Wobbling injustice is now served ...

Yesterday, like many keen football fans - I sat in front of the box watching the remaining game on Sky sports and the goal ticker after listening to Big Blue radio's coverage of Chelsea's 2-0 win over 'boro.

I'm not the biggest Tottenham Hotspur fan ... but severe injustice was served after 90 minutes in the Man U v. Spurs game at Old Trafford. I'm not the only one to echo these words - every football supporter up and down the country knows that Manchester United had escaped with that one point.

My issue with this is, if the FA agreed that the ball went over the line after 'investigating' the video footage ... why can't the final result be changed? I can imagine what the Spurs fans that travelled up to Manchester must be thinking. I must say that I thought Alex Ferguson was in fine spirit following the post-match interviews, admiting that it should have been a goal - knowing that there would be no goal score rethink. He might just as well have just stood on a chair laughing, flicking the V-sign at the press, football fan nation and Martin Jol.

Many websites have been running polls about goalline technology. Yahoo's poll on this issue;
When should video technology be used in football?
*Only to decide whether the ball has crossed the line
*For all key decisions including penalties and offsides
*Never

Personally, I believe that it should be the middle one - it has become a game now where there are too many 'flippant' decisions. There is too much money at stake to apply traditional 'Sunday League' dealings with such situations.

Employing 'Full Time' referee's just isn't enough anymore - video evidence would probably halt the game in terms of flow, but would stop wrong/over-cautious decisions being made.

A friend of mine emailed this to me this afternoon (not to be taken as press release! haha):
FA come clean over Utd 'goal' fiasco.... An FA spokesman after the game absolved the linesman of any responsibility for the apparently mistaken decision not to award a goal to Spurs after a shot from the halfway line crossed the goal line by at least a metre. He said: "The shot came in from an unusual distance and as such caught the linesman out of position forcing him to race back towards the goal as the play developed", explained the spokesman, "As he ran, the United scarf he was wearing under his shirt came loose and fluttered up into his face obscuring his view and preventing him from making the call. It was just one of those things." In response to further questions from the Press the spokesman explained "If they don't already have a United tattoo most officials on game day try to wear a scarf or a replica shirt under their regulation kit to show their support for the world's greatest club. The linesman in this case had chosen to wear a United scarf, a common choicethat is in keeping with FA guidelines. The root cause of the problem lies not with the linesman but with the players and management of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club who broke one the most important unwritten rules of the English FA: They placed a shot on target at Old Trafford. Martin Jol is new to this country and perhaps he is not yet familiar with some of our finer traditions. Fortunately if he doesn't yet understand that for the greater good of the game visiting teams, by tradition, are not expected to try to score at Old Trafford then ourofficials are in a position to help Mr Jol make that cultural adjustment." Chuckling to himself the FA spokesman added "The goal had to be disallowed to avoid us descending down a slippery slope that would be bad for the national game. There was enough trouble last year when ayoung Welsh manager forgot the rules and let his team score three winning goals at Old Trafford. It's a fine line the officials have to walk. If they award a goal this week, next week someone might expect a penalty or ask that Van Nistleroy be booked for diving. Can you imagine? That would just never do."

I'll leave you to think about that one!