>I think you're confusing me with Nick.....
>
>But, for the sake of argument: If the use of video replay was allowed as an adjudication device in soccer do you think that it should automatically be used to verify every referee decision.
>If not then when should it be used?
>Every time the disadvantaged side requested it?
>
>You're right...mea culpa...I must be more hungover than I thought.
>
>At a BARE minimum, I think it should be used for disputed goals. I probably would not use it to determine fouls/penalties. I would probably add offsides calls, and calls like the Henry non-call on the use of hands for disputed goals.
>
>The National Hockey League and National Football league have rules on what is reviewable and what is not. Again, there are models that FIFA can follow.

TBH I'm not that interested in soccer and don't know enough about the rules to argue this one way or the other.

I *can* see that it could be utter chaos if players were allowed to dispute all referee decisions. And, logically, if that were allowed, then it would be only fair to allow players to argue, at any time of their choosing, that a referee had *ignored* an infringement.

And I don't neccessarily see anything wrong, in sports in general, with accepting the fact the the referee/umpire's decision is final.

The rules of Cricket sum it up nicely:
Preamble : "Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. "
and later:
5. It is against the Spirit of the Game: To dispute an umpire's decision by word, action or gesture

I think your arguments disregard the 'spirit of the game' dimension....

It seems that Cricket has reached a strange compromise: An umpire can request an opinion from the 'third umpire' (i.e. video replay) but is not obliged to respect or agree with what it reveals :-}