buffe r would not cause any time delays as most bowlers

need all that time anyway to get to the end of their run-up.

When the 30-second countdown is up the chance to overrule is

gone and the bowler must start his run up. He can stil l move his

field around and waste time if he likes, but when 30 seconds are upthe decision will revert to that made by the onfield umpire. There

would be very litt le wasted time using this system and, arguably,

there would be no obviously controversial decisions.

But what about those decisions that are very, very close? Benefit

of the doubt goes to the batsman! If you cant act ually see it pretty

clearly after one or maybe two replays then its not clear enough to

possibly ever make a confirmed decision. So play continues!

Of course, this 30-second ruling is aimed at GIVING batsmen out

if they were given NOT OUT by the onfield umpire after an appeal.

When an onfield umpire gives a batsman out THEN the TV umpire has

1 0 T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E 7 A p r i l 2 0 1 2 D R E A M S D O N T D I E T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T . C O M

A c c e s s t h e V o I P n e t w o r k s c h e a p e r c a l l r a t e s f o r b i g s a v i n g s .


12/36

until the batsman leaves the field to call him back if he can CLEARLY

see an error in the decision, starting with a first check for no-ball.

That said, if the off-field umpire is NOT CLEAR that there definitely

was an error then the onfield umpires decision must stand. Most

batsmen take between 30 seconds to a minute to leave the field

anyway, which is enough time to view a few replays. However , once

he crosses the rope then he cannot be called back, as in the rare

occasion when an umpire changes his mind or the fielding side calls

the batsman back, such as when a catcher admits the ball might

have bounced before he caught it.

Effectively no time is wasted using this system and almost all glar-

ing umpiring errors will be eradicated. AND this system could go

into effect right now as youre reading these words. The TV cam-

eras are all setup wed just need to arrange with the broadcastcompany to set up a replay monitor for the umpire and Im sure

the outside broadcast units could manage that. If not, PVR decod-

ers go for around R1 500 or so

In my Aerial Umpire Report back in 1998 I highlighted the concern

that a computerised system could theoretica lly show the wrong de-

livery on occasion s and who would know about it? Consider the one

Hawk-Eye graphic view used for LBWs that shows the flight of the

ball in question and then digitally rotates around sideways before

zooming back up and over the stumps. How do we know if that re-

ally represents the ball just bowled? With that view you dont see

the actual ball masked over the digital ball .

Thats a concern.

In the final analysis, a TV replay allows NO room for viewing error:

its crystal clear. Having Hawk-Eye footage as a backup for the

off-field umpire for LBW decisions WILL be a huge help, but Hawk-

Eye alone is not accurate enough to give dec isions. Hawk-Eye is an

amazing, entertaining and revealing system but surely wed rather

have a human using TV footage to make a decision?

Regardless of what Hawk-Eye say about the truly high accuracy

rates they lay claim to, they certainly do not have a 100% foolproof

system, so it remains open to some degree of computer miscalcula-

tion or, worse, human intervention.

Once again The Ball calls on the ICC to legislate for there to bea TV umpire with greater powers to be used in televised cricket

matches, as illustrated by The Balls recommendation for a 30-

second buffer. It s guaranteed to take less time than any other

system and its guaranteed to ensure that no obvious and glaring

errors slip through.

How can they?

Ask yourself, honestly, for the good of cricket, the players and the

fans could you ask for anything more? So, ICC can we please

have this TV umpire in place, with effective powers today or, if

not today, then tomorrow?


C u t y o u r b u s i n e s s c a l l c o s t s b y a t l e a s t 3 0 % w w w . a d v a n c e d t e l c o m s . c o . z a


13/36

A tale of two tacklesItalian rugby has come on leaps and bounds recently, but it was

still a surprise to see England struggle to a 15-19 win over the

Azzurri at the Stadio Olimpico in front of a record 72 000 crowd

who witnessed the stadiums first Six Nations match. England so

narrowly avoided defeat in what was, admittedly, really difficult,

snowy conditions but what stood out for The Ball were two tack-

ling incidents by English players. The one was a great tackling

lesson but the other could have cost England the match.

Englands Barritt (below) carelessly tackled the Italian number 11,

McLean, when he was stil l up in the air after making a solid jump

and catch. To be fair to Barritt , he didnt try to flip McLean over

or bash him sideways, he simply caught him and brought him down.

That said, it led to a penalty which put England under pressure.

Ironically, he almost helped the Italian down to the ground. If, how-

ever, he had held back for a second until McLean landed and THEN

pounced on him before he had properly settled himself, he would

either have been knocked backwards towards Italian territory, or


A well-timed jump to catch t he ball needs to be respected under the law and its dangerous to tackle a player in the air. However, if you hold back

and wait for the player to land and THEN crash into him you wont be penalised and you have a better chance of forcing him to lose possession.



14/361 3 T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E 7 A p r i l 2 0 1 2 D R E A M S D O N T D I E T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T . C O M

else possibly he would have lost the ball under the force of the

tackle. Yes, it was a small moment in the match, but it accounted

for a 25% swing in field ownership, which could have led to a try

or a penalty kick.

