Since we are on the subject of referees and dodgy decisions: I saw a "goal" being given yesterday by Atkinson at Wembley when the ball was well away from the goal line never mind crossing it. Later Atkinson apparently said to Redknapp he was sorry and he was going to feel bad about it. What I am struggling with is this: the right decision was easy to make. The rules are: if he didn't or couldn't see the ball crossing the line, he can't give the goal. Yet he insisted on giving the goal despite protests from spurs players, so why? was there some image distortion so that he did "see" the ball crossing the line? or was he guessing which meant he went against the rules? In Scotland the ref gives a penalty decision to Hearts for handball. The ball hit the defender from 3 yards travelling at 50/60 mph and totally non intentional. Yet a few minutes later a slower ball hits a Hearts defender more than 5 yards away and on the same part of the arm, the ref does not give the pen. Totally unbelievable. The right or at least consistent decision again easy to make. Video technology needs to come in but to me there needs to be a wider look on how else it can help referees.
I think it has to be only for things that are a definitive yes or no such as a ball being over the line. I'd also have it for deciding whether a foul took place in the box or not but the rest should be left to the officials who really should be doing better on the penalty calls of late.
I would introduce it for the big calls. Whether a ball crossed the line, whether a goal was offside, whether something was a penalty and if a red card offence occurred. I wouldn't have it to decide if something is a goal kick/throw-in/corner/free-kick and to who it was as a team can still reasonably defend those. Instead I would have extra, fully trained and competent officials to help decide those calls.
