I don't see a quest for rule purity; I see a quest for consistent decision making

This was the rules of the game being applied with the information available to make that decision. There can't really be any argument that it wasn't the correct decision.

I think though, that your point is more fundamental and suggesting that perhaps we should not have that technology (because if we have it, it has to be used, doesn't it?).

In this case, it was a teeny tiny touch that the officials only became aware of because of that technology, but without the technology in the ball, a slightly greater touch might also have been hard to see, and have been of more consequence and have gone unnoticed resulting a goal being incorrectly given. Although its application here did seem extreme, the outcome was that the rules were applied correctly and they would be applied exactly the same if a similar situation arises again.

There will always be marginal calls, but IMO, its much better to have disappointment over those fine margins not going the way we want, when overall it results in much more accurate officiating. IMO, consistency in decision making is the most important thing, and it trumps the importance of a moment being memorable.

On your other points, no, I wouldn't want it introduced for throw ins. I've quite liked how it's been used for quick checks of corners though.

Posted By: SimonOTBC, Jul 3, 13:28:26