Today's UEFA Europa Cup football match between Fulham and AS Roma has raised an intriguing issue regarding the current trial of extra officials. The trial system itself involves an extra two refereeing officials being introduced, one standing next to each goal. The idea itself appears positive; another pair of eyes, possibly closer to the goalmouth action than the referee, and perhaps more importantly, another angle from which to analyse the situation. It is also hoped that these extra officials would have a close view of the goal line and thus would be able to provide a decision over whether a ball crossed the line or not. Essentially, the officials would be able to allow or reject debatable goals, like the 'hand of god' Maradona incident or Geoff Hurst's World Cup Final strike against Germany.
Unfortunately, an incident this evening has suggested that this novel approach may provide more problems than solutions. A penalty was awarded by Paul Allaerts of Belgium for a foul on AS Roma player John Arne Riise. The referee then proceeded to show a red card to Fulham's Brede Hangeland, claiming that the goal-line official had named him the culprit for the foul. However, replays showed that actually it was Stephen Kelly who had allegedly brought down Riise. Although the referee eventually changed his mind and sent off the right player, after, it seems, Kelly admitted to having been the offending party, the situation highlights a potential flaw in the concept of extra officials.
An extra pair of eyes is a brilliant idea. After all, the more points of view available, the more information ready to make an informed decision. It seems though that there is an issue over responsibility and accountability. It is all well the goal-line official seeing an offence but ultimately, the decision rests with the referee. If they have not seen the incident in question, how can they be completely sure that the decision they are making is the correct one? Trust is vital, though the incident today could be taken as a reason to doubt the relationship between the goal-line official and the referee. As Roy Hodgson commented post-match; Kelly was not last man (Hangeland was 'sent off' despite being in front of Riise when he fell) so surely the goal-line official's job is to inform the referee that it was not a sending off offence.
With decision-making like this, it is difficult to see how the extra officials are helping the game. Rather, they seem to be complicating it further and if anything, creating new targets for blame when poor decisions are made. The new officials were supposed to reduce controversy. Instead, on tonight's evidence, they are only serving to increase it.
Thursday 22 October 2009
Friday 16 October 2009
Airport Security in the UK:
Hello, welcome to this blog. Now, I'm sorry to begin on a rather depressive and pessimistic note, but airport security is something that has been annoying me for months now.
The welcoming message for all flights into BAA airports should sound like this: Welcome to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If you are entering the United Kingdom, please pass through Passport Control and Customs, where, if you are not illegally entering the country or carrying illicit items, you will be allowed to proceed. However, if you are travelling to another airport outside of the United Kingdom, prepare to be shouted at, groped and generally abused, all the name of 'security'.
I have travelled, in the last 12 months, through Heathrow on flights outside of the European continent. Numerous times on these trips, in the queue towards the x-ray scanners, I have been shouted at by people demanding me to remove all metal from my pockets and place any liquids either in bins or transparent plastic bags. The security measures themselves are not the issue. The shouting is. After a 12 hour flight, the last thing I wish to hear as an English speaker is someone incessantly bellowing in my ear about precautions I already know. I can only imagine the fear and distress such shouting might have on a non-English speaker.
I have seen a German woman, who obviously did not understand a word of English, shouted at multiple times by Heathrow BAA personnel demanding she take her necklace off. In the end, a member of BAA effectively grabbed hold of the offensive necklace, at which point the traveller understood that it had to go through the scanner. Is this really the image that the United Kingdom wishes to portray of itself? Security is extremely important, however some decorum is also important. An instruction can be shouted once, to ensure that all hear and understand it. However, after people in a queue have heard the same instruction fifteen times, they may begin to become restless. In many airports around the world, Las Vegas being an example, security instructions are displayed on TV screens. This seems a far less intrusive measure. Praise where praise is due, Manchester Airport for one has embraced such measures; its new Terminal 3 security area has TV screens displaying to travellers which items need to be placed in transparent bags and which need to be binned. Why have those running Heathrow, ostensibly the shining beacon of UK air travel, chosen to stick with the shouting of instructions that makes one feel like a prisoner rather than a paying customer?
The abusive, almost Neanderthal, approach undertaken by BAA staff at Heathrow borders on the unacceptable. Yes, security is important, however security does not necessitate loud voices and incessantly repeated instructions. In any other environment, such cattle-herding would be rejected by those being herded. I completely understand the need for x-ray machines and other security measures and airports. What I can not accept is the abusive behaviour of those in charge of the security measures. People, no matter what language, race, colour or creed, have feelings, sentiments and rights. Surely those rights should extend to not being shouted at for having paid to transfer through the United Kingdom?
The welcoming message for all flights into BAA airports should sound like this: Welcome to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If you are entering the United Kingdom, please pass through Passport Control and Customs, where, if you are not illegally entering the country or carrying illicit items, you will be allowed to proceed. However, if you are travelling to another airport outside of the United Kingdom, prepare to be shouted at, groped and generally abused, all the name of 'security'.
I have travelled, in the last 12 months, through Heathrow on flights outside of the European continent. Numerous times on these trips, in the queue towards the x-ray scanners, I have been shouted at by people demanding me to remove all metal from my pockets and place any liquids either in bins or transparent plastic bags. The security measures themselves are not the issue. The shouting is. After a 12 hour flight, the last thing I wish to hear as an English speaker is someone incessantly bellowing in my ear about precautions I already know. I can only imagine the fear and distress such shouting might have on a non-English speaker.
I have seen a German woman, who obviously did not understand a word of English, shouted at multiple times by Heathrow BAA personnel demanding she take her necklace off. In the end, a member of BAA effectively grabbed hold of the offensive necklace, at which point the traveller understood that it had to go through the scanner. Is this really the image that the United Kingdom wishes to portray of itself? Security is extremely important, however some decorum is also important. An instruction can be shouted once, to ensure that all hear and understand it. However, after people in a queue have heard the same instruction fifteen times, they may begin to become restless. In many airports around the world, Las Vegas being an example, security instructions are displayed on TV screens. This seems a far less intrusive measure. Praise where praise is due, Manchester Airport for one has embraced such measures; its new Terminal 3 security area has TV screens displaying to travellers which items need to be placed in transparent bags and which need to be binned. Why have those running Heathrow, ostensibly the shining beacon of UK air travel, chosen to stick with the shouting of instructions that makes one feel like a prisoner rather than a paying customer?
The abusive, almost Neanderthal, approach undertaken by BAA staff at Heathrow borders on the unacceptable. Yes, security is important, however security does not necessitate loud voices and incessantly repeated instructions. In any other environment, such cattle-herding would be rejected by those being herded. I completely understand the need for x-ray machines and other security measures and airports. What I can not accept is the abusive behaviour of those in charge of the security measures. People, no matter what language, race, colour or creed, have feelings, sentiments and rights. Surely those rights should extend to not being shouted at for having paid to transfer through the United Kingdom?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)