Uefa’s handling of the Eduardo affair has, to put it mildly, been both unprofessional and totally predictable. The fact that Platini and his motley crew ended up acting in haste and repenting at leisure will have come as no surprise to Chelsea fans aware of the ’previous’ connected with both man and organisation, but for would-be innovative thinkers interested in the Europa League experiment going on at the moment it must have come as a shock to realise that the plug could be pulled on it at any moment. That’s Uefa radicalism for you - here today, gone tomorrow - unless, of course, child trafficking is part of the problem needing to be solved and FIFA require backing to their flaky hilt.

Knee-jerk describes the Platini approach in this diving instance and as Eduardo’s antics are commonplace in the game the analogy with involuntary action is appropriate. In this case Uefa felt obliged, like a TV Chef, to rustle up something quickly, but it proved to be instantly unpalatable and fawning restaurant critics didn’t like the look of the dish even as it was being wheeled to their table. Initial media claptrap such as the following put forward by Patrick Barclay in the Times… that Uefa have broken Fifa regulations…that players will now hound the referee and demand yellow cards…that more, not less, dirty tricks will be seen from now on… led to almost instant withdrawal from the menu and all as a result [in the main] of the degradation of retrospective decision making that cameras and video evidence bring to the party. In short, Wenger’s calculated and wholly anticipated support for his player has encouraged shoulder-shruggers like Barclay to come out of the woodwork to argue that the problem, if there is one [because nobody knows for sure if Eduardo dived] is unsolvable.

Of course, the final Enfield-esque ’if that’s what you want, that’s what you’ll get’ argument from these appeasers is based on the dire warning of constant referral that Wenger, in his initial fit of pique, threatened to use ad nauseam. The slightest form of contact is always a help to a diver, never a hindrance, as with a decent(?) lawyer seeking the killer technicality in a get out clause, and Platini has made life far from easy for himself by rejecting, right across the board, the use of definitive video evidence. In its place we have the Europa experiment where over-egging the official human pudding is favoured, thereby inviting a continual bleat, during and after games, rather than some form of instant retribution or rejection of claim. This is akin to Scotland Yard forgoing fingerprints and DNA in favour of another Bobby on the Beat, or throwing full support behind Howard Webb because he’s the nearest thing we have to Miss Marple and, if experience of human life in St Mary Mead means you don’t get away with murder, the same must apply to footballers on a football pitch.

Well, no it doesn’t, at least not in the real world and, more to the point, not in almost every other major sport worldwide. In fact, technology has been embraced to such an extent that we now have Hawkeye making decisions on ins and outs and tries being awarded by video without so much as a second glance towards the loss of so-called ’human experience’. Why football in Platini and Blatterland should be a special case remains a mystery and it will do so for as long as bull-at-a-gate thinking and self interest rule the roost in high places. Richard Scudamore is, in my opinion, exempt from similar criticism and, as the Premier League chief executive, he has shown signs of appreciating the level of responsibility on his shoulders to get things right. Just how much he is tied into the other governing bodies’ apparent ineptitude isn’t really clear to me, but if the Premier League could somehow go it alone on this matter it should do so because the proper use of technology to sort out diving/cheating in the game HAS to be an essential element, if for no other reason than to reduce the burden of guilt and responsibility on officials and silence people like me who have grown to mistrust the individual decision making of, for want of a better example, a referee like Tom Henning Ovrebo.

Indeed, this has to be the starting point for any plan and so it is for mine - The Dorset Easy Guide To Improving Football At The Highest Level - an unwieldy title for a hitherto unwieldy problem, but it is one that can [should] be solved as soon as possible with video evidence at its hub and conscience over referral as its controlling factor. The first two elements of the plan are sacrosanct and given below:-

1. A decision by the referee that a player has dived, resulting in him being penalised, should be immediately open to challenge by that player and thereafter formally by the captain of his team.

2. A decision by the referee that a player has not dived, in circumstances where the opposing team believe he has, should also be open to immediate challenge by the captain of that opposing team.

