Video Evidence - has to brought in

i dont think video evidence is teh problem. Henrys handball, lampards goal and tonight tevez offside would all have been spotted by the referee/linesman behind the goal like they tried in the europa, no brainer

brainless forecast

seriously? back that argument up. Unless your a david moyes follower who said teh extra officials were pointless just cos they werent needed in one of evertons meaningless games

I am so against Video Referees it's probably not believable.

Those that believe they're the answer to everything please review the following sports.

Rugby League - Left in a situation where the on-field referee no longer makes a decision. So many Tries follow this process now. Onside, offside - camera angles are rarely useful btw (see 2009 Super League GF), knock on, grounding, obstruction. It becomes a LOTTERY after a while with some truly shocking decisions. Take a Try awarded in an NRL match between the Warriors and the Roosters yesterday. Or take the No Try decision in the St George-Illawara Dragons Vs Wests Tigers game. For those that know about the sport they were both shocking decisions.

Cricket - Umpire Decision Review System. I won't waffle on this one but it's FAILED. Fact. Absolutely horrendous. And even the technology attempted to be used on catches to date, admittedly 3D pictures might change things in the future, hasn't always helped.

Tennis - Hawk-Eye has "malfunctioned" on occasions. It's been "unavailable," so the original call has stood. Murray Vs Ljubicic - the incorrect call on when the 2nd bounce was displayed. A stated margin of error that is actually alarming for the closeness of decisions it's required to be the judge on, which relates back to Cricket and the ICC not having full belief in the system with Hawk-Eye for LBW deicsions.

Ice Hockey - A "kicking" the puck controversy for a goal in the NHL play-offs. Highly debatable. It's like what is deliberate handball and what is not in football. Good luck in accepting decisions comparable to the one that I've referred to. It can be searched for on You Tube.

Now one sport where it does work better than those above.

Rugby Union - Why? Because it's kept very simple. The TMO can only decide on grounding the ball when it comes to scoring a Try. Nothing else. It's factual in a simple sense. Try or No Try, and the on-field referee retains some control in the decisions with the possibility of asking a leading question to the TMO to determine the decision.

And if Football wants to use video technology it can only do so for the ball crossing the line. No penalty decisions, no free kick decisions, no onside/offside, no handballs. None of those should even be considered. The offside goal in the Argentina game. And have you thought about the Italy goal that probably wasn't offside? The assistant clown puts his flag up. He's not offside. Do we have to allow play to go on in those situations just in-case a goal could be legitimately scored? I don't think so. Where would that lead us to in both the game being played and for the game as a whole? You'll never get equality on that issue, but that's partly due to the brain-dead offside rule anyway.

Goal line technology in the strictest sense of it, yes, and whilst I don't like or agree with Sepp Blatter on most things, stopping some of this possible chaos is a good thing.

In American Football, each coach has a number of challenges where they can question the on-field ruling. No reason why this system cannot be used in soccer.

I think there's many reasons why it can't be used like they do in American Football. Some would say NFL games stop every 10 seconds anyway so it makes no difference using TV pictures to take time and make decisions. The offside rule is the main reason such a system looks impossible to me. The Assistant clown flagging for offside would no longer be the correct system to use as a way of stopping the game. Yes, the referees' whistle is the only way the game is actually stopped, but the referee "never" overrules an assistant clown on an offside decision. We would never know when the game could/would be stopped. It's easy to rule out offside goals, it won't be as easy to find a way of allowing onside goals to stand after the flag has gone up. How will the game ever stop? Will they end up playing on until they check it? Say a player is allowed to continue, despite the flag going up, misses the chance, and the ball goes for a corner only to have to go back to check the original offside decision was correct. Time lost, and then someone would complain about how stoppage time is calculated again. Then again, maybe I might be missing the possible positive - attacking players might get the benefit of the doubt, or they could re-write the outdated, brain-dead rule and relate it to feet only with both feet having to be "offside."

they cant use it like they do in rugby because if the ball bounces of its not a dead ball so the it continues play.  They could check when the ball next goes out of play but that could be in a goal for the opposition.