The lesson? Just dont do those fouls. Hard as it is to hold back,

you can learn to. Everyone knows you cant legally punch on the

field of play or gouge an opponents eyes, so in the heat of battle

players usually refrain from such actions. So why do players not

hold back from poor, i l legal tackles that cost you points as well as

giving possesion away easily? Work on this in practice holding

back from tempting tough tackles where you break the law.

Earlier in the match we saw a great England tackle that saw the

Italian in possessions arms knocked and the player charged off

balance, causing him to lose possession, which led to an England

penalty kick which led to the opening points. Youre allowed to

tackle hard, just make sure you tackle within the laws, otherwise

you lose possession and, often, substantial territory or even points.

But dont let it all be about brute force getting your tackle timed

ju st ri gh t (a long wi th some so li d contac t) can have more impact

than a poorly timed full-force tackle. Wrap yourself around your

opponent and time your impact at the exact moment that hes try-

ing to control the ball and then theres a great chance it l l burst

out of his hands. If the ball goes forward youve won possession

out of nowhere. If it bounces backwards your team-mates have a

loose ball to challenge for. It s a better position to be in than a

scrambled maul where an opponent remains clinging to the ball .

This timing aspect is the same as for the glorious ankle-tap tackle.

A well-t imed ankle-tap from the smallest guy on the field against

the largest will see him brought to ground ignominously, most likely

knocking the ball on in the process. It s something to think about

when youre being charged at by the biggest guy on the field.

Week after week we see crunching tackles that dont take into account the opponents balance and ball possession. Result? Usually the player

clings to the ball. However, time your tackle well and with some cunning and you can knock the ball out of his hand and into open play. Nice!



15/36

A sensible approachProfessional golfers push themselves to the limit to find an extra

bit of oomph and 10-20 yards of additional carry or roll. Usually

Tiger Woods is jostling at the front with the rest of the guys for

this something extra but has his game matured to a new level?

Tiger has always gone long and pushed his technique to the limit to

squeeze an extra few yards out of his drives. Litt le wonder he plays

par-5s for birdie and eagle, while par-4s end up as pars and the

par-3s are pars or, often, one-over. His power has been a major

contributing factor to his success and domination, even though the

rest of his game is also astounding. However, when hes slightly off

the boil then this approach gets him into trouble. Battling to finally

get a Tour win after two years of struggle, Tiger showed signs of a

sense of caution and strategy that The Ball has seldom seen during

his astounding career. With a sniff of victory at The Honda Classic,

Tiger recorded his best-ever final round score of 62, but it wasnt

enough to prevent Rory McIlroy from securing a 2-stroke victory.

Despite blistering form that saw him pull-off two eagles, Tiger had

the discipline to play with caution on the par-four 13th. The previ-

ous round hed bogied the hole, which tempts the big-hitter. The

water wasnt really in play, but a jagged fairway and nasty bunkers

made it a tricky hole if youre at all wayward and the harder

youre hitting your driver the greater the margin for error.

Then we saw it big, bold Tiger Woods drew an iron for his tee-

shot. It seemed like a pivotal moment in his career. With a bit more

luck on his approach shot or with his putt he might easily have se-

cured a birdie but possibly more importantly was the fact that, by

playing within himself and focussing on his accuracy, he didnt end

up in trouble on the hole and dropping vital shots. He played well

enough to have a chance for a birdie but without risking disaster

and thats a lesson golfers at all levels can learn from.


The par 4 13th at The Honda Classic saw Tiger play uncharacteristcally

sensibly, teeing off with an iron to ensure a decent approach shot.

P l a y t h e p e r c e n t a g e s h o w s a 4 0 % s a v i n g o n c a l l c o s t s s o u n d ?


16/36

Following that greatly improved finish at The Honda Classic, Tiger

went on to coast home at the Arnold Palmer Invitational for his

first Tour win in over two years. Hes not quite back to what he

once was, but sure as Tiger wears red on a Sunday you can know

that his fellow golfers are worried about his presence again. And

its just in time for another assault on the Green Jacket.

By easing off on the pressure for great distance you give yourself

a better chance of hitting the fairway. Not only does that build

your confidence, it can also leave you with a better second shot or

approach to the green. Pros often need that extra distance to try

and slice a stroke or two off certain holes, but for most of us its

better to hit slightly easier off the tee and then take a longer iron.

Its about staying out of trouble, getting onto the green and being

in a good position to putt for birdie or par. Thats good golf.

When you have astounding ability like Tiger and even the average

Tour pro, it must be difficult to hold back or play so soft, but if

you analyse your scorecard after a round of golf then playing the

percentages is surely the way to go if you want to lower your score

consistently. Quite possibly the slightly older and now humbled

Alejandro Canizares got off to a flyer at the Avantha Masters and fin-

ished day one with seven birdies but a second-round 73 pushed him

down the leaderboard to 16th position and out of the running. One hole

offered a brilliant display of crafty golf. Canizares played an easier drive

compared to his playing partners, Mark Warren and JBE Kruger. He was

left with a longer approach shot but in a lovely spot on the fairway.

A carefully planned approach shot saw him hit the flagstick and roll a

couple of feet from the hole, allowing him to pick up a super birdie. The

bigger-hitting Warren (1-over for the hole) and Kruger (par) had longer

drives that ended in less favourable positions, leaving both players with

far more difficult approach shots. Both ended up scrambling desperately

to avoid dropping serious strokes, while Canizares strode confidently

off the green with his birdie on the way to a first-round score of 7-under.

