Andy Potts

Anyone who's been out in Moscow on St. Patrick's Day will have noticed that there's a certain kinship between Russia and Ireland - and after last week's World Cup Qualifiers the two nations can add a sense of shared grievance to their common ground.

From Russian red cards in Maribor to defeat at the hands of Thierry Henry in Paris, both teams felt poor refereeing contributed to their World Cup demise.

Inevitably, in the wake of the controversies over Alexander Kerzhakov's dismissal - for which the Norwegian ref later apologised to beaten coach Guus Hiddink - and France's dodgy decider, the issue of video refereeing has returned to the agenda.

The arguments in favour are simple: in matches of such importance, it is absurd to allow officiating errors to decide the outcome.

Taking two minutes to consult a replay would have confirmed that Henry handled to sink the Irish, and would have thrown doubt around referee Terje Hauge's assumption that Kerzhakov was dangerously assaulting Slovenian keeper Samir Handanovic.

Russian sports fans are well used to seeing key incidents referred to the TV screens. In KHL hockey matches a video judge is used as a matter of course.

A simple example: the night after the football play-offs, Dinamo Moscow were defending a narrow lead against Lokomotiv Yaroslavl when the puck rattled the crossbar, dropped on the goalline and was desperately swatted away by home goaltender Vitaly Yeremeyev.

English and German football fans would immediately recall the notorious 1966 goal for Geoff Hurst, awarded in similar circumstances on the nod of the so-called "Russian linesman", Tofik Bakhramov.

But today's Russian refs merely called for a replay, and 30 seconds later the answer came from above - no goal, and much relief for anxious Dinamovtsy.

So, an open and shut case? A few seconds to guarantee a correct decision, and everyone outside of Yaroslavl is happy?

Well, not quite. Hockey is a game which naturally stops and starts abruptly. Passages of play are short, and restarts with a face-off hand little advantage to either side. Restarting play fairly after a similar incident in football is more complex.

Second, not every case is quickly resolved. In one match last season Spartak scored an equalising goal as the siren sounded to end the second period - and it took the officials the whole 15-minute break to determine whether the puck crossed the line in time. Neither the fans, nor the two teams, knew exactly how to prepare for the final session because the scoreline of the match was unclear. Imagine a packed Luzhniki with 70,000 fans on a knife-edge awaiting a crucial call in a big game - and being kept in the dark for so long.

Third, so far hockey only refers to video judges for goals. Penalties are called on the ice. This system might have saved the Irish, but wouldn't have helped Korsakov - not least because while a replay could confirm that there was a loose ball for the striker to go for, an official - in real time or on video - could still conclude that swinging a boot in the direction of a prone goalkeeper represented "dangerous play".

Finally, there is a practical concern: world governing body FIFA is concerned that football, as enjoyed by millions of players worldwide, should remain essentially the same from the World Cup Final down to a Sunday morning pub game. Applying expensive technology to the cash-rich pro game would end that noble ideal.

For all the frustrations of Russian, Irish and other fans around the world confronted with dubious decisions, it seems that in football, at least, the referee is set to remain right even if he is wrong.