Football is in the news again; well actually it’s always in the news but poor refereeing decisions that have influenced events, and possibly outcomes, of games is high up on the news reel.

The two incidents that recently come to mind were firstly Jamie Carragher’s studs-up, lunging ‘tackle’ on Nani during the Liverpool – Manchester United derby, which left him with a gashed left shin and some time on the sidelines and the other being Robin Van Persie’s ridiculous sending off during the Barcelona – Arsenal Champions League encounter at the Nou Camp. Two awful decisions and two decisions that should have been reviewed and subsequently changed.

Sir Alex is never far from a rant at the ref.

Crunching tackles, theatrical dives and players remanding with the referee have become the norm at today’s highest level, and consequently tough decisions have to be made among the officials. Referees are human, but surely they deserve the benefits of an introduction of technology? It’s an endless debate about whether technology should or should not be introduced and I think Sepp Blatter’s time is up. Every wrong decision and every managerial rant to the media shows that we all, players and fans alike, deserve better. Any human being with a fairly balanced conscience must feel the slightest bit sympathetic towards a ref when up to 90,000 fans are  hurling abuse at him (or her) and FIFA must address the matter.

At their most recent meeting they decided to ban snoods from the professional game but surely they should be tackling more pressing issues? But now the tough decision has to be made: if technology is to be introduced, what type should be applied? Blatter’s reasoning behind recent rejections of the idea have included not wanting to disrupt the flow of the game and that technology would dampen the drama of the match.

Firstly, disrupting the flow of the match is no mean sacrifice to arriving at the correct decision and reviewing a decision can be, as conveyed by the use of technology in cricket, an exciting wait of anticipation.

After much thought, I feel the best solution has to be a referral system, but it is by no means the perfect one. Firstly it should only be applied to major incidents like penalty claims, red cards and whether the ball has crossed the line for a goal. Using it for minor decisions would, as Mr Blatter correctly states, disrupt the flow of the game and be extremely tedious. Each captain would have a certain amount of referrals, say two, and he would have to use them accordingly during the course of the match. If he feels an unfair decision has been made, then he can (politely) ask for it to be reviewed by an off-field referee and, hopefully, the correct decision will be made. If it was shown on the big screen, then this would  add to the ‘drama’ but it may also eradicate players diving or committing fouls because they wouldn’t want to be embarrassed in front of the attending crowd.

However, this does have some flaws. Deciding whether the ball has crossed the line and into the goal is simple; it either has or it hasn’t. But deciding whether a player should be sent off or whether it is a penalty is more debatable. People have their own opinions but if two officials had the job of reviewing, with the help of technology, it is more than likely that they would come to the same decision. A good example is how television pundits almost always agree on a major decisions when their own personal judgements are put together.

It may not be perfect but if Sepp wants to retain the little dignity he has left, a look into the idea of technology will do little harm to his credibility and the footballing world certainly deserves a better deal than it’s currently getting.

Is this the solution to end the debate over technology in football? Give us your own opinion by commenting below.

By Hugh Wolton

To find out more, follow me on Twitter @HughWolton or ‘Like’ echoblog on Facebook

George Varley comments on England’s win at Lords:

England beat Bangladesh in the end comfortably. Trott cashed in against, let’s be honest a weak attack making an impressive 217, emphasizing his test match calibre. Captain resolute returned making 83 and 82, very solid. On the surface it looks like a comprehensive victory, and had one walked past a news agent and read: England beat Bangladesh by eight wickets, one would be calmly satisfied and relieved to see we can still beat the worst team (bar Zimbabwe) playing international test cricket today. So…

That is why I’m now going to state my opinion. That it was England’s worst performance since the 2007 Ashes in Australia. We created opportunities, then destroyed them, had the opposition under real pressure, then let them slip away like an owl might an elusive vole. It was weak in all departments for me. The runs made by Strauss and Trott total to 424 out of 668. That is not a team performance.

