Is it the beginning of the end for the Beautiful Game?

A recent sports news item in The Times caught my attention.

During a Brazilian Championship match between Boavista and Botafogo, striker Alessandro headed goalwards but the ball bounced wide of goal yet entered the net because there was a hole in it.

Television replays (which the officials could not view) clearly showed it was not a goal. Heated discussions ensued during which the referee twice indicated he had accepted the Botafogo goal. Finally, after ten minutes he decided it was not a goal.

It recalled to my mind an incident, roughly 50 years ago, when I was watching a match between my home town team Sliema Wanderers and Birkirkara at the Empire Stadium.

In those days, my late uncle Eddie lived in an apartment conveniently situated behind what was known as "the Floriana side" and I avidly watched most matches from the roof-top.

The referee was the affable and still-administratively active Joseph Cassar Naudi.

The Wanderers were attacking "the Floriana side" when a powerful shot entered the net and shot out again because there was a hole in it. Situated directly behind the goal, from a lofty position, I clearly saw it was a legitimate goal. Cassar Naudi - despite the strong protests of the Sliema players - refused to validate the goal and pointed to a goal-kick.

The referee was in no way at fault, having been some distance from play and only having the privilege of ground-level viewing. It was just one of those things.

Nowadays, assistant referees must check nets at the start of the match and on the resumption, and most do.

In those days, as today, all matches were full of such incidents - dubious penalties, wrongly flagged offsides, fouls that went unchecked and 50-50 decisions that were awarded to one player or his opponent.

Fortunately, those were early days for TV and no coverage existed and the beauty was that, more often than not, one could not be sure of what exactly happened.

Occasionally, a top-class photographer, like my former colleague Frank Attard, would capture an incident by using his expert intuition and furiously clicking his camera to capture a sequence of actions.

One such piece of expertise by Attard concerned an FA Trophy final replay in 1959 between Sliema and Valletta. The Wanderers took a corner, the ball lofted into the Valletta area and Sliema centre-forward, the late "Jockey" Xuereb, rose to head the ball home for the only goal of the match.

Valletta were deprived of a first-ever Triple Crown but controversy raged.

Had Xuereb headed the ball home cleanly, or was it a Diego Maradona "Hand of God" forerunner?

Pictures taken by Attard and published in The Times of Malta a few days later threw further fuel on the fire. It appeared that Xuereb had bundled the ball home with a hand.

Those were the good old days. Arguments between rival supporters stretched on for days on end but the ultimate conclusion was always "doubt" and uncertainty, often very much dependent for a conclusion on whether one felt elated or aggrieved.

That mysticism has now been taken out of football, forever.

When RAI introduced the infamous "moviola" during the early 1970s, the writing began to appear on the wall.

Just as Attard had sometimes exposed issues with sequence pictures, RAI used the same technique on TV footage with strategic enhancements. A live sequence could be viewed over and over again, slowed or sped as required. More importantly, a plethora of cameras could shoot actions from a variety of angles.

This opened a massive gateway to trial by TV. However, avid fans and critics are harsh judges. Whilst a striker missing an open goal, a defender misdirecting a backpass or a goalkeeper misjudging a cross can be excused and overlooked, mistakes by officials cause anger and chagrin.

The new development further exacerbated the plight of officials... the whole status of the game was changed beyond recognition.

Knowing that a season's success or failure could be down to a refereeing error obviously causes deep resentment and is often the downfall of many a manager's bitter criticism.

Watching the English Premier League recently and following my favoured team fighting its way in the relegation mire, the last two of three matches were decisively settled on:

(a) an incorrect penalty decision when the fouling action had taken place outside the penalty area. That penalty ten minutes from time proved to be the 2-1 winner for the opponents;

(b) a very dubious penalty awarded against when there was hardly any contact between defender and attacker and ended 1-1 as the favoured team netted the equaliser also a few minutes from time; and

(c) the most recent incident when the ball was headed goalward and was blatantly blocked on the line by a defender's hand, an action that should have resulted in a penalty and a red card but was not seen by the match officials. Fortunately, that did not affect the final result.

Adriano's handsball

Even more recently, Inter's Adriano clearly handled the ball into the Milan net during the derby and the goal was accepted by both referee and his assistant.

Had these incidents happened 50 years ago, I would have remained uncertain and, perhaps, slightly perturbed that I was being judgementally biased. In 2009, I am certain these were injustices that could determine the season's final outcome because I have seen the naked truth over and over again.

In short, the whole mystery of football has been lifted beyond redemption.

Previously, we saw these actions but we were not 100 per cent sure about them because there was no possibility of recall. Today, we can see these actions over and over again and remove all doubt. That can leave a very bad taste of disillusionment.

Are referees and assistant referees at fault?

The decisive answer is a pronounced "no". Officials are unfortunate victims.

The game is fast and furious and a referee only has two eyes and can only focus in one direction. His decision is based on an instant on-the-spot analysis. He has no benefit of slow motion replays.

Frequent are the calls for the introduction of a system of "video referees" where the official can call a momentary halt and view a television replay. But, this is impractical and should never be implemented.

Primarily, which actions are to be reviewed? Should it be all penalty decisions? Will it include all actions concerning players being offside or onside? Will it also include all on-the-line incidents, or decisions concerning red-card incidents?

In addition, which range of matches will be allowed to benefit from a "video referee" system? Where does one draw the line?

Football is known as "the Beautiful Game" because that is what it is and it became that because it has always been based on universality.

Whether one is watching a World Cup final or an impromptu game between amateur enthusiasts at any level, the rules are one-and-the-same applicable.

Are we now going to have a sport of different tiers?

If that happens, the outcome will be disastrous and will take the lure and competitiveness out of football. Television has proved to be a great boon to football. Yet, it is also proving to be the bane of the game.

It has been instrumental in creating rampant inflation of astronomic transfer fees, enormous wages and crippling expenses to many clubs.

Above all, it has taken the lure and mystery out of a game that was previously shrouded in the furore of speculation and has watered it down to the certainty that an official has made a glaring error and has therefore decisively changed the pattern and outcome of the game.

When the great Bill Shankly was once asked whether football had become a matter of life or death his immediate off-the-cuff reply was: "No, it's more important than that".

If he were still alive today, would he give the same reply? I wonder.

Note: Albert Fenech is a former The Times of Malta Assistant Sports Editor. He is currently the Malta FA's Media Department Publications Officer. The views expressed in this article are entirely his own.