"we have the technology

so why not use it." amazingly this was not said by [insert name of any football pundit] but by Winston Churchill. And he was not talking about video refereeing at the time either, rather using the then newly developed chemical weapons against the Arabs who were uprising in the middle east and making life difficult for the West. You see, technology is not always a good thing. It depends on the integrity of those who use it. Which brings me to the use of video technology in football. Presumably referees, whose decisions are questioned, and every mistake scrutinised, are reluctant to handover their authority to 'technology', or to put it more accurately, a third official who would have access to video technology. They argue it would slow the flow of the game, and undermine the authority they do have with the players. firstly, the flow of the game is interrupted anyway when players huddle around the ref, and try to bad mouth him into a favourable call. Secondly, why would asking for definitive evidence diminish, rather than increase, players respect for the ref? Surely calls for certainty and clarity, and the notion of proof, work to calm inquietude.



for example, a ball is cleared off/just over the line. The attacking players celebrate, the defenders appeal. The ref looks at the linesman. The linesman looks at the ref. And it appears that both were obscured or blinked at the crucial moment. A referral to a third official at this point would please everybody. As well as lead to a great moment of drama. Sure, there are a few technicalities to sort out- but the principle seems sound enough.


Also, following on from this, I'd also oblige referees to face the media after a match. And explain their thinking around key decisions. If for nothing else than to see Mark Clattenburg sweat a bit.

Basically more transparency in the refereeing system leads to more confidence from the players, more confidence from the fans, and this, ultimately, makes life better for the referees, and for the game.