I don’t know what you mean by this.

> You want it your way or the highway

In this case yes. As in some others, but that’s not the issue here. I firmly believe the video ref is the future.

> you want it to be perfect and indisputable.

I wish. It’s not about being perfect but about being better than now (plus about agreeing that as it is now it sucks).

> Take it from one who is around a lot longer…life is not like that and never will be and certainly sport and football will always fall short no matter what the model.

Never said anything else. If you can find a comment of mine that says the video ref will be perfect, I’ll eat my hat and send you a video.

> I think the writer is trying to point out that he his happy to accept the imperfections and the controversy…even enjoys the fact that there are always many debating points.

Doesn’t look like it. At all. I didn’t take issue with any of this. But if he starts saying that the officials are doing their best to introduce technology, and cites hawk-eye – why on earth would anybody say this ? Last time I know, they said they won’t even accept this much. Has this changed ?
Anyway, his point was that he thinks the video ref would do more harm than good. Which is fine by me (him thinking this, that is) except that, as I said, IMO he didn’t make any point to support this.

> We have it with TV at present and despite countless slow-motion replays from every angle there is weekly disagreement, even among neutrals, on what the decision should have been.

I think I said this a few times before, professional refs aided by video should be much better than everyday people.
Anyway, so much the better, it means controversy wouldn’t go away. So one of the fears of the author is baseless. We can have the video ref *and* something to talk about.

I’ve agreed with some of your points in the past, and still do. I can see both sides of this debate.

I’m guessing you’re the classic Y generation profile. You want it your way or the highway, you want it to be perfect and indisputable.

Take it from one who is around a lot longer…life is not like that and never will be and certainly sport and football will always fall short no matter what the model.

I think the writer is trying to point out that he his happy to accept the imperfections and the controversy…even enjoys the fact that there are always many debating points. Many hold that view.

There may be a middle ground, no doubt, but any assumption that technology will remove any controversy is flawed. We have it with TV at present and despite countless slow-motion replays from every angle there is weekly disagreement, even among neutrals, on what the decision should have been.

It will never be perfect and most accept that, as in life.

“Governing bodies though seems to be doing their best to rid the sporting world of human error, with Hawk-Eye being a prime example.”

Rubbish. They seem to be doing their best to avoid introducing technology.

“but bitterness aside, many of the fans would argue against a technology that would be so conclusive.”

Many ? Probably. Most ? I doubt it.

“For generations, the decisions of match officials have united the world’s population in conversation. The arguments provide us with something to discuss over a drink at the pub, and gives the so-called professionals that appear to be more qualified than us something to talk about at half-time on the TV.”

OK, then I propose bring back witch hunting. That’d give us a much better subject of conversation.

“Although it seems the English usually bare the brunt of dismal decisions, the Spanish too have every right to feel aggrieved about poor calls that will live long in the memory of all involved.”

Wow. Finally a sentence I agree with. Actually, they have a much better case of being robbed. England has at least one big positive, that controversial goal in the 66 final. Spain: WCup 02 and 94, arguably also 06, Euro 96.

“The Spaniards have terrible luck in major international tournaments, dating back to USA ‘94 when Italy’s Mauro Tassotti’s inexplicably elbowed Luis Enrique and went unpunished.”

That should read “Mauro Tassotti elbowed Luis Enrique and inexplicably went unpunished”.

“All this being said, would half of these matches and incidents still be lodged firmly in the memory of football fans across the world had these decisions been correct? The answer is almost certainly, NO.”

So ?
I’d prefer to remember the 2002 WCup for a beautiful and hard-contested final Brazil vs. Spain, instead of for the mess that it was.

“The simple fact is that injustice in football is not something that can be seen as wholly negative. It would be inaccurate to expect officials under such pressure to arrive at the correct verdict every time,”

Explain how on earth this is an argument *against* technology.

“and the fact that they so clearly don’t provides yet another dimension to a sport that has such a fantastic history.”

Oh yeah, another dimension. Let’s not forget the human face.

“By getting rid of the ref and introducing technology you would change the beautiful game as we know it. But would it be a change for the better? I don’t think so.”

You failed to provide *one* single argument supporting this.

Rubbish article, rubbish conclusion.