The obvious flaw in both rules is the likelihood of constant hounding of officials and this would need to be addressed by applying a successful referral doctrine, such as the one used in tennis, thus:-

Both decisions, unlike those within the general jurisdiction of the referee, would be subject to immediate referral [by the referee] to an official who, unlike those now being asked to add their judgement of Solomon to decisions from a vantage point behind the goals [which might just as well be from the front rows of a stand], will be sitting in judgment using the far more forensically suitable video evidence of the incident. The team requesting such a referral would be able to do so on one occasion only in any match, but if the official found in favour of that team’s referral it would be reinstated [as with tennis, except that there are three referrals per player per set]

The natural consequence of the referral ruling would be that the captain, like the tennis player of the modern era, is unlikely to insist on a frivolous referral for fear of losing it, even in those ’I’ve seen ’em given’ red card or penalty situations. The other side of the coin would be that the referee, having seen a referral upheld, would simply have to accept it and knuckle down to an improved performance [as they do without whimper in tennis] rather than go through the usual go-away-arm-wavy-in-denial procedure that so annoys players, managers and fans alike. Perhaps the best way to illustrate the benefits of such a system in action is to relate the current most public-eyed incident, the Eduardo dive, to a Uefa world in which it has been adopted and then imagine the consequences compared to the Europa experiment we have at the moment. My take on the respective outcomes is as follows…

Under referral, assuming the referee made the same decision to award the penalty, the Celtic skipper would have had no hesitation in challenging the decision, forcing the referee to act and, bearing in mind Uefa’s real life initial two match ban, we’d have to assume that an individual’s decision on the night would have been that Eduardo had dived and the referral upheld. This would have been the right verdict, in my opinion, with Celtic retaining their referral, probably seeing Eduardo booked for his actions as well, and the whole procedure could be dealt with as speedily as any mulling over of an event between referee and his assistant. Also, imagining circumstances where the referee had waved play on, I doubt that the Arsenal captain would have risked a referral of his own, so blatant did the fall seem to be to most of us watching, and I’m guessing that an additional benefit of the system would be an immediate end to the constant chasing and surrounding of officials so despised by the Media when we do it and ignored by them when others pull the same stunt - the obvious response being if you feel that bad about a decision, why not use your referral? I imagine Howard Webb would have said much the same thing to Keane on Sunday, as he brandished an imaginary card in his face - and how much better for all concerned that would have been!

Now compare the Celtic scenario with the five [Mr] bean salad under review in the Europa League and you can instantly appreciate that in the majority of cases the official behind the goal is unlikely to go against the referee’s judgement call, definitive as it always is, and this will be despite the hounding of the ref by Celtic players, which would go on unabated and unresolved - a clear example, if ever there was one, of spreading the blame for a poor decision, thereby trying to lessen the impact. Here again, had the referee waved play on [correctly], the risk is run that an officious [behind the goal] helper, under deluded and aggrieved pressure from Eduardo plus team mates, might buckle or want to make a name for himself. Okay, this is unlikely, but if it occurred there would be conflict between officials, players (and undoubtedly the crowd) leading to complete mayhem due directly to the original decision being reversed without the perceived certainty of cameras [that don’t lie] or video evidence that, if I’m not mistaken, can be slowed to provide superior evidence to the naked eye in a split second.

Still unconvinced of the plan’s suitability? Well, let’s look at the worst that could happen and start with the video evidence proving unclear or inconclusive. Unclear is no worse than the usual referee’s unsighted excuse and, if anything, slightly better due to no blame being attached to the official on the pitch, a blame that generally festers for the rest of the game. Inconclusive may well become the standard cop out which would have previously been the sole responsibility and territory of the referee to explain away, sadly only to players direct and not a crowd growing ever more mental at his inability to see what they saw - how much better to have the inconclusiveness of video evidence as a buffer to a baying crowd. Indeed, so sure am I of the improvement in this area I’m guessing that it wouldn’t be too long before football was crying out to extend the referral ruling to encompass all contentious decisions involving not only penalties, but also cautions made [or needing to be made] by the referee. The latest Mascherano mugging at Leeds, if acted upon by the Leeds captain under referral, would not have been ignored, let alone been ruled as inconclusive in any way, and the importance of an immediate decision being made (a red card in this case) would have been highlighted rather than our having to log yet another of his unaddressed crimes.

For those penalty claims where diving is not an issue we need only refer to the test case buried deep in Uefa’s denial briefcase for us and the use of video evidence, namely our very own horror video against Barcelona. First up - was Ashley inside or outside the box? - Tom said outside and gave a free kick accordingly, although under a new referral regime, and in JT’s position, you would have had a punt on him being mistaken. Lo and behold, video evidence would have proved you right and a quiet word through the mic along the lines of ’you are going to have to award a penalty Mr Ovrebo’ would have seen us well on our way, although maybe I’ve stumbled upon the first analysis flaw - who at Uefa would ever have uttered those words? Still, not to do so would have risked ridicule primarily because taking the referral away for being unfounded or inconclusive would surely not have been an option, even for Uefa. I wont even mention the second half handball incident other than to refer honourable gentleman to the reply given above.