It was a great example of course management and stroke execution.




17/36

Tiger might have discovered a sense of golfing pragmatism that could lead him

to revitalise his career and The Ball believes that, having broken through with a

Tour win at last, Tiger is going to go on a Major-winning streak that will see him

surpass Nicklaus 18 Major wins before 2014 is up.

Of course, theres another side to the golfing story. South African Jbe Kruger re-

cently won the Avantha Masters (his maiden European tour title, at the DLF Golf

and Country Club in Gurgaon, New Delhi, India) by two strokes after finishing on

14-under 274, two shots ahead of the Spaniard Jorge Campillo and Germanys

Marcel Siem. Kruger certainly didnt shy away from adventurous strokes and, in

fact, found himself in terrible trouble on a number of occasions. However, in his

case continuing to be bold paid off handsomely over 72 holes. Perhaps it s a case

of going with your instinct or riding your luck? Either way, its essential that you

have a tactic to follow that you believe in and then execute to the best of your

ability. Kruger shot a bold 6-under 66 to steal a one-shot lead at the end of thethird day before going on for the win. This just illustrate s how hard golf is to mas-

ter and that theres no one-size-fits-all theory to hang on to. Play the percent-

ages, be bold when you need to be and learn how to manage your instincts.

The trick is to not always just go out and go big hole after hole. Be smart. What

matters is how far your first putt is from the hole.. . and also that you didnt waste

shots getting to the green. Get that right and youl l start scoring super well .

The Balls golf guide, Hit Like a Woman, Score Like a Pro, wil l be published online

in September 2012 in PDF format. For details, keep visiting www.theball.co.za or

www.push.co.za or follow @push_theball on Twitter to get the download link.


W h y p a y f o r a f u l l m i n u t e w h e n y o u o n l y s p o k e f o r 8 s e c o n d s ?

USE YOUR PVR LIKE A PRO

A DStv PVR decoder is like having a dishwasher

in the kitchen: once youve had it then no way

can you go back. The Ball first got PVR in 2009

and life has never been the same. However, weve

picked up some tips for reall y using your PVR well.

After all, a great tool in the wrong hands can be

a dangerous thing. Heres tip number one.

PRO PVR TIP #1: THE BUFFER

Golf is a great game for replays and you get plen-

ty when watching with PVR. Being able to control

your own replays is truly special however, bear

in mind that when you watch on the buffer some-

times (if you are stopping and starting and go-ing back and forth again and again) your system

can freeze and then reset itself and youll then

bounce back to live footage and possibly miss out

on some great action. The Ball watches important

matches recorded: we select that recording from

the recordings menu and watch it, sometimes 10-

20 minutes delayed, sometimes only a few sec-

onds behind the live action. Pause and rewind

works better then and theres zero chance of a

system reboot. Dont risk the live buffer on a big

match and then youll love your PVR. Enjoy!


18/36

Taking the gap like BarcaIf youve watched Barcelona play football in the last two to three

years you would have witnessed one of the most glorious teams

in action to have ever played the game. Last season they were

imperious but they have struggled to maintain that form this sea-

son. Nonetheless, there is so much to learn from them.

One of the keys to playing great soccer (and to enjoying success)

lies in your ability to run into space to receive a pass or a header.

If you wait for the ball with a defender on top of you hes more

likely to be able to tackle you or jostle you off the ball. By running

into space you gain half a yard on the defender, who has to fol-

low you as he obviously cant read your mind to know which way

youre going to run. At the same time, for a player to pass or cross

a ball into a mass of players is less likely to create a goal-scoring

opportunity. Running into space creates dynamic energy as well as

sowing confusion among the opposition, all of which makes a huge

difference when it comes to winning matches. It s a difficult skil l ,

but keep making those runs and eventually youl l succeed.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, by making darting runs into

good spaces along with your team-mates all movin g around more,

rather than just jogging or ambling around you force the defend-

ers to follow you, which adds to their sporting stress and builds up

the chance for error on their part and opens up gaps in even the

most disciplined defence, who then lose some control over you.

When you make good runs (even unpredictable runs) your team-

mates will take note and will start thinking: Hey, hes running into


Barcas Dani Alves crosses to the six-yard line against arch-rivals Real

Madrid. No-ones there as he sends the cross over, but thats the danger

zone that he expects one of his team-mates to run into. Cesc Fabregas

made a great run in to reach the ball under huge pressure from a Real

defender and he converted an unstoppable header to secure a 3-1 win.

After losing almost every match hes managed for Real against Barca,

the Special one has turned into the Special Glum!

W h y p a y t h e e a r t h f o r b / w c o p i e s w h e n y o u c a n p a y j u s t 9 . 5 c e n t s ?


19/36

gaps and creating space away from the defenders hes making it

easier for me to pass to him. Creating these passing opportunities

makes the game more exciting and rewarding. It s far better to risk

losing the ball by crossing it into a good space than to hold onto it

for too long and enable the defence to rally around and close off

your scoring options.

