PARIS: In the era of ubiquitous CCTV cameras, of eye-in-the-sky satellites that spy on the Earth and telescopes that peer ever-deeper into the cosmos, it seems astounding that we can’t hear much of what footballers say to each other on a pitch. Perhaps it is time for some “Big Brother” surveillance in football, too.

More well-placed microphones, why not even broadcasting sound from the shirt lapels of referee Chris Foy and his assistants, perhaps might have helped determine whether John Terry racially abused Anton Ferdinand in Chelsea’s ill-tempered 1-0 loss at Queens Park Rangers on Oct. 23. Even if on-pitch recordings could not capture every exact word, maybe players would think twice before directing tirades at each other and at officials if football was more wired for sound, like rugby and other sports.

The idea of broadcasting match officials’ on-field words to players, as rugby does, is not on football’s agenda. The sport’s lawmakers last looked at this in 2004. The minutes of their meeting show they were happy for officials to talk to each other by radio during a match but they decided that “such a system … must not be used for broadcasting purposes.”

No surprise there. FIFA is hardly a trailblazer on the use of technology. Its progress is excruciatingly slow on picking which system football will use to determine when the ball crosses the goalline. And Thierry Henry will likely be an old man before football’s ruling body accepts video replays that could have punished his handball that broke Irish hearts in 2009.

Still, that shouldn’t stop us from exercising our imagination.

If players wore microphones, we might all have heard the “certain word” Patrice Evra accused Luis Suarez of racially abusing him with when Manchester United played at Liverpool. That was a month ago, which is a long time for such an ugly allegation to hang unresolved over the Premier League. Liverpool’s striker denied it. United stuck by Evra.

Which of them is telling the truth must wish there was audio to prove it.

But wiring up all 22 players would be overly intrusive, technically tough and of questionable use, at least for broadcast purposes. A smarter middle route would be to broadcast at least some of what referees hear and say. That was tried with astounding effect in the 1980s, when David Elleray wore a microphone for Millwall-Arsenal. It recorded Gunner Tony Adams squealing at Elleray and calling him a cheat when he disallowed an Arsenal goal.

In Australia, officials looked into repeating something along those lines this season. They felt that broadcasting referees’ comments to players might help spectators Down Under, where football isn’t the No.1 sport, better understand what’s happening and improve on-field discipline. FIFA said ‘No’ to the Australian federation’s initial feelers, but “there’s still work being done to possibly bring it in, as a trial, not as a league-wide standard,” A-League spokesman Mark Jensen said in a telephone interview.

“The possibility with using microphones for referees and having that audio available is that players might realize they are being recorded and tone it down for their image sake,” Jensen said.

“If you see Wayne Rooney, you know, screaming offenses at a referee for a decision, kids watch that and pick up on that and they think it’s OK. So putting things in place to possibly curb that is only good for future generations.”

In the Canadian Football League, which plays gridiron football, the headcoaches and quarterbacks of the Toronto Argonauts and Winnipeg Blue Bombers (CFL teams have marvelous names) agreed to wear live microphones for broadcaster TSN for a preseason game in June. TSN built in a 10-second delay so it could interrupt the audio if the language got salty.

“As it turns out, we rarely used that,” Paul Graham, TSN’s vice president and executive producer of live events, said in a telephone interview.

“You could hear the coaches talking to the players on the sidelines and conferencing in with their assistant coaches, and you could hear the quarterbacks talking to their teammates in the huddle and then making their calls.”

“From a viewer perspective, it was certainly entertaining,” he said.

“From a league perspective, worth the experiment, but I would be lying if I said they weren’t nervous throughout the whole ordeal.”

So, if football wanted, something could be done.

If they knew more people were listening, perhaps potty-mouthed, ill-tempered and abusive players would be more likely to hold their tongues.

JOHANNESBURG: Hashim Amla and AB de Villiers shared an unbeaten century partnership as South Africa regained the initiative on the third day of the second and final Test against Australia at the Wanderers Stadium on Saturday.

South Africa were 229 for three when bad light ended play, an overall lead of 199. Amla was on 89 and De Villiers 70. Their fourth wicket stand was worth 139.

It was yet another turnaround in a series in which there have been some remarkable changes of fortune.

At lunch Australia would have thought they were in a good position to push for a series-levelling win after 18-year-old fast bowler Pat Cummins struck twice as South Africa lost three wickets. The host nation were 94 for three at lunch.

“There is a bit of disappointment in the dressing room,” admitted Australian all-rounder Shane Watson.

“After having South Africa three down we couldn’t get that one more wicket. In this series one wicket has often led to a couple more and we might have been able to get through. But Amla and De Villiers batted very well.” Watson admitted that Australia were in a situation where they had to work their way through the South African batting if they were to have a chance of squaring the series following an eight-wicket defeat in the first Test in Cape Town.

“We have to bowl them out,” he said.

“They’re a tough team and they’re not going to give us a chance, being one-nil up in the series. We would do the same if we were in their position.”Watson was unable to bowl after straining a hamstring in the first innings.

He said the injury would probably prevent him from bowling in at least the

first Test against New Zealand in Brisbane starting on December 1.

Cummins was Australia’s leading bowler, taking two for 46 in 17 overs.

He dismissed opening batsman Jacques Rudolph, who mistimed a pull against a ball which lifted sharply, and then had Jacques Kallis caught at first slip for two after an impressive sequence of deliveries which troubled South Africa’s star batsman.

“It was very impressive to see a young guy working over a legend of the game,” said Watson. “To do that to Jacques Kallis shows a serious amount of talent.”Cummins had a confident shout for leg before wicket against Amla turned down by umpire Billy Bowden shortly after lunch.

The Australians asked for a review and Bowden’s decision was upheld when replays showed the ball would have hit the leg bail – in the umpire’s discretionary area.

De Villiers also had a close escape against Cummins when he edged the ball down the legside dangerously close to wicketkeeper Brad Haddin.

But the pair gradually got on top of the bowling. Although dramatic collapses have been the norm in the short series, South Africa will hope to build on their total as they push to win a home series against Australia for the first time since 1969/70, a victory which preceded 21 years of isolation for South Africa.

Rudolph said it was important for Amla and De Villiers to continue.

“There are 11 overs before the second new ball and they have a chance to play themselves in before it is taken,” he said.

“With us losing three wickets quite early I thought the game was on a knife edge but those two batted really well and almost took it away from the Australians,” said Rudolph.

He said that although the South Africans felt they could defend anything over 300 they would be looking to extend the lead to around 400.