The major problem for football is how and when you go to the technology.
In all other sports that use video technology, they only use it in scenarios where the ball is already dead.
You will never see the officials stopping play in Rugby League to check obstruction whilst the ball is still in play.
There was an incident when we played Wigan the other week were Tomkins broke free at the halfway line and made it to about 5 yards away from our line. When the replay was shown there was a blatent obstruction but because the try wasn't scored, the ref couldn't go to the video ref as the ball was still alive.
The pundits actually said that Warrington would have been better off if he'd have scored a try because it would have been pulled back to the halfway line for our penalty.

In football this kind of scenario can happen in far more situations.
A team could score a goal, but it isn't given as it looks like it didn't cross the line, but you then have two scenarios:

1. The ball goes immediately out of play so the ref can go to the video ref.
2. The ball stays in play and the game continues so the ref can't go to the video ref.

In the second scenario what do you do?
Do you do what happened in the example from our game above and just say tough luck, the ball is still in play so we can't go to the video ref or do you give the ref the power to stop the game at his own discretion to check it???

I don't think they'll ever go down the route of letting the ref stop the game to check as they don't even do that in any of the sports that already use video technology.
It can only go to the video ref when the ball becomes dead naturally, but then this could lead to a game in which both teams have a ball cleared off the line but it had actually crossed the line and one team were able to make use of the video ref as the ball went dead and the other team couldn't use the video ref as the ball stayed in play.

For me the best thing to do is to allow the FA to use video footage after the game and punish the officials for blatent mistakes like the weekend.
It is only by holding the officials accountable for these errors that I think we will see them improve their decisions.
As it stands at the moment, the FA take the stance that the referees decision is final.

As for the rugby league scenario, it is ridiculous that only live TV games have video footage.
Whether or not you agree with the rules of the game, all any player, coach or fan asks for is consistency week in week out. How can we ever have consistency when one week the ref has the advantage of video replays and the next week he doesn't.

That is actually a great idea, however it is not always straight forward is it.
It has been 46 years since the 1966 world cup final and they still can't decide if Hurst's second goal was over the line or not!!!!

How long can the game continue whilst the video ref watches the replays??

The only way it could work is if it could be like Ice Hockey and something within the ball would set off the alarm once it has crossed the line.

They can put chips into formula 1 cars that, with sensors on the start/finish line, can time laps more accurate than a thousandth of a second, they can also put chips into ice hockey pucks (sp) that can take far more punishment than would ever be inflicted on a football. Combine the chip with sensors and cameras built into the posts/crossbar and you get instant results without the need for human intervention. The technology is all there, IMO it just needs the right technology company to make a big enough offer to the old duffers running FIFA to grant them the license to provide the system.

As for 1966 - if Sky had covered the game with todays technology and their miriad of cameras, then everyone watching would have known for definate one way or the other within seconds.

Only problem with the chip is the whole ball has to cross the line, so the sensor would have to be in the netting just past the post, or they would have to put a few chips in the ball and they'd all have to set the sensor off for it to be a goal. With F1 cars it's easy, just put it at the very front, whilst hockey pucks are small so there's less to travel over the line.

Not really. It's very simple - it's complicated by Stevo constantly talking about the momentum rule. There is no rule per se, but it is referred to in the laws of the game.

In simple terms, technology is not going to help with forward passes for one simple reason; it doesn't matter if the ball travels forward. It matters if the ball is passed forward.

]This is particularly noticeable when a running player makes a high, lobbed pass.

I suppose you could put computer chips in players hands to see if they're passing it forward but that's probably going a bit TOO far. They could use the VR for forward passes but they'd have to educate people on what a forward pass was first.

So attach the sensors to the post/crossbar but position them a few inches behind the line!