Trying to score perfect goals wastes so many opportunities. Many

goals end up being scruffy, ugly affairs but rather score like that

on occasion than constantly have beautiful moves snuffed out be-

cause your attacks lack incisiveness and daring. The more chances

you have on goal the greater your odds of scoring. Theres noth-

ing more pleasing for defenders than being able to herd attackers

around like sheep so rath er break ranks and run this way and that

and youl l have the defenders following in your wake and giving you

a split-second gap to steal a shot on goal. For all the true beauty of

Arsenals play over recent years, too often they seem to be trying

to walk the ball into goal rather than risking that final daring pass.

Barcelona and Osasuna show here how a bold, brave pass into the

right space creates a chance for a team-mate to draw away from

the defence and have a relatively easy crack at goal.

Theres nothing worse than seeing a long, drawn-out move break

down without a proper attempt at goal.. . rather learn to risk los-

ing the ball in exchange for the occasional gilt-edge opportunity to

score. The more you try this the more your team-mates will learn

to anticipate these moves. Dont worry about getting your pass to

a team-mate; worry about getting the pass into the best attacking

zone! It s the job of the attackers to spot the likely destination of

your cross and to be there to meet it and pick up the medals!


Osasuna gave Barca a taste of their own medicine during their 3-2 home win. The hosts stomed into an early two-goal lead with two strikes from

Dejan Lekic, the second of which (above) followed the same tactic as on the previous page. Barcas form has dipped markedly compared to last

season (although they are still extremely competitive), but with this defeat Osasuna showed how teams can play like Barca in order to beat Barca!

C o p y c a t ? I s y o u r b u s i n e s s p h o t o c o p i e r d o i n g t h e r i g h t j o b f o r y o u ?


20/36

Djokovics killer winnerJanuary saw arguably the greatest Grand Slam final in history

play out at the Aussie Open as Novak Djokovic saw off the irre-

sistable talents of Rafael Nadal over almost six hours. It was grip-

ping stuff as two of the greats of world sport went toe-to-toe!

Anyone who argues that it wasnt the greatest Slam final would

be hard-pressed to admit that it wasnt the toughest, as these two

great tennis warriors slugged it out on the hard surface at Mel-

bourne in the longest Grand Slam final in history. The match lasted

five hours and 53 minutes as Djokovic finally saw off Nadal to the

tune of 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7, 7-5. If that wasnt enough, Djokovic had

spent almost five hours on the Friday night before the Sunday final

sorting out a resolute Andy Murray to win a place in the fi nal. Once

there, Djokovic didnt let fatigue get in the way of his 5th Grand

Slam tit le (3rd Aussie Open tit le), as can be seen by the pinpoint

accuracy of his down-the-line winner profiled above.

Nadal brought Djokovic rushing back into his forehand corner, at which

point Rafa felt certain his opponent would go cross-court. Firstly, Nadal

had been in the corner himself, so for Djokovic to hit straight back to

him when there was an open court seemed unlikely. Secondly, hitting

cross-court would get Nadal running onto his backhand, which could

open up the chance for Novak to rush the net anticipating a weak return.

So, with a cross-court shot the obvious option, Nadal quickly scampered

towards the open court but this l eft the quick-thinking Serbian with an

opportunity. Instead of going cross-court, Djokovic turned his wrists and

slapped the ball straight down the li ne. This played onto Nadals danger-

ous forehand but as Djokovic hit his forehand right on the service line,

it gave Nadal no chance. It was a high-risk shot due to the small margin

for error, but hitting so deep left his opponent helpless to return the ball.

A longer, flatter shot will skid away quicker, whereas if he hadnt hit so

deep the ball would have bounced up more, effectively breaking ever so

slightly and that small change of pace would have given Nadal a win-

dow of opportunity to make a return. It was the perfect winner and shows

the fine margin between winning and losing a lot of which is courage!


C u t y o u r b u s i n e s s c a l l c o s t s b y a t l e a s t 3 0 % w w w . a d v a n c e d t e l c o m s . c o . z a


21/36

Eyes wide shutFootball is known as the beautiful game... but its beauty is not

shining as bright as The Ball would l ike it to. Fortunately, theres

an easy solution at hand.

Man City were playing Sporting Lisbon in the second leg of their

recent Europa League clash. Trailing 1-0 on the first leg, City were

playing like the Blues of old in an horrific first half where Sporting

scored twice for a 3-0 aggregate lead... and with the away goals

scenario City needed to score four goals in the second half. Back

in 2001 City were 3-0 down to Spurs in the FA Cup (with Joey

Barton being sent-off at half-time).. . but by the time City scored

their fourth goal in injury time that day it was clear to anyone why

football is called the beautiful game. Nothings impossible. Against

Lisbon, City rose up and played magnificently to claw back the defi-

cit, scoring three second-half goals to have the tie all squared with

10 minutes to play. Belief is an amazing thing!

Into injury time and down to the final few seconds, City won a

corner. Everyone was up in Sportings half looking for the winner.

Sporting headed the ball clear but Nigel de Jong lifted it back into

the box where Hart in his grey goalkeepers jersey, desperate for

the win beat the defender to the ball and executed a great head-

er that required an equally great fingertip save from Sportings

keeper. Time was up and the referee blew the final whistle. Exhila-

rating. A team had given their all and made sports fans and players


Left to right: Joe Hart is held back by a Sporting Lisbon player while

making a dramatic last-second header. Should have been a penalty! Rel-

egation-threatened QPR suffered a 2-1 loss to fellow strugglers Bolton

yet QPR had this valid goal denied. Birmingham gave Chelsea a shock in

their FA Cup clash at 1-0 up when their keeper saved a Lampard penalty

but look at how the players were all encroaching on the penalty area and

how much the Birmingham keeper moved before the kick was taken. A

TV ref could have made the correct ruling in each and every one of these

instances in a matter of seconds, thereby ensuring a fairer result. Thats

what sport should be about: a tough fight and a fair contest.

