So in the light of the offside in the semi first leg, the penalty and the handball in the final - all of which could have been immediately studied in a video replay by the 4th official or someone - should we introduce that option?

For my part I say "yes" simply because it is ultimately bound to happen and so the quicker we get on with it the better.

Well it aint spoiled Rugby, but definate guidelines should be adopted as to what incidents it would be used for

bollocks

 

what goes around comes around

 

makes the game what it is, interesting

what goes around comes around

 

fcuk me, we must be in for one hell of a run soon then!

What we can do though is change the handball rule (or interpretation) - non of this "ball to hand" bollox - simply it should be that unless its heading straight for your face or knackers (in which case the instinctive hand will not have changed matters much anyhow as the shot was going to be blocked come what may) it should be given. what seems to be the case now is that refs have decided that unless its a blatant stop on the line they wont give it and hide under the vagueness of the current law. I've seen a good few (both for and against us) not given at the Reebok this year - refs just seem to think that if they decide to never give a penalty for handball they will not provoke controversy.

i would go for a very limited use of cameras. rugby league/cricket employ video refs, but only use the evidence in certain circumstances, leaving the rest up to the ref/umpire.

 

perhaps 'over the line or not' decisions and offsides only should use it. wait until the ball goes out of play, then refer it to the 4th official. got to say that in relation to handballs, fouls etc it is pointless in my opinion, as most end up being a matter of opinion anyway. there are some like sam who will complain about the (in my view also) blatant handball by ehiogu, but im sure some boro fans will continue to claim it was ball-to-hand. clarifying the rules is the way to tackel those issues.