Finally, there is the ‘only one referral’ criticism [if you could call it a criticism] but I’d contend that dramatic injustices would be rare and anticipate some terrace involvement here with the crowd letting rip with a ’Re-fer Re-fer’ chant when sure of success whilst getting stuck into the opposition, should it go wrong for them, with a chorus of ’One Re-fer and you ****ed it up’. Captains would soon become streetwise over referral too, thereby lessening the petty squabbling and mock horror at decisions, as they would obviously know what was needed should they wish to avoid jeopardising their one genuine opportunity to reverse the serious error that always seems to arise in a referee’s performance these days - and just for the sake of pursuing the merely mundane. In any event, it would all add to the new fun of the fairness and go towards increasing pressure on Uefa and FIFA to act in a spirit of openness, as so many other sports have done by taking this eminently sensible route.

Dorset, the system you describe is a bit like what they have in the NFL with "challenges". Each coach has a challenge in either half to use. If they use it, and their point is upheld, they keep it. If they fail with it, they lose it and get charged a timeout (which are valuable to gameplay). Maybe a punishment for a frivilous challenge could be loss of a sub, or a yellow to the captain.

Eitherway, well thought out idea and well written. I agree totally that there has to be an official with a 'bird's eye view' in the booth because too much is being missed every game.

The Dorset Plan actually has a ring to it, too

So Dorset, to summarise: you support of the use of technology by refs.

PS - should we expect a retraction from you in the future on the "decency" of lawyers in the event that Chels' lawyers win in the CAS?

can you submit that to uefa/fifa/the fa?

even if they have discussed video technology, i doubt they would have the intelligence to put forward such a compelling argument

even if they have discussed video technology, i doubt they would have the intelligence to put forward such a compelling argument

I doubt they have the intelligence to read all of that, let alone digest the information contained within.

So Dorset, to summarise: you support of the use of technology by refs.

PS - should we expect a retraction from you in the future on the "decency" of lawyers in the event that Chels' lawyers win in the CAS?

I apologise for the flippant dig at lawyers, youlots, accepting the response in the friendly spirit [i can only assume] it was given. Correct, I do support the use of technology by refs, as you were probably quick to spot and no doubt equally eager to acknowledge in your one liner. Pity that was the extent of the reply, other than the reference to the Kakuta case, of course.

I’ll respond, even though you are far better qualified to predict the outcome than I am, by pointing out that any court appearance success for the club and Kakuta will no doubt hinge on the quality of the lawyers argument, which in turn will have to be thorough and, I assume, quite lengthy, otherwise it is likely to be dismissed out of hand. I sincerely hope they do not go in there relying on a summary, as that would be no good at all - might just as well plead guilty if you’re Brief is going to keep it too brief. What say you and, whilst you’re at it, how do you feel about the “decency†of the diving issue?

I apologise for the flippant dig at lawyers, youlots, accepting the response in the friendly spirit [i can only assume] it was given. Correct, I do support the use of technology by refs, as you were probably quick to spot and no doubt equally eager to acknowledge in your one liner. Pity that was the extent of the reply, other than the reference to the Kakuta case, of course.

I’ll respond, even though you are far better qualified to predict the outcome than I am, by pointing out that any court appearance success for the club and Kakuta will no doubt hinge on the quality of the lawyers argument, which in turn will have to be thorough and, I assume, quite lengthy, otherwise it is likely to be dismissed out of hand. I sincerely hope they do not go in there relying on a summary, as that would be no good at all - might just as well plead guilty if you’re Brief is going to keep it too brief. What say you and, whilst you’re at it, how do you feel about the “decency†of the diving issue?

Told to me by a lawyer friend:

Jimmy: My dad's a brain surgeon!

Bobby: Really?

Jimmy You bet!

Bobby: Well my dad's a top lawyer!

Jimmy: Honest?

Bobby: No, just a regular one!

:(

On a serious note, is Platini so dense that he cannot see how he's bringing his office into disrepute by:

1. Not accepting technology in the match which every TV viewer has around the world has (i.e., slo-mo replay)

2. Trying to wriggle around this stubborness by knee jerk after-the-fact bans/withdrawls?

What's going on here? Is he being held to ransom by a secret Ref's cabal?

I like the system described here. Formal, easy to understand and, more importantly, geared towards a peaceful and responsible settlement of dispute. You should submit this, Dorset.

Edited September 26, 200915 yr by d-vder

I'm with you an indecent 100% on the diving issue Dorset & the challenge theory has much to commend it. Didn't wish to appear flippant - a bit transfixed by the Kakuta legalities though at present.

As for the lawyer jokes - well there just aren't enough (good ones) going around for my liking...