Cook got in twice, may have been a bit unlucky with his dismissal in the second innings but failed to push on. Eoin Morgan, one of the stars from the IT20 in the Caribbean showed, in my opinion why he is a one day specialist, wafting after a fullish ball on 43 and edging it to the keeper. He is great in one day cricket, so let’s leave him there. Prior, Bell and “Our new Flintoff” Bresnan showed their irresponsibility in getting in and failing, like Cook to really progress. I leave Pietersen out of this list, for a run out cannot be blamed just on one man.

Finn. Like most people, I know little about the Middlesex quick. Only that he is twenty, and Middlesex’s youngest ever debutant. Good signs I tell myself. Initially I thought Finn was gaining the credit for taking rather irrelevant wickets in the first innings, that of Bangladesh’s number 7 for example. However he plucked the top three Bangladeshi’s in their second innings, proving me wrong. As debuts go, I’m excited about the figures of 49 overs, 9 wickets for 187.

Three men showed they are really solid performers at Lords over the last five days: Strauss, Finn and Trott. But a Bangladesh side who put on 185 for the first wicket are no pushover. Tamim in particular providing impressive resistance. I think the second test will be more interesting than some imagined.

It is hard to believe that it is just four years since Twenty20 cricket sprouted, amongst eager anticipation, its first bud, in, not the current T20 capital, India, but in the ancient county grounds of England and Wales. At first, it was not welcome here, we failed to see that it held more commercial and entertainment value than, for example, Pro40.

How could we possibly believe that the younger, slower and duller brother of one day cricket was going to last longer than a Duracell bunny, who has recently had a terrible accident involving an angry wife and a combine harvester?

Twenty20 has not only failed to have such misfortune, but also has more vibrancy and stamina than Duracell bunny’s brother, Dirk Kuyt. This summer however, it all seems to be about to kick off over here. I speak now as England has just made it to the final of the T20 world cup inWest Indies, in contest against Australia.

We have been spectacular in this tournament. Putting aside the catastrophes of the group stage when an Irishman only just managed to knock out Ireland instead of us, we have knocked aside any contenders with a combination of big hitting, and even bigger hitting.

This is the best England one day team I think anyone has ever seen.

I think they’re just as surprised as we are. Full credit goes to the bowlers, particularly Tim Bresnan and Graeme Swann, for how they have bowled, and in some cases batted, but in my opinion our strength has easily been out batting. Player of the tournament should be between Pieterson, Morgan and Kieswetter, who have blown away all and any team that have sauntered in our direction. But everyone in the team has been superb, Michael Lumb has opened very well, Paul Colingwood has captained well and contributed quick and vital runs. Even Ryan Sidebottom has taken down his early tournament critics with some amazing spells.

The reason I say all this about our world cup is because I think that this is the perfect example of how we seem to once again be heading towards leading the world in a new format. The IPL looks to be good on the pitch, but crumbling off it. We missed the chance to have our own global tournament before they snatched it up, but now we have another. The success of our team in the World Cup may provide the spark needed to ignite a Cricket Premier League in Britain, maybe to rival our Football league as it sinks deeper into the red.

The counties have been in talks throughout the off season over what to do with twenty20 cricket in the country. There are talks of creating franchises such as those in the IPL and NFL. Our Twenty20 specialists, who have done so well in the West Indies, would provide a solid base in such a tournament, but I think that the tournament needs to be created quickly, in order to maximise the global appeal. We don’t need to disturb the irreplaceable mode that is First Class or Test Match cricket, for it is the backbone of the game. We are just providing the lifeblood needed to make the game commercially viable, more prolonged and more popular.

Yes, Twenty20 has at last been welcomed in this country. The bud has opened and now we await to be awed by the splendour of its petals.

Farcical scenes. The O2 arena was witness to a ridiculous event last night. I would love to say it is unprecendented but sadly this is not the case. Here is yet another example of a sport being embarrased as an institution. With Roger Federer, Juan Martin del Potro and Andrew Murray all caught up in a ATP World Tour triangle of world class tennis, only two could squeeze through to the semis. With Murray either needing a Federer victory or if Del Potro was victorious, he would have to go through winning the highest percentage of game (goal difference.) The main thing standing in Murrays way was the fact that the ATP organisers have the arithametical ability of a dyslexic chimpanzee.

