Its the biggest but why is it the best?

Of course I do JD...I had to pull over as I was falling asleep when they started talking about footy (wont use wendyball not allowed!)

I used the term wendyball (light-heartedly) as a lot of players act like a big girls blouse most of the time.

As the saying goes:
Footballers spend 90 minutes pretending to be injured.
Rugby players spend 80 minutes pretending they're not.

As for the restart of a game in football following a video ref decision, couldn't you just award a goal kick ?
(Unless the ball does go dead before the call for the video ref)

I think it's all a matter of opinion, but the sheer simplicity of it is kinda what makes it so great, for me. Rugby is a bit aggressive and perceived as a tough sport. You can have a kick about anywhere, your garden, roads, 'backsies', school playgrounds, indoors or outdoors, and all you need is a ball, if that sometimes.

What's the 'best' is a matter of opinion, but I think football's universal appeal is the simplicity of it, yet there are so many styles and positions to play.

Football is just too big to make the radical changes necessary. Goal-line technology has been researched and may be introduced in a couple of years but that's only a small part of the problem.
Off-side, fouls, handballs, dangerous play, diving, yellow and red cards, feigning injury etc.......... can all be game changing incidents but rely solely on one individual's opinion with as much help from the line as our own rugby league 'officials'
How many times have we all shouted for a decision then changed our minds after watching the replay from 4 or 5 different angles?
The only way to sort it out is with video technology being made available to referees before they make a potential game changing decision. The ball is dead or out of play more than enough to refer to video or the ref can stop the game at any time. there's no need to look for the one scenario where it nay be awkward just look at how to speed up the decision making process so as not to spoil the flow of the game.
BUT
It will not happen. It's just too big
Heres hoping Im wrong

Referring back to RL, in football they can check whether a player if offside by drawing a horizontal line across the pitch level with the last defender at half time. Could this be used in RL to measure forward passes taking out the issue with the camera angles?

Probably opened a can of worms here in terms of momentum, direction of the hands, etc...

Surely goal line technology would mean that play would continue until the 'technology' gave the goal. So the incident on Sunday would just result in play on because the referee wouldn't recieve a bleep in his ear to confirm a goal. However back during the world cup, Frank Lampards goal would have been given and play stopped because the referee would have heard the bleep. There would be no need to stop the game to check, or worry about how to restart the game as the decision would be live and instant.

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!