The demand for referees to be given "the benefit of video technology has been so strong for so long that you wonder why it has taken until now for the powers that be to cave in," according to Paul Forsyth of the LONDON TIMES. When SFA CEO Stewart Regan revealed the other day that it "could be introduced in next season’s Scottish Cup, it felt as if the inevitable had finally been accepted." Not that the delay is "any fault of his." Or of his "counterparts south of the border who plan to do likewise in their flagship competition, the FA Cup." Until now, the stumbling block has been FIFA, which has "stubbornly resisted the innovation" because it believed it would jeopardize the game’s "very essence." FIFA said that "potential for human error was vital in a sport that thrived on spontaneity." The organization worried that, "regardless of how many officials" analyzed a slow-motion replay, there would be "no guarantee of agreement." It would cost money, "it would not be available at all levels and it would interrupt the rhythm of a match, moreso as a growing number of decisions were contested." All of the above arguments just about held sway until '14, when then-FIFA President Sepp Blatter "performed a U-turn," two years after the introduction of goal-line technology. Since then, the clamor for video evidence to be consulted in other situations "has grown in strength, culminating in the International FA Board’s decision last week to recommend that trials be introduced." Some remain skeptical. Sure, it will be "impractical to roll out the technology at every level, but football is already inconsistent with its use of an official behind the goal in European matches." It is not the rules that are subject to variation, "only the resources with which they are administered." There is "intolerable pressure on the man in the middle, who is harangued by coaches at every opportunity." It "is time common sense prevailed" (LONDON TIMES, 1/11).
