Phantom Goal Cannot Hide England’s Ineptitude or FIFA’s Failings

Rugby does it (both codes), tennis does it, cricket does it, horse-racing does it, even golf does it (if a spectator is caught on camera throwing Tiger Woods' ball onto the fairway from the rough, it gets replaced in the long grass), so the big question remains, why doesn't the world's most popular sport do it?

The excuse most commonly trotted out by the world's governing body FIFA is that stopping to check on a key issue such as whether the ball has crossed the line would slow the game down. To most football fans, though, it seems rather a waste to rig the three main match officials up with microphones and headsets and then prevent them from doing more than communicating with each other in a way that too frequently resembles the blind leading the blind.

How hard would it be to get a video referee to give his opinion on a goal-line issue after watching a few replays from different camera angles? It would slow the game down no more than a challenge at tennis, an innovation which has added to spectator enjoyment by becoming a keenly anticipated sideshow in itself.

Most importantly, judicious use of technology would go a long way to ensuring that the results of matches were not travesties, satisfying in turn not just the demands of equity and justice but also the huge betting markets.

Six hours after England's fightback from 0-2 to 2-2 was stymied by the defective eyesight of the only two people in the stadium who didn’t see that Frank Lampard's shot had bounced two feet over the line, Mexico were undone by another appalling offside decision (there have been plenty of those in this tournament), which allowed Tezez to open the scoring for Argentina. To add insult to injury, the players and officials were then treated to the sight of replays on the giant television screens which proved that referee Rosetti's decision to allow the goal to stand (based on the say-so of his linesman) had been errant, to say the least. Yet, under FIFA's rules, the referee was powerless to rescind his decision. Farcical – and a situation that responsible stewardship of the game would wish to address and repair.

Of course, a decision would have to be made as to what aspects of the play video technology would cover, but that is a challenge the administrators of other sports have addressed and overcome. For their part, Sepp Blatter and his cronies bury their heads in the sand, appearing all the while more concerned about their job security than about the integrity and health of the game they control.

Let there be no mistake about it – apart from a 15 minute period in the first half, England resembled nothing more than KMB double-deckers against Porsches and it's a fair bet they would have lost anyway. The same may be said for Mexico. But just what is required for Blatter to take action and bring the beautiful game into the twenty first century?

Germany dumped out of the tournament by a refereeing error from Howard Webb in their quarter-final clash against Argentina? Now that would be worth getting up in the wee hours to watch ...