C u t y o u r b u s i n e s s c a l l c o s t s b y 3 0 - 6 0 % . N o l i e s 0 2 1 - 7 6 2 - 9 7 1 5


22/36

sit up, applaud and be inspired by their play. But then came the TV

replay while the Sporting players, hugging and shaking hands, left

the field.

The replay showed how, as Hart headed the ball goalwards, a Sport-

ing defender was pulling at his collar. It was amazing that Hart did

so well to get the header in, and credit to him that he didnt fall

over looking for the penalty. He was focussed on doing and win-

ning the game, not on winning a penalty, which is a great example

for young sportsmen and women to follow.

Yes, players jostle and shove and pull shirts the whole time, so

many people will say that it s just part of the game. However, it is

against the laws and IF a referee or linesman sees it clearly (which

is hard, hard, hard for them to do) he would give a penalty. So City

should have had a penalty.. . and few would have betted against

Mario Balotelli scoring in that pressured situation.

Obviously not every push and pull can be spotted on TV replays,

so often we have to accept that many will be missed and players

will sometimes get an unfair advantage. However, especially when

theres a goal incident involved, surely it s worth being able to get

a decision made correctly using a TV replay? Most of the time the

ball goes out for a corner or goalkick and before play actually con-

tinues we, the audience, have seen that an error has been made by

the referee. So the TV referee, at the cost of no extra technology

or manpower, could be used to correct some major, major errors


West Brom and Man United players storm the box before Wayne Roon-

eys successful penalty (left). Zambian keeper Kennedy Mweene saved a

vital penalty in the semi-final against Ghana while way off his line. In the

final Ivory Coasts Didier Drogba (right) blasted his kick over the post

with Mweene again off his line. Both kicks should have been retaken.

Take a look at the Ivory Coast player encroaching on the penalty box. The

lesson for all of us is dont move early as the keeper and dont encroach

on the box. Just imagine how youll feel if your keeper saves the kick or

your team-mate scores but then the ref orders it retaken because YO U

were in the box unlawfully! That would hurt so dont take the risk!



23/36

that greatly impact on the course of a match.

Pulling shirts in the area is one issue, but there are others, such

as when a ball has crossed the line. I can understand Sepp Blatter

being wary of implementing a system that might not work, which

is perhaps why there has been such a delay in finding and testing

technical systems.. . but perhaps if they can discover a simple and

easy system whereby TV replays can be used to effectively show

within 10 seconds if there was a major error, then Im sure Blatter

and his team will realise it s all thats needed. If it s really too close

to see on more than two replays then, you know what, so bad, que

sera sera , let the game go on. When its clear on a TV replay that

the ball has crossed the line then its actually criminal not to allow

a TV referee to award a goal.

Commentators can be unforgiving: they criticise the poor lines

judges fo r no t spot ti ng when a ba ll crosse s the li ne . Cmon, guys ,

the game is so fast and there are players running across the lines

judge s li ne of vi si on the whole time and he or she is st anding

half the width of the pitch away from the ball. Cmon, guys, be fair:

when they get it right they deserve a medal for their skil l .

Another example is those litt le handballs by players. You cant pick

them all up, but name one sportsfan who agrees that Maradonas

Hand of God goal should have been allowed to stand. . . or any-

one who thought Thierry Henrys push into the goal with his hand

against Ireland was deserving of a goal? Remember that goal. . .

it made the difference between France making it through to the


Zambias keeper (left) saved a vital semi-final penalty and a number of

penalties in the final shootout yet each time he was off his line early.

Would the result have changed if the kicks had been retaken? Possibly

and th at s how big an is sue it is . Newcastl es free -s coring st riker Dem-

ba Ba (right) had a derby penalty saved against Sunderland with the

keeper way off his line and moving before the kick. The Ball asks: how is

this any less cheating than the great Maradonnas Hand of God goal?

W h y p a y f o r a f u l l m i n u t e w h e n y o u o n l y s p o k e f o r 1 5 s e c o n d s ?


24/36

World Cup finals in 2010 instead of Ireland. I d say thats a pretty big decision. . . and a TV ref

could have disallowed that goal in five seconds.

Then theres the offside law, which could be generally called correct in 95% of cases using the

TV referee. . . and dont forget about goalkeepers moving forward off the line before a penalty

has been taken AND players from both sides encroaching into the penalty box before the ball has

been kicked. . . oh, and also players breaking early from the wall for a free kick. Those actions all

break a law but referees and linesmen miss them again and again and again. In fact, it s become

so commonplace that most TV commentators dont even pick up on them any more. And, worst of

all , sometimes teams are penalised and sometimes not. Therein lies the problem: inconsistency.

