Is it time to refer to a fourth official/video technology?

Video replays would have stopped Kieran Gibbs red card v Chelsea last season

The age old question seemingly, the debate over whether referees need more assistance from technology. Alex Johnson looks into the in's and out's of such a plan.

The debate that will not go away.

Whether we want it or not, video technology casts its shadow over football and will continue to do so until the day the governing bodies embrace it...and then the fun will really begin!

For now, the arguments for and against rear their heads every time we have a controversial decision.

The talking heads appear in our sports bulletins and morning papers.

If football chooses to go down the road of video technology, the debate will simply shift focus to whether or not its impact is positive or negative.

So do we need it, is it time those in charge at all levels - the FA, UEFA, FIFA - finally make the big leap?

The big question would be, where do you start? How much outside interference do you allow and how soon? The traditionalists will counter that football is enhanced by the unpredictability of officials.

From Sunday League to Champions League, players and fans can share that same comfort of writing off defeat or a poor performance by insisting "the refs had a nightmare with that one."

Other sports are leaving football behind. Rugby, tennis and cricket are but three that have embraced technology and all it can offer. Many would argue technology has enhanced these sports.

The challenge system in tennis whereby players have the right to question the calls of officials using the Hawkeye system is a tactical addition in itself.

Assigned a limited number of challenges per set, a player cannot simply question everything that goes against them. Wrongly questioning the official's means player's forfeit the right to challenge and being too eager will leave them at the mercy of a poor call at a potentially more decisive juncture.

The television match official in rugby has all the angles and replays available instantly that our football pundits routinely use to ridicule referees.

How many times when a poor decision is made must we listen to pundits after the game pouring over replays and adding "it's easy for us with the benefit of a replay, the ref had to call this in real time."

It needn't be this way.

The arguments against introducing technology question how they will undermine the referee.

Human nature dictates the best referees will make mistakes. In the same way Lionel Messi can miss a simple tap-in. It doesn't lessen their overall ability to do the job.

Technology, if introduced, should be there as an aid to our match officials, to enhance our game and eliminate unnecessary mistakes.

It would also bring to an end a real scourge on the game that is also evident from parks up and down the land on a Sunday morning to Super Sunday and the billion pound industry that is the Premier League.

"The refs made his decision; he won't change his mind now."

Like a badge of honour, the men in the middle make their call and that is that - no questions.

Let's help them out. Make their life easier.

So, what can football bring to help?

Goal Line Technology

This really should be a no-brainer. That is hasn't been introduced by now is testament to the out-dated dictatorship that appears to govern world football - or Sepp Blatter as his friends know him.

In a game and industry worth billions, goal-line technology removes the need for the officials to fret about the most important decision in any game, goal or no goal?

The most important decision but yet it is one of the more difficult ones for officials to get right.

That split second as the ball meets goal line before a desperate, lunging defender hooks it clear.

From the angles and distances the officials have to make these calls the close ones are 50/50 at best. Which means they will get half of the close calls wrong. As well as the Frank Lampard and Pedro Mendes moments that defy logic.

By introducing technology, the referee need only respond to the information he is given. The grey area is removed.

The systems are there, ready to go. The trials have been conducted. It is simply a matter of when football takes a leap of faith.

Video Replays

We start to get into the uncharted territory on less 'matter of fact' issues.

When defender meets attacker in the penalty box and the latter finishes up on the deck pleading for a penalty this is purely at the discretion of match officials.

All the replays in the world sometimes cannot provide true clarity or a consensus of opinion.

Would these types of decisions benefit from replays being available? Yes, on certain occasions but not every time.

With simulation rife in today's game the task of the referee in this regard is far from envious.

What about replays for contentious offside calls? Is there a gain to be had from playing on in these situations and allowing the officials review the rights and wrongs afterwards?

Again, there is work to do be done around how and when it would be implemented, but there is untapped potential here for our game.

Fourth Officials

They hold up the board at the end of each half to show how much time must be added on. They also take some earache from managers when their colleagues get things wrong. Is that enough to justify a fourth official's existence on planet football?

They are redundant in terms of decision-making during games and on that basis are completely under worked.

The fourth official should, at the very least, be permitted to stop the referee from making a blatantly incorrect call.

Take Andre Marriner's decision to send Kieran Gibbs off at Stamford Bridge last season for a handball offence committed by Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain.

The glaring error did not attract major controversy due to the fact Arsenal had already spontaneously combusted in the 17 minutes played. They lost the game 6-0 and Arsene Wenger had more pressing concerns in the aftermath.

But it was a simple case of mistaken identity. More than 40,000 people inside the stadium knew it was wrong. Gibbs and Oxlade-Chamberlain knew it was wrong. Wenger and Mourinho knew it was wrong. The fourth official must have known too.

The chances are that, by the time Gibbs left the field, even Marriner himself would have known something wasn't right (which of course gets back to point on referee's viewing a change of heart as weakness!).

There simply has to be scope for the fourth official to intervene in such an instance to save his colleague.

Imagine the same scenario in a title-defining game where the offender is let off and goes on to score the decisive goal.

The Verdict

It is time football began to move with the times.

There are positive ways in which technology and fourth officials can help to improve the product we serve.

Eliminate simple mistakes and human error where possible. Where a decision has a clear positive and negative outcome, let technology help us out.

Other sports have shown the way and football must follow them.

What we don't need is 'The Jose Mourinho Rule'.

The Chelsea boss wants managers to have an option of challenging decisions from the sideline, perhaps a set number per game or per half.

Such talk arguably only serves to stop football from embracing technology that can help to grow our beautiful game.

Mourinho too ought to be careful what he wishes for. If he removes refereeing blunders entirely then even he will have to admit that sometimes, he just got it wrong.

Now that really is a leap of faith!