I think the whole argument about how technology will somehow slow the whole game down is a lot of old rubbish spouted forth by people who aren't really looking at this whole problem with any type of common sense. Take the Man United vs Newcastle game on Saturday. How long did it eventually take for the referee and his assistant to come up with the WRONG answer ? They could have easily had the 4th ref, who incidentally should be up in a booth anyway communicating with ref and not just standing on the sidelines taking abuse from fans and managers and holding up extra time minutes, decide the CORRECT answer in half the time. What a joke that is.

You cannot equate this with the NFL video replays. American Football is littered with time-outs and is part of the game so reviews don't harm the game at all. Tennis does it and it's super fast. Rugby Union does it and it's timely and accurate in a sport where there are a lot more hindrances to seeing the ball clearly than in soccer.

Let's talk some sense here people. Our sport depends upon it.

http://www.soccerlimeyinamerica.com/?p=3158

I disagree - Personally I feel that the errors and mistakes referees and assistants may make add to part of the spirit of the game.

I dunno which team you support, but chances are a bad decision has gone in your favour and you've relished it in a guilty sense. The thing is, that these kinds of errors are parts of the legend of the game and add a new dimension of excitement.

I myself am a referee and realise that no matter what decision, with whatever technology, there will always be someone complaining. IF it came in next season you can bet Sir Alex will be f-ing and blinding about the technology being "on the blink"

PLus maybe we should all retain the essential humanity of the game? The fact that the game should not be mechanised and dumbed down to the point of being "right" all the time. It's what makes the game FUN.

P.S. I'm assuming (in a horrible, sweeping way) that you're an England fan - If we'd had microchip technology in 1966, then perhaps it wouldn't be "40 years of hurt", but far, far longer.

Also, it is important to remember that in football the wording before each rule concerning fouls states "in the opinion of the referee". The only thing that is black and white in football is whether or not the ball has fully crossed the line (provided you have an adequate view, currently) and so could be the only thing used to decide with technology provided the information came instantly. You can't stop play because defence can turn to attack in seconds in football - just look at Man City's goal v Arsenal in the League Cup last night. In all other sports where technology is used, the game is already dead no matter what the outcome of the decision and advocates of pro technology football regularly fail to omit this from their musings. Football is a game of opinions as we often say in England - opinion, the discussion is also what makes our sport great.

Surely we only need to look at how technology has eradicated controversy and gamesmanship in tennis?

This model could easily be applied to football. Each team gets 3 challenges to a ref decision over the course of a game. Simple.

Of course there will stil be a tiny minority of decisions that will be on a knife edge but the glaringly appawling decisions would a thing of the past along with simulation and goal line calls.

Win win situation surely? Unless you like a football culture where diving is considered very clever indeed eh Karlheinz? ;)

I must confess, I've never actually seen a trial of any technology-based refereeing aids in football. In fact, come to think of it, I'm not even sure what's being proposed, or what's available. Are we talking about something like "Hawkeye" for confirming whether a ball has crossed a line? Are we talking about video playbacks for reviewing possible fouls, dives, offsides, dodgy Blackburn corners etc? Are we talking about both?

My gut feeling is that technology could help referees get more of the important decisions right, in a practical and timely manner. But as I've never seen any of it in action, I can't say for certain can I? Maybe the football authorities should try the various options out first, as a controlled experiment, to establish whether or not they actually work, and whether or not they ruin the flow of the game. Until that happens, I'll reserve judgement. I can't make a decision either way. I can't even offer an opinion. At the moment, as things stand, all I have is a gut feeling.

(Which means, basically, that Harry Callahan was wrong. Opinions are NOT like assholes - everyone HASN'T got one. Not when it comes to the use of video technology in football, anyway.)

@Karlheinz Riedle I find your reasoning totally confusing and irrational. The feeling that the laws are interpreted as "in the opinion of the referee" is exactly what is wrong. You of all people, as a referee, should know the abuse that you incur from players and fans alike when you make a blatantly bad call. The match should not be decided by an error by the officials. I'm sorry - it shouldn't.

I think I would be more accepting of the match being decided solely by officials if I thought that their main focus is making the right decision. It's not. If it was, you would see the 4th man speaking to the ref if he made a bad decision. It doesn't happen. Let's face it. Referees don't like to be overruled and therein lies the crux of the issue.

Too much is at stake these days to just diss this off as "in the opinion of the referee". That's bullshit