The cricket world cup final 2007 ended in near total darkness.

Murray was left furiously twittering “Anyone know what’s going on? I think I’m audi [out] but the rules aren’t worded too well.” The administrators rushed around wittering into their walkie-talkies and signalling various hand gestures that left the public (and more importantly the players) in no better position to find out who had won. Eventually it was decided that the Argentine had pipped our Brit by a single game.

A sense of deja-vu unfolded. The 2007 cricket world cup final played on in near total darkness as batsmen struggled to see the white ball. Who can forget the Henry hand ball that turns the FA’s respect campaign into a joke? Seeing Henry lead out France in front of a FIFA “Fair Play” banner would be a farce. The key word here is preparation. Prepare the refs, prepare the fans – the players play their game, why damage the experience with officials that can’t do simple maths?

It is a victory for the people over money-grabbing corporations who destroy their rivals by smothering or buying them out. It is an example to the Royal Mail case, that privatisation has to be treated with caution or millions of taxpayers could lose out. It is a reprieve for millions of loyal fans across the country.

The way the government has taken the Ashes coverage back from Sky Sports has relevance to many aspects of current affairs. For those who are unaware: after dismal viewing figures for the summer’s cricket series of England vs. Australia, the government wants the programme back on terrestrial television. Four years ago, all cricket test match coverage was bought by Sky Sports, but in the case of the Ashes series, this is to be undone.

Only a very limited audience witnessed the dramatic scenes at the Oval

Less than a third of the numbers that tuned into the climactic match of the historic 2005 series returned to watch the final 2009 match. Millions could, or would, not pay a fortune to Sky Sports just for the single event that they would ever use it for. People were disillusioned that the sport had sold out. Not that it had any choice: in 1998, the government decided that Test match cricket was not worth protecting. This left the England and Wales Cricket Board free to make millions through selling the viewing rights. But the deal with Sky Sports proved to be a mistake. There was an outcry as diehard fans had to fork out a subscription fee or miss out.

Now, the Ashes – but not other home Test matches – will be protected by the government again as a “crown jewel” of British sport, alongside events such as Wimbledon. It is another U-turn by the government, but it has been so long that nobody cares. Cricket lovers will be free to love sport’s greatest grudge match, despite the wails of defiance from the globalist bullies who kept it from them. We should all be grateful for the sport’s precedent, and hope the little people will be able to make themselves heard on other issues in the future.

Usain Bolt acheived what many a fast bowler has been struggling to acheive for the best part of a decade at the first time of asking yesterday: hitting West Indies’s power striker Chris Gayle for six, following it up by clean bowling the once feared captain in an eagerly awaited charity match in Jamaica.

Upon appearing at the Kaiser Sports Club in Discovery Bay on Jamaica’s north coast, Bolt was mobbed by hundreds of delirious fans with the simple aim of touching the messianic figure. Wondering what this sprinter was doing on the hallowed turf of cricket? Bolt quickly put fears of apathy at bay by citing Pakistan paceman Waqar Younis as his childhood hero and telling reporters: “I am a huge fan of Matty Hayden.”

After putting his team the Trelawny All Stars XI into bat against the Kingston and St Andrew All-Stars XI, captain Bolt made 13 off 10 deliveries, including a sumptuous straight  six off Gayle’s offspin.

However Bolt sent bigger shockwaves through the spectating cricketing community (which included Windie’s Ramnaresh Sarwan and Jerome Taylor as celebrity players) with his bowling. Slinging off a long run-up (unsurprisingly) and with searing pace he started his salvo with a bouncer first up for Gayle. The batsman had little time to watch as Bolt lit the upstanding crowd as he splattered Gayle’s stumps, directing embarrassed Gayle to the pavilion.

It is about time someone put Gayle in his place after he featured these sunglasses at this Summer’s Twenty20 world cup. For Bolt, there is little else to achieve.