THERE IS absolutely no doubt that Fifa realises the importance of modernising the football adjudication system.
Over the decades there has been a consistent and compelling case for technological interventions to be introduced, considering that the game itself has evolved so much.
The the pace of the game, for example, has improved so much that the referee and his two assistants have become almost irrelevant.
To be quite frank, Fifa has not necessarily been stubborn in changing with the times. Nowadays, there are more cameras covering every aspect of the game.
So the status quo begs the vexing question as to why they won't allow for goal line technology to determine whether a ball has crossed the goal line or not. I mean such technology could initially be restricted to the 18 yard area in which case a chip and an electronic strip can be buried within the parameter of the goal area.
As a matter of fact, all these technological advancements that Fifa has applied to date, including the communication devices among the referees and the fourth official, have brought more excitement and credibility in terms of critical decisions that officials have to make in a split second.
More importantly, such technology has decreased the scope of match fixing and corruption.
Needless to say, there is less violence on the stands because supporters can see and understand the logic behind a particular decision.
A learned friend brings an HIV-Aids related analogy in terms of Fifa's reluctance to introduce such measures. In simple terms, it is the cost factor.
Whereas everyone understood the danger that HIV posed when it was first discovered more than two decades ago, many nations refused to address it, primarily because it meant that more money had to be spent in addressing this dreaded infection.
Now, millions of preventable deaths later, we know that it was more ideal and cost effective to treat and to manage HIV than it was to deny it.
I rest my case.