Referees have proved (because theyre human, lets be fair) that they cant get all these deci-

sions right. So where does that leave us? Put a microchip in the ball? Great, that solves the

problem of knowing if the ball crossed the line for a goal (which is relevant once every 40-50

matches, lets be honest) and maybe it can help with offsides. But what technology will helpwith shirt-pulling, handballs or moving before a free kick or penalty is taken? Well, theres one

technology that will help with everything: TV replays! The question is how will it work? At no

cost to FIFA or football , here is a gift from The Ball the blueprint for solving refereeing errors

and inconsistencies.

BUT FIRST...

English referee Howard Webb made a gesture to a Man City player during their 1-1 draw with

Stoke, tapping his finger on his head and giving a knowing look. Within 10 seconds of that live

interplay between ref and player the TV crew had isolated that piece of footage (which wasnt

shown on the live footage they had spotted it on their bank of TV monitors) and were playing

THAT bit back in perfectly timed slo-mo. It made for beautiful TV . . . but, I have to ask, if the TV

crews are so good with finding and replaying different angles so quickly to keep their audience


SWINGS & ROUNDABOUTS

How often do you hear people

claim that decisions balance out?

But do they? Man City captain

Vincent Kompany should have

been sent off twice for danger-

ous tackles in 2012 but he got

away with it in matches City were

winning. Both tackles were in the

final 10 minutes. If hed been red-

carded it wouldnt have impacted

on the match. Then he was red-

carded in the first 15 minutes

against Man United in the FACup, arguably a close call . Play-

ing 75 minutes with 10 men is a

major disadvantage compared to

losing a man for the last 10 min-

utes of a match youre winning.

Regardless of whether Kompany

deserved red or not against Man

United, this indicates how things

dont necessarily even out, and

why we simply need more cor-

rect decisions. It s only fair.

C a l l u s f o r a f r e e a n a l y s i s o f y o u r p h o t o c o p i e r a n d P A B X n e e d s .


25/36

entertained, then why dont we just use them to find the relevant bit of TV footage to replay to

help referees make the right decisions? TV crews have fine-tuned this skill to an art form... so

why do we try and invent another system when we could use their existing skil ls and facilit ies

instead? The only reasonable objection is time-wasting.. . so lets look at The Balls blueprint for

a solution to this problem.

THE BALL BLUEPRINT FOR THE BEAUTIFUL GAME

There will be a TV referee who watches the match and selected replay footage and he has the

authority to overrule the onfield referee on any decision. However, to prevent massive time de-

lays, this TV ref only has a 10-second buffer during which time he can pick up mistakes or errors

and notify the onfield ref. This will ensure the system is speedy because if the TV ref cant spot

a clear and definite mistake after watching 2-3 quick replays then its not an obvious error and

the decision from the onfield referee and line officials stands. Logistically the buffer might need

to be 15 seconds, but in essence the TV ref will just watch 2-3 replays and if theres no clear

error then the onfield decision stands and play is not halted. This system will remove all obviousand glaring errors from the game with immediate effect.

SO WHATS OUR TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION?

Immediately, from Euro 2012 we should have a TV referee in place with the following powers:

For penalty kicks, the TV referee has a 10-second buffer in which to notify the onfield referee

of a mistake. If a goal is scored then, while the players rush off to hug by the corner flag, the TV

referee can quickly review the kick to see if any of the following laws were broken:

a) Did the keeper move before the kick was taken?

b) Were any attackers encroaching on the goal area?

c) Did the ball cross the line (only for very rare instances)?

Honestly, watching at home on PVR you should be able to tell within 10 seconds on your own


A LEAF OUT OF RUGBYS

LAW BOOK

During the Ireland-England Six

Nations match the ref blew for

a penalty but England played ad-

vantage to score a try. The ref

asked the linesman for his opin-

ion, but he couldnt see conclu-

sively. Result? He didnt worry

about egos, so he called the TV

ref and asked him live to rule on

the decision. Result? A 100 per-

cent correct decision reached

fairly quickl y. Show me the fan orplayer whos unhappy about that

decision? Stopping the clock in

rugby avoids t ime-wasting, but

with soccers 10-second buffer

there would be no time wasted. A

further benefit is that rugby play-

ers get a breather when theres

a delay for their TV ref. . . and that

gives them time to recharge and

come back fresher and maybe

also review their tactics.



26/36

if the keeper moved early or if players were inside the box before the ball was kicked. With

broacastings high-tech systems it will be easy. So no time is wasted and no errors happen.

If the penalty kick is saved or is missed (hits the post or misses the goal altogether) and the

ball goes out for a corner or a goalki ck, then the TV refs 10-second buffer wont waste any time.

He simply signals an error before play restarts. No time is wasted and no errors slip through.

If the kick is saved or hits the woodwork and goes back into play, then a live-action 10-second

buffer is in place. In such instances, play will continue and the TV ref has 10 seconds in which

to spot any infringement or movement. If he is certain of an error then he notifies the onfield

referee and overrules the decision. The match is then stopped and the kick is taken again. Only

10 seconds of play are then wasted. Thats far from a Greek Tragedy if it helps us get the

right decisions and, think about it , sometimes when a foul is committed play goes on for about

10 seconds anyway until the referee notices the lines judge flagging. So a 10-second buffer is,

in effect, part of the game anyway already. In fact, well lose less time with this system as thereferee usually takes 30 seconds to a minute to notice the linesman flagging and then consulting

with him, while chasing away the arguing players. Usually 10-30 seconds are wasted... and thats

stil l more than if we used the TV referee with a 10-second buffer.

