Chelsea Florence Malouda's shot Saturday in the 2009 FA Cup Final between Chelsea and Everton at Wembley raised again the long standing debate about the application of video technology in football that was heavily voiced about in the numerous post match radio phone-ins by angry fans.
Many callers felt aggrieved by the stubborn refuse of the main Governing Body Authority (FIFA) to approve the technology to be applied in football. Luckily the call - ri! ght or wrong that was - was not decisive for the final result.
The goal not awarded to Malouda however was not the only match officials failure reported Saturday; there was also a giant offside position not flagged in the build up of the Everton goal and a sending off challenge that Howard Webb the referee converted leniently in a caution.
All these decisions could have been easily discussed in real time between the referee and its assistants on the pitch or behind a monitor and there would have not been the minimal acrimony and resentment towards the officials by the disgruntled crowds.
However there must be more than ethical reasons behind this stubbornness not to apply the technology. You can easily remember the many cases in the past when the ball had passed - or not passed the line starting from the most famous of all that happened coincidentally in this very stadium some ! 43 years ago - where goals were not awarded.
< br />
Even more worryingly are the thoughts for the ones that will be denied in the incoming important matches like the World Cup qualifiers or the next season competitions that will reach the climax with the South African World Cup that make reasonable suggesting an introduction of helping aids for the refs.
Instead it only inspire calls for sorrow of the opportunity seeing this magnificent 'Dream Stadium'- that cost almost a billion pound- made up of the most modern and daring construction techniques and materials - only to be incapable to help the game which is hosting to be played in a full sportsmanship and correctness including just decisions for the pleasure and joy of the crowds and the televised world watching it.
I personally can remember with dismay an unscrupulous London Referee Association chair who when posed the question at a meeting went goading with the idea to have the fans riled up over the! many 'controversial decisions' a referee can make in a football match; 'Great! It will generate debate' was his conclusions.
The worst the better he seemed wishing for the category. No wonder why that referee had his own career shortened up by being attacked by a player.
It seem however that UEFA is moving some steps towards civilization; from next season in the Europa League there will be two more assistant referees deployed just behind or beside! the goal lines and linked up via radio with the referee. 
The system has been tested thoroughly during the 2008 UEFA Euro U19 in Cyprus with positive results. (Pictured above courtesy of UEFA) However for cases like the one in the FA Cup last Saturday (See video, courtesy of ITV) or when the ball suddenly pass the line in the air I am afraid it will not be resolved if not combined with the goal post technology.
FIFA should not defer anymore these technologies. All popular sports now are using it with complete satisfaction of the public notably Rugby, Hockey, Volley, Tennis and Cricket. Why is Football deferring it? The prevailing current of thought in the FIFA circles is 'Football should be played equally at all levels; from Parks to Premier League the rules (and means they assume) should be the same.
OK then if we want to keep denying the progress why don't we carrying on playing with the old stringed leather ball and the equipment like the ! one pictured here next? (Pictures courtesy of www.iwantoneofth! ose.com)
