Could just play on until the ball next goes out of play I suppose. Mind you if they played on and the other team scored I suppose they'd be pretty hacked off if it got ruled out.

The major problem for football is how and when you go to the technology.

In all other sports that use video technology, they only use it in scenarios where the ball is already dead.

You will never see the officials stopping play in Rugby League to check obstruction whilst the ball is still in play.

There was an incident when we played Wigan the other week were Tomkins broke free at the halfway line and made it to about 5 yards away from our line. When the replay was shown there was a blatent obstruction but because the try wasn't scored, the ref couldn't go to the video ref as the ball was still alive.

The pundits actually said that Warrington would have been better off if he'd have scored a try because it would have been pulled back to the halfway line for our penalty.



In football this kind of scenario can happen in far more situations.

A team could score a goal, but it isn't given as it looks like it didn't cross the line, but you then have two scenarios:



1. The ball goes immediately out of play so the ref can go to the video ref.

2. The ball stays in play and the game continues so the ref can't go to the video ref.



In the second scenario what do you do?

Do you do what happened in the example from our game above and just say tough luck, the ball is still in play so we can't go to the video ref or do you give the ref the power to stop the game at his own discretion to check it???



I don't think they'll ever go down the route of letting the ref stop the game to check as they don't even do that in any of the sports that already use video technology.

It can only go to the video ref when the ball becomes dead naturally, but then this could lead to a game in which both teams have a ball cleared off the line but it had actually crossed the line and one team were able to make use of the video ref as the ball went dead and the other team couldn't use the video ref as the ball stayed in play.



For me the best thing to do is to allow the FA to use video footage after the game and punish the officials for blatent mistakes like the weekend.

It is only by holding the officials accountable for these errors that I think we will see them improve their decisions.

As it stands at the moment, the FA take the stance that the referees decision is final.



As for the rugby league scenario, it is ridiculous that only live TV games have video footage.

Whether or not you agree with the rules of the game, all any player, coach or fan asks for is consistency week in week out. How can we ever have consistency when one week the ref has the advantage of video replays and the next week he doesn't.

I know, do people actually write wendyball or is it changed automatically like some other words I've seen on here? Either way it's a shi'ite word, and smacks of jealousy either of by far the best and most popular sport in the world.



Rugby League is a great game as well, but it will never be as big as football and there is a very good reason for that.

Its the biggest but why is it the best?

Of course I do JD...I had to pull over as I was falling asleep when they started talking about footy (wont use wendyball not allowed!)

I used the term wendyball (light-heartedly) as a lot of players act like a big girls blouse most of the time.



As the saying goes:

Footballers spend 90 minutes pretending to be injured.

Rugby players spend 80 minutes pretending they're not.



As for the restart of a game in football following a video ref decision, couldn't you just award a goal kick ?

(Unless the ball does go dead before the call for the video ref)

I think it's all a matter of opinion, but the sheer simplicity of it is kinda what makes it so great, for me. Rugby is a bit aggressive and perceived as a tough sport. You can have a kick about anywhere, your garden, roads, 'backsies', school playgrounds, indoors or outdoors, and all you need is a ball, if that sometimes.



What's the 'best' is a matter of opinion, but I think football's universal appeal is the simplicity of it, yet there are so many styles and positions to play.

Football is just too big to make the radical changes necessary. Goal-line technology has been researched and may be introduced in a couple of years but that's only a small part of the problem.

Off-side, fouls, handballs, dangerous play, diving, yellow and red cards, feigning injury etc.......... can all be game changing incidents but rely solely on one individual's opinion with as much help from the line as our own rugby league 'officials'

How many times have we all shouted for a decision then changed our minds after watching the replay from 4 or 5 different angles?

The only way to sort it out is with video technology being made available to referees before they make a potential game changing decision. The ball is dead or out of play more than enough to refer to video or the ref can stop the game at any time. there's no need to look for the one scenario where it nay be awkward just look at how to speed up the decision making process so as not to spoil the flow of the game.

BUT

It will not happen. It's just too big

Heres hoping Im wrong

Referring back to RL, in football they can check whether a player if offside by drawing a horizontal line across the pitch level with the last defender at half time. Could this be used in RL to measure forward passes taking out the issue with the camera angles?



Probably opened a can of worms here in terms of momentum, direction of the hands, etc...

Surely goal line technology would mean that play would continue until the 'technology' gave the goal. So the incident on Sunday would just result in play on because the referee wouldn't recieve a bleep in his ear to confirm a goal. However back during the world cup, Frank Lampards goal would have been given and play stopped because the referee would have heard the bleep. There would be no need to stop the game to check, or worry about how to restart the game as the decision would be live and instant.

That is actually a great idea, however it is not always straight forward is it.

It has been 46 years since the 1966 world cup final and they still can't decide if Hurst's second goal was over the line or not!!!!



How long can the game continue whilst the video ref watches the replays??



The only way it could work is if it could be like Ice Hockey and something within the ball would set off the alarm once it has crossed the line.

They can put chips into formula 1 cars that, with sensors on the start/finish line, can time laps more accurate than a thousandth of a second, they can also put chips into ice hockey pucks (sp) that can take far more punishment than would ever be inflicted on a football. Combine the chip with sensors and cameras built into the posts/crossbar and you get instant results without the need for human intervention. The technology is all there, IMO it just needs the right technology company to make a big enough offer to the old duffers running FIFA to grant them the license to provide the system.



As for 1966 - if Sky had covered the game with todays technology and their miriad of cameras, then everyone watching would have known for definate one way or the other within seconds.