Why oh why, do football's governing body insist on maintaining there backward stance on the use of technology?
Instead of talking about how well The Republic of Ireland played tonight away in France, Football fans across the country are left with a sour taste over the actions of Thierry Henry.
His blatant act of cheating which directly led to France's decisive goal in extra time completely overshadowed a great performance by Ireland and took away any opportunity they had of making it to South Africa.
After the game, Henry attempted to make up for his ball juggling act by hugging disconsolate Irish players and having a sit down with Richard Dunne, but he is lucky he showed more class than him by not making use of his own hands as a weapon.
And while Henry has no leg to stand on in terms of a defence for his actions, the problem with the whole incident was the referee and linesman, who for whatever reason didn't see what had happened.
Surely now, in the year 2009, when near enough every other sport is using technology to get decisions correct, Football which is the most watched sport in the world, should follow suit. Referees should be helped out by the techology which is available within seconds.
Michel Platini claims that "Video referees would destroy football. You would have to stop the game every 10 seconds, for every decision"
Does he live in a cocoon? Does he not watch any other sport then his own?
In Rugby, most tries are checked on video replay to ensure there are no problems.
In Cricket, decisions which can be challenged are limited to 3 per innings at the discretion of each teams Captain.
In Tennis, players have a limited number of challenges per set. Players use these to ensure momentum changing decisions are correct.
In American Football, coaches have the opportunity to challenge two refereeing decisions per game. If they are correct,and the referees decision is reversed, they keep the challenge to use again. If they are wrong, their number of remaining challenges is reduced to one.
In the last two minutes of halves, questionable decisions are checked without coach challenges to ensure that the decisive moments in the game don't get decided by human error. When there is conclusive evidence for a decision to be changed, it is.
Coaches only have up until the game re-commences to challenge what has happened and give the referee the opportunity to check whether his decision was correct.
Decisions are correctable in a few seconds. Games dont get decided on mistakes and fans aren't left with a bitter taste in their mouths.
If you asked any true footballing fan, the ones who pay money to watch the games, would you rather spend thirty seconds extra in the ground and take home three points or get home five minutes earlier and draw to a last minute goal scored by someone handling the ball, I know what the resounding answer would be.
Platini is wrong. If a manager was given 2 opportunities a game to have a goal checked on replay before his team took the kick off, then the game would be delayed no longer than it would by the carnage that typically ensues when referees get decisions wrong.
If Trappatoni had been given the chance to challenge the decision, he would have. The ref would have booked Henry within 20 seconds and the game would have continued. Irish fans may well be now booking tickets to the World Cup if that were the case.
But it is not. We are left to wonder what it will actually take for FIFA to pull their fingers out.
They couldn't wait to bring action against Arsenal striker Eduardo when he fell over and was awarded a penalty against Celtic in a Champions League qualifier that Arsenal were on the way to winning, but something tells me FIFA and UEFA may take a different approach when dealing with the controversial moments of tonights game.
Will technology be introduced as a result? No. Will Henry be banned? No... Will The Republic be going to the World Cup? No... Sort it out Fifa
