Sunday 6 March 2016

SNITCHING Cincuenta


So video technology is to be trialled and then, possibly, introduced just prior to hell freezing over.

We first called for the use of video technology to undermine matchfixing in January 2007  http://footballisfixed.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/using-technology-to-prevent-corruption.html
That is an awful lot of money made via corruption before the first live trials next season or the one after.

The primary argument has always based itself around "the sanctity" of the referee - when many referees are owned, coerced or are willing participants with mafia groups, the state or quality of being holy, sacred or saintly is a misnomer of significant consequence.

Not included in the mainstream media slant on this story is the knowledge that the football rule book is being pruned from 22,000 words to 12,000 to give referees more autonomy.

Some further points:

1) The introduction of the technology will not allow managers to challenge decisions as in cricket and tennis. Why?
Self-referencing is no regulation.

2) Offsides will not be included despite being virtually instant. Why?
Assistant referees are targeted for corruption in more mature corrupt markets like La Liga.

3) Technology won't aid referees get the 10 yard rule for free kicks right (witness Jon Moss helping Leicester City at Watford with 8 yard free kicks for the hosts). Why?

4) It has not been announced whether the fans and television audience will be able to hear the deliberations as in cricket and rugby. Why?
At the moment, the Match Centres in England, Spain and Germany allow communication between referees and invisible overseers. Keeping the corruption in a private loop will not change a thing.

5) In cricket, only T20 matches and games involving India don't allow video technology (for result randomisation and betting mafia purposes respectively) and the new private leagues e.g. European Super League will be able to ignore the use of technology if they so wish. Why?

6) The fatuous argument put forward by the likes of Michel Platini that technology couldn't be used as it could not be replicated at the lower strata of the game has been quietly shelved (having served its delaying purpose). Why?
Such a consideration had no impact on the use of technology in cricket, tennis or rugby and, moreover, how many schools games have no refereeing assistants, 4th official or league match centre miked up to the referee. So why weren't these developments banned?

Out of 22 matches in the Premier League, La Liga, Serie A and Bundesliga to date this weekend, 11 had their outcome in the dark pool betting markets pre-match i.e. they were rigged events.

Just think of how many billions of pounds have been shared around the matchfixing family since we first called for the implementation of video technology over 9 years ago.