I don't understand people that say technology wouldn't work because you can't be 100%, or that there's a difference between matters of fact and matters of opinion. The referee makes his decisions on his opinion as things stand, all you are doing is allowing a TV ref to also have his opinion, and also give him the benefit of replays to help. This is the way it would work:

You look at a controversial & important decision. If the wrong decision has obviously been made, or there is an excellent case that the wrong decision has been made then the decision is overturned. If you can't tell either way, or there is a fair bit of doubt, then the decision stays as it was originally made.

Take the Brazil handball goal. Webb gives a foul. Brazil refer it (maybe using one of their two permissable referrals) and we go "upstairs". A quick look at a couple of replays very quickly shows that it is almost impossible to see exactly where it hit (arm? shoulder? chest? a bit of all three?). There is certainly no obvious case to say the referee's decision was wrong. On field decision remains. Goal remains disallowed. Brazil lose a referral.

Let's have another example. The Brazil penalty v Croatia. Croatia refer it. We look at a few angles. There is lots of evidence to say the referee was wrong and it wasn't actually a penalty. Penalty therefore not given and we possibly also book striker for diving. We restart with a goal kick and Croatia still have two referrals, as they were right.

In both instances, decision correctly made and controversy gone.

Sure there will be some that will still be argued about but as long as everyone realises that decisions are only overturned if it is fairly clear the original decision was wrong and that where's there is doubt or debate then the original decision remains, I don't see the issue and it will be an improvement on the current situation.

marychain1, I don't think having two opinions is a good idea at all.  everyone wants consistency, but having a second ref making a decision immediately diminishes that.  there might be a case for letting the ref see something twice if he wants to review it (perhaps he can wear google glass)

Come on then you technology supporters - the Robben penalty?

how many replays do you want to decide yes or no?

PS Good luck on that!

we have rugby union for that

rugby union with fake blood capsules ?

gouging and biting ......

@sideshowbob 29 Jun 14 16:12 

"i dont think michaela tabb will be getting a 147 anytime soon either."

I wouldn't be surprised if she has got one or got close. She was European Ladies Pool Champion in 1998 and played for Scotland for 12 years, so she'll be pretty useful.

if there had been video evidence then he wouldn't have dived in the last minute of stoppage time as the video evidence would have given him the earlier penalty where he was fouled and there would have been no need for a late dive as holland would have been winning 2-1 at that time.

each game would last over 5 hours at current rate of fouls not given by referees


Excellent news...the paying public might get a bit of value at last.

but you could go back to the last holland foul that was not given and give a free kick the other way


you cant have selective video evidence, otherwise its unfair

i dont see why people cant see that

youd never get a game finnished