Do we need it?

I am sitting in front of my television on a day of which any sports lover dreams. Formula One, Tour de France, a Wimbledon final and replays of the Currie Cup rugby matches make up just a few of the channels I have at my disposal.

As I watch the sport on the tellie, I have my laptop open, keeping an eye on the real-time times of the Formula One cars in England, the heart rates of the riders in France as well as writing this for Sports Leader. Technology truly is a great thing for a sports fan. You can get deeper into the sport than ever before. We can see how hard a cyclist is pushing his body, we can see just how hard the wind is blowing across Silverstone and we can get information on any sports person around.

But there is a negative influence that technology is having on sport. Instead of it adding to the value of the sport that we are watching, it seems to be taking away from the enjoyment. As I watch two of the most technologically advanced sports, F1 and cycling, I feel that there should be some sports that do not rely on technology. I am sick and tired of reading and hearing about poor TMO decisions in rugby. Surely, if something is so bad, get rid of it.

I am a purist. I celebrated when Formula One got rid of traction control. I saw an interview with Nigel Mansel the other day and he was asked what he thought about the use of driver aids in Formula One. The former world champion said that he preferred a true driver test: give each driver a chance to drive and then see who comes out tops. The English Formula One I am watching now, with the bad weather, is allowing for this. The rain negates a lot of the car’s technology and it brings different drivers to the front.

But let me get on to my great hate.

Imagine rugby of the future …

The television programme director sends a signal down, via radio, to the match official who gets the game under way. Using his kicking boot, the kicker hefts the ball into the air. It’s the start-off ball; a ball that the kicking team are allowed to choose for the first move of the game. Decked out in his helmet and shoulder pads, the fullback accepts the kick-off. Thanks to his gloved hands, he catches the ball gracefully and punts it back towards the halfway line.

Quickly there is a personnel change on the field as the offensive team come on for the attacking side. The ball is changed as the attacking team are choosing a running game and the throw-in specialist steps up and gets the line-out under way.

Just as the line-out starts, the defending captain calls a time-out and asks one of the five referees if the throw-in was straight. The line-out ref sends the decision up to the computer TMO who uses state-of-the-art software to test the straightness of the throw-in. It shows that it was off by three degrees but allows for the wind coming from the left, and the line-out is called straight.

Am I boring you? Well, sports fan, get used to it. If television directors have their way, this is what we can expect. You see those adverts for the TMO? You see the adverts for the “blood bin”? Now imagine an advert for the straight-throw-in decision.

In a word, BORING.

Rugby is a game played with one referee, two line judges and 30 men. You don’t like, don’t watch it. You want anything else, have a look at Gridiron. It’s great.