Boxing Day saw nine potential game changing incidents raising once again the argument about video techonology and it's use in football.
England's World Cup win in 1966, one of the greatest sporting moments in history is forgotten by many as being clouded in doubt. An indecision whether or not the ball was actually across the line for England's second goal. The Russian linesman who gave the decision as a goal and it seems that the 2-1 lead spurred England on to a famous victory but what would have happened without the assistants decision.
Hyperthetical situation indeed but it appears this kind of thing is happening far too often, Pedro Mendes' 'goal' at Old trafford last season could have meant an extra two points for Spurs and a place in Europe during the 2005/06 season and an increased revenue for the club. A simple video monitor could have saved Jol and his team the strife and suffering of being hard done by.
Depending whether you believe in the decline of the quality of officiating or the ridicukous pressure placed on referees it is certain that video technology would be beneficial to the men in the middle and their official.s
The huge case against video technology is that most clubs would feel some kind of injustice at some point, even with the new system as who would decide where to draw the line in making decisions?
If goals and penalties could be reviewed on a video why not, goal kicks, throw-ins and offsides as well, the game would simply not flow and become anything but it's reputation as being beautiful, but all do decide the game.
Many people believe that techology would take the debate out of football and a decline in debatable decisions would take the interest out of play from some quarters, as ridiculous as it seems, it is some what understandable that a one hundred and fifty year old game does not want to change.
But if the techonology is there then prehaps it should be used.
Last week Fifa scrapped plans to use a detector in the ball to see if it goes over line line because of 'technological complications' and it seems as if pioneering schemes are not always fool proof. The system at the moment of reviewing the game is tedious but better than no system at all, with guilty parties being fined or banned an element of justice is creeping back into football but most will not be satisfied until errors are erradicated completely.
As video technology provides a helping hand after the game, elements during the match can still be affected by wrong decisions during and outcomes can still be altered.
It appears there is no sure fire way to overcome controvery and it seems as if football unlike rugby, ice hockey and cricket will be changed by the use of videos, leaving good old fashioned bedates to continue rumbling on will into the future.