(3) The future

Consulting replays is not football perhaps?  This may be true in terms of the sport having survived for the last 150 years quite happily without it.  But we all must agree that things move forward with technology and it could be argued that the game is certainly not on the same level as in the 1860s, therefore football needs to look to the future not the past.  Besides, other rule changes have come into force over this time (such as the offside and keeper backpass rule) to make the game more fair.
Ultimately, it is a small price to pay to ensure a correct decision is made.

Things are taking a step in the right direction, however.  In July 2012 the IFAB gave the green light to use the new Goal-Line technology in Association Football.  Cameras, sensors and magnetic strips are used to alert officials when the ball crosses the line.  The first official match using the technology is likely to be in December 2012 at the Club World Cup in Yokohama.


It's not replay technology as such, but it's a strong sign things are moving forward.

(2) Credibility and Consistency

In football, there are many arguments against the introduction of ground officials consulting footage before making a decision.  
This soccer article and also this one help to sum up some of the more common issues, in short;
1. It will undermine the referee's authority.
2. It will cause match hold-ups constantly.
3. It will kill the drama, passion and unpredictable nature of the game.
4. Just because football has enough commercial money does not mean the technology should be introduced.
5. Incorrect decisions are part of the game's spectacle, ie. fans & media post-match debate.

6. Using replays to make calls is "just not football".

 
In terms of the referee's authority this may be true but if the technology is available, the referee is able to use the tool as part of their authority, effectively making them more credible.  Arsenal Manager Arsene Wegner agrees, as someone who has been campaigning for technology on the field for many years now.  In April 2012 Wegner stated in a BBC news article "Video will help the referees, not question their authority. It will give them more credit, more authority and less mistakes. [We need] instant video replays on the demand of the referee".

The game being held up, admittedly may be a problem, however the game as it stands is always being stopped and started for various reasons.  Incorporating replays into this stoppage time may encounter teething problems at first but ultimately would become more streamlined and normalised.  AFL trails for the technology found that the average wait time for a referral was 49 seconds.

It may in fact reduce many of the game's current needless stoppages, particularly as it could potentially act as a deterrent to those players who seem to "dive" in order to gain an advantage. 
The game's credibility in non-football countries such as the United States lays in question. Dan Eckles, sports editor for the Nevada Spark's Tribune stated in a 2011 article "Considering one person can make the decision and never justify it to anyone else, there can be an appearance of impropriety".  “This is why Americans don’t watch soccer. It’s got no credibility”.

Many players dive with the smallest amount of contact, which creates a vicious cycle of cheating, so a mentality of 'they-are-cheating-so-shall-we' develops.  This amusing slideshow highlights some of the more guilty parties in football today. 

The much debated subject of a "wrongly" allowed goal giving a team a morale boost and psychological edge won't go away.  The two famous incidents mentioned in the previous post are certainly more prevalent examples at an international level, but it occurs regularly in the professional leagues.  Following Chelsea's 5-1 win over Tottenham Hotspur in the 2012 F.A. Cup semi final, Spurs striker Emmanuel Adebayor blamed the referee for "ruining Tottenham's F.A Cup dreams" and expressed his fury over the lack of goal line technology, saying it was "killing the game..".  Spurs Manager Harry Redknapp also criticised the referee for "guessing", stating his decision was a "disaster". 

Chelsea Manager Roberto di Matteo feels the current rules are contradictory, as retrospective video evidence is used to punish and fine players after a match, but not used for goals.

Football has and will continue to contain drama and passion with or without new technology and it seems unlikely that the absence of "wrong decisions" in a post-match debate will ruin the spectacle.  Football has a long history and there are a multitude of different aspects open for discussion following a match, a typical Liverpool post match discussion forum clearly shows this.  Football fans will always have heated debates, and it seems more likely that the interpretation of the replays themselves would become a post-match discussion topic.

(1) Just what the game needs or waste of time and money?

Most sports today have embraced replay technology and absorbed it into the rules and decision making process.  But is it right for football?  Association Rules Football is steeped in tradition and many believe the old ways are part of what makes football, football.

I suggest that the game needs it, and will discuss in further detail why this is the case.

Some of us may have at some point heard of Geoff Hurst's controversial goal in the 1966 World Cup final.  Likewise my generation watched in awe as Diego Maradona punched the ball past Peter Shilton in Mexico 1986, arguably the precursor to Argentina lifting the World Cup for a second time.

These obviously are two of the more famous examples and to a large degree still a hot topic of discussion amongst football fans today.

Based on video footage, mathematicians have even carried out trajectory analysis on Geoff Hurst's "goal" in an attempt answer the question once and for all. 

Had the linesmen and referees had access to instant replay footage, could these now mythical stories have been settled without the potential for human error?

In Geoff Hurst's case, unlikely.  Broadcast quality in 1966 was black and white, poor and lacked depth, in addition to the fact that instant repetitive access to footage from multiple angles was mere science fiction.

In modern times technology is different, digital quality with better colours, improved depth of field, live wireless data transfer to name a few.  Additionally there is further advanced "goal-line technology" available which eradicates the issue of the various camera angles causing a conflict of interest, particularly in terms of the ball crossing the line (or not).