One further benefit is that the TV referee would have a clear and unbiased view and would only

make a decision if it s a clear error. Players often argue with the referee about a decision for

10-30 seconds in the hope that the referee will doubt himsel f or consult his lines judge to change

his mind. However, with a TV ref overruling wrong decisions theres nothing players can do be-

cause they dont have access to the TV referee and, besides, because he has a clear TV view

and the chance to view a replay or two, it s obvious that hel l be ensuring the right decision is

being made. No more onfield arguing.


PENALTY KICKS

In The Four Finals (theball.co.za)

The Ball highlighted how, in

the 2005 FA Cup final penalty

shootout, the keepers were off

their line for five out of the 10

kicks and the penalty that was

saved saw the keeper well off his

line before it was kicked. A TV

ref could have overruled it in an

instant. In the 2005 Champions

League final that Liverpool won,

both keepers were off their line

four times before the kick wastaken... with three being saved.

They should have been retaken.

Watch any match and youll see

keepers moving forward early

and players entering the penalty

area too soon, even with the ref

and a linesman standing close

by. The major problem, however,

is that only sometimes the ref

blows for a retake. . . and thats

then inconsistent! Big problem.

H i - t e c h C C T V s y s t e m s 4 , 8 o r 1 6 c h a n n e l w w w . a d v a n c e d t e l c o m s . c o . z a


27/36

How much better would football be without the wasted time of players harassing the referee ... not

to mention improving the image of the game because players will end up arguing less as it WILL

be pointless. Honestly, that alone is really enough of an argument to get this change instituted.

In addition, for Euro 2012 the TV referee will be able to alert the onfield referee if the ball

crossed the goal-line or not. This is a quick, easy decision to make using a replay and has a huge

impact on a match. . . so it s green-lighted from now on by The Ball for all televised matches.

WHAT DO WE DO FOR WORLD CUP 2022?

After 10 years of using the TV ref in the beautiful game everyone will accept its presence and

applaud it . Then well be ready for the next step. For World Cup 2022 well give the referees help

with one of their most difficult decisions offsides.

Offsides is an awful rule. It was brought about largely to stop players loitering down by the goal-

keeper waiting for a long clearance kick. It was from a different era. Do we need it today? TheBall believes we dont . If anything, it spoils the beautiful game. If a team wants to waste a player

by letting him hang around in the opposition half then they should be allowed to and an added

benefit is that it l l spread the field, leaving the midfield less congested and giving teams scope

to play with greater flair.

The Ball would do away with offsides, as it also breaks down play, stops the action and calls

a halt to exciting moves. What is especially awful is when a player is marginally offside in a

crowded penalty box. Really? Is that a trainsmash? It ruins the game by preventing goals, which

is what the crowd are after. If scrapping offsides is too big a step then what about ruling that

players can only be offsides between the halfway line and the oppositions penalty box? If the

ball is past the line of the penalty circle then players can stand anywhere. How exciting will

football be then with extra daring crosses and runs into the box?


YELLOW AND RED CARDS

For red cards the TV ref should

have a 30-second buffer to view

a replay and tell the onfield ref-

eree what he saw. Players dont

leave the field in under 30 sec-

onds, so it wouldnt delay the

match. For yellow cards, if the

TV ref can see a mistake then let

him over-rule it . You dont even

have to stop play the TV re f

can inform the onfield ref within

a 30-second buffer and (at the

next break in play), he can givea signal to show that the yellow

card has been rescinded. Players

wont argue with the ref need-

lessly or tactically theyll know

that if the ref has made an error

its likely to be over-ruled by the

TV ref. So, as a result , any direct

arguing with the ref is an auto-

matic yellow card. That will save

time and improve the image of

the game. Its a no-brainer.

U s e C C T V f o r r e c o r d i n g s p o r t s m a t c h e s a n d t r a i n i n g 0 2 1 - 7 6 2 - 9 7 1 5


28/36

That is the recommendation and the passionate plea of The Ball. . .

but knowing that will have too much opposition well also table the

following option for World Cup 2022 for the offsides rule:

The linesmen raises his flag to signal an offside decision. . . but the

referee waves play on.

As play continues, the TV ref instantly reviews the offside deci-

sions and has his 10-second buffer in which to inform the onfield

ref if it WAS offsides. No train smash and

almost no wasted time.

With offside calls there is usually a good de-

gree of moaning to the linesman and the ref-

eree. Well, if players know that the decision is

being confirmed either way by a referee watch-

ing a TV replay there will be nothing for them

to argue about. So well save more time thereand ALSO improve the image of the sport.

The offside rule is monumentally difficult for

the ref and linesman to call and it s tough for

them considering all the criticism they receive. . .

especially with the high-tech TV coverage that

gives the whole world a better view of each

decision than the ref has.

SHOULD WE TALK ABOUT EURO 2032?

For Euro 2032 The Ball would implement the

following changes:

Corner-kick and goal-kick decisions will be reviewed by the TV

ref in a 10-second buffer to see if he can spot a deflection off the

goalkeeper, defender or an attacking player. Have you ever seen a

corner-kick or a goal-kick taken quicker than 10 seconds after the

ball went out of play? So there would be no wasted time or delays.

