Harry Redknapp proffers solution to cheating in Football. Do you support him?

Say a referee is unsure whether, for instance a goal has been scored with a hand. He asks the player if it was indeed handball. If the player admits to an offence, it's a free-kick to the other side and no card is given. But if he says no offence was committed and TV replays later proved he was lying, then he should be hammered with a FIVE-MATCH ban and NO appeal on the sentence.

IT'S said the camera never lies. Well I think it's time to find out if players are big enough never to tell porkies as well.
Time and again players are caught by video replays breaking the rules when the referee has missed the offence.

There's the penalty that got away or was given, the punch that hit but was missed or the handball that was never seen by the man in the middle.

But there it is for all to witness later on, with blame being heaped on the ref for cocking up and even louder demands for the villains to be punished after the event.

Well, here is an idea to help stamp out cheating in football - why don't we just ASK players whether they are guilty or not?

It's simple, it's direct and not as daft as some might think it is.

I can hear you saying if players have already cheated, then they would lie about it too.

Well, I have a nasty little sting in the tail.

Say a referee is unsure whether, for instance a goal has been scored with a hand. He asks the player if it was indeed handball.

If the player admits to an offence, it's a free-kick to the other side and no card is given.

But if he says no offence was committed and TV replays later proved he was lying, then he should be hammered with a FIVE-MATCH ban and NO appeal on the sentence.

A few years back, I can remember Robbie Fowler wagging his finger in the air when the referee gave a penalty in his favour and the former England striker had the decision overturned.

Wouldn't it be great if EVERY player demonstrated such honesty?

I'm told this idea of asking players has already been part of an experiment trialled in Germany but with a three-game ban the punishment.

I'd hit players harder than that, to make sure their absence damaged the team because of their fibs.

Asking players if a penalty is just or a foul has been committed is something that routinely goes on at my training ground all the time.

It's impossible to keep up with the pace of play - the switch from defence to attack is lightning quick and unlike at Premier League stadiums, we don't have the use of instant video playback.

This is where I feel fourth officials should be of use, rather than telling managers they are half a yard outside the technical area.

For the life of me, I don't understand why video technology is not used to help officials reach decision DURING games.

Retrospective punishments are fine by me but why not dish out the punishment immediately, so the offending team are hit on the day?

Robert Huth wasn't punished by the referee when his arm caught Matthew Upson of West Ham when they were at Stoke recently.

Video evidence was later ruled on by the FA, who banned Huth for three games. That's all well and good but the advantage of Stoke being without a very good defender went to teams other than the Hammers, who lost on the day.

All that was needed was for the fourth official to look at the video and within seconds a decision could have been made.

Closer to home is Sunderland's visit to White Hart Lane last Saturday when a lightning-quick break by Darren Bent took him into our penalty area.

Keeper Heurelho Gomes came out, and over went Benty. I was convinced at the time referee Kevin Friend made the correct decision when he pointed to the spot.

There were some on-field differences of opinion and before the penalty was taken I'd watched the incident on the TV monitor near the pitch and it was clear Gomes, who was also booked, hadn't touched him.

If my mind can be changed and made up correctly within seconds even before the kick was taken, then why can't the fourth official relay that message to the man in the middle?

I cannot understand the reluctance to use video technology from the touchline. What is there to be afraid of?

Use FIVE officials is UEFA's answer to debatable decisions. Well, five officials got it wrong at Fulham recently when the wrong player was initially sent off.

While I'm at it, I'd like to nail another myth about diving.

No manager in my long experience has ever told a player to try to con a referee by diving.

Referees are also pilloried for not keeping up with play but the speed of athletic footballers makes it impossible for them and they have to make decisions from 40 yards away.

You can bet your last penny there would be a camera nearer to a flashpoint than the referee - so why not use them?

And if the people who run the game don't fancy that, then the referee can always ask.

Very few players will admit to cheating, hence that's not the solution. Maybe FIFA should take another look at using video evidence because whether we like it or not referees will continually make mistakes as they are human.

andyty:

Very few players will admit to cheating, hence that's not the solution. Maybe FIFA should take another look at using video evidence because whether we like it or not referees will continually make mistakes as they are human.

Briliant
Video replay is it !

This really isn't a bad idea

I have my reservations about this, in such high stake matches where the adrenaline levels are high, the player can actually reply that he doesn't know. I have played soccer in the past where everyone told me I handled the ball with my hand whereas I was totally convinced I didn't. I would have continued arguing if not becos my own mates told me I actually handled the ball. I think that it is too much to put the burden of officiating as well as playing on the players.
The best solution is some form of video officiating, but how that will work will need to be experimented and hammered out.