(SNIP)

>>Personally I'd be happy to see players found guilty of cheating (and there is usually plenty of TV evidence) suspended from playing for several games and hit with a big fine (big enough to hurt)
>
>That would be good. But that would only fuel the debate after the match. I'd also like this video evidence to be relayed to the ref immediately, when it comes to contentious decisions like this. They have it with Cricket, don't they, and maybe rugby? Definitely with tennis, where they have the ref called out if the umpire can't be sure, and there's always "Hawkeye" to consult (which is used in cricket too).

Replays are used in American football and remain controversial. Some like them because they improve the chances of getting the call right. Others dislike them because the action comes to a half for several minutes while the referees confer, then the head referee goes over to the sideline to watch the replay (often several times and from several angles), then they discuss it again, then the referee announces his decision, then play resumes. It throws off the flow of the game. And bear in mind that American football is by its nature stop and start (an estimated 12 minutes of action in a 60 minute game), not continuous flow like soccer. The distortive effect would therefore be even greater.