How often do teams score from a corner when they shouldnt have

had it? What about when a team earned a corner but a goal-kick

was awarded? They lose out on a good goal-

scoring opportunity. Result? Greater fair-

ness and consistency using TV replays. . . and

football wil l be the winner.

If a goal is scored then, while the players

celebrate for 30-seconds-plus, the TV re f

uses a 30-second buffer (while the playersare hugging and kissing!) to check for shirt-

pulling, the ball crossing the line and even

handballs. Result? No chance of any obvi-

ous or glaring errors slipping through, and

no time delays beyond whats happening on

the field of play. And, again, if a decision is

overruled or upheld, then the players arent

going to argue because they know a TV re -

play is auditing the onfield ref.

In addition, what will start happening is that

players will stop il legally pulling shirts and


Man Citys Mario Balotelli has rarely been

seen to miss a penalty kick, but even so, see

how the Sporting Lisbon players encroached

on the penalty box before he took his spot

kick in their Europa League clash. This sort

of encroachment happens in more than half of

penalties taken. The TV ref can pick these up

easily, which will ensure players stop doing

this as they know theyll be spotted. Hope-

fully that new attitutude will roll over on to

untelevised matches at all levels as well.

A c c e s s t h e V o I P n e t w o r k s c h e a p e r c a l l r a t e s f o r b i g s a v i n g s .


29/36

all sorts of other infringements because theyl l know theres litt le

chance of them getting away with it.

So, overall, it will just take us 20 years

from today to have a system in place that

involves no extra technology other than

the TV cameras and broadcast crews that

are already in place. No controversy, play-

ers happier, fans happier. . . and referees

not blamed for defeats or branded cheats.

Sounds good? Well, the even better news

is that we dont need to wait 20 years for

this situation. This could all be implement-

ed in time for Euro 2012.

Now aint that exciting!?

POST-SCRIPT: PENALTY SAVES

The African Nations Cup saw a ridicu-

lous amount of inconsistency with penalty

kicks but we see it equally in the Bar-

clays Premier League, La Liga and Serie

A matches. Ghanas Asamoah Gyan had a

penalty saved by Zambian keeper Kennedy

Mweene in the semi-final when the keeper

moved before the kick was taken. At that

stage of the match if the penalty had been

retaken and they had scored then possibly the stronger Ghana side

would have swept home to victory. As it happened , Zambia put on a

great fight and pulled off a shock 1-0 win

to go through to the final. It was great for

sport.. . but Ghana were theoretically hard

done by.

In the final, Zambia were putting up a brave

fight but the powerful Ivory Coast side

were looking dominant. Another penalty.. .

and this time Ivory Coasts reliable Didier

Drogba blasted it over the bar. Again Zam-

bias keeper moved before the kick was

taken, so that penalty should have been

retaken. Brave Zambia kept fighting andtook the match to a penalty shootout

where one of the first few kicks was re-

taken because the linesman spotted the

keeper moving. However, the same lines-

man then missed five other kicks where

the keeper moved. And not even the com-

mentators mentioned these, despite the

ref having blown up for one such infringe-

ment! If keepers know their move WILL

be picked up and a kick taken again then

theyre NOT going to risk infringing. Soccer

will then be a more beautiful game.


Even with linesmen standing right next to the keep-

er for penalty kicks they still time after time are un-

able or unwilling to flag for a retake when the keep-

er has moved. Of course its difficult to actually be

looking in two places at the same time but thats

where the TV ref will be foolproof. Anyone can tell

on one TV replay if the keeper moved before the kick

was taken. Carlos Tevez miserable start to the sea-

son might well have been improved had be rightly

been given the chance to retake his missed pen-

alty against Wigan (above) which the keeper saved

thanks to a giant step forward and across before

Tevez had kicked the ball.

C a l l F I F A t o c o m p l a i n a t 5 7 c e n t s a m i n u t e o n p e r s e c o n d b i l l i n g .

P tt P t


30/36

Pretty poor, ProteasYou should neve r, ev er discount the ab il it y and threat of a New

Zealand cricket side, for they are a resolute bunch of cricketers

and usually possess two or three high-quality players. But the

might of the Proteas should be enough to put the Kiwi challenge

to bed over a five-day Test. So why the draw in Dunedin?

For me, the key point is that we failed to amass a really big first

innings total to put the Kiwis on the back foor from the start. The

first innings of a Test can, of course, prove tricky as the batsmen

get to grips with the pitch although in this 1st Test Smith and

Amla had set a solid foundation by each notching 50s to leave the

Proteas sitting pretty. Almost in a flash South Africa were in a spot

of bother, six down for around 150 with Jacques Kallis and AB de

Villiers back in the hut for ducks. Yeah, it can happen to anyone

but The Ball was a little concerned about the manner of their dis-

missal and how it impacted on the rest of the Test, as it allowed

New Zealand to gain the upper-hand. Now, this isnt any form of

attack on the batsmen in question The Balls aim is to educate

sports fans and players to achieve a deeper understanding of sport

as a whole, as well as to empower players at all levels to think

about the game in greater detail and the easiest way to do th

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	simon-lewis
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

The Ball magazine, 7 April 2012

Documents