Has the FIFA president taken leave of his senses? This is the man who for decades steadfastly, and properly in my view, refused to budge from opposing any case of video adjudication over refereeing decisions, including goal line technology.

Then, a couple years ago, after another case of the misreading of a ball having crossed the goal line at the 2012 European Championship, he flipped and fully backed the introduction of gizmos that would correctly tell whether a ball had crossed the line or not.

To be fair the introduction of goal line technology (GoalRef) at this year's World Cup was brilliantly executed. The electronic device correctly adjucated over a number of close, goal line decisions and, importantly, without the game having to stop for even a millisecond. The big fear that technology would interfere with the flow of the game was thus averted. The technology, as claimed, was there to assist referees, not replace them.

But the idea of allowing coaches to challenge decisions, however restricted that rule may be, is a very different thing. Challenges simply cannot happen without an interruption, effectively a time-out, in the game. And when you consider that football's chief quality as a spectacle is its flowing nature, that is a very worrying and dangerous thing indeed.

0:00 00:00 / 00:00 Share Share on Twitter

Share on Facebook For all things football in your inbox

It would be a step towards mimicking a number of other sports, where stoppages, video challenges and time-outs are allowed and common. It will not be a case of fixing football but of Americanising it. The first thing that will happen is that as soon as a coach waves his arm for a challenge, TV networks will cut to a 30 second commercial break (something that FIFA today does not allow).

The other problem with such an 'innovation' is that video replays don't necessarily nor always tell the truth.

Take the famous example of the decision to award a penalty against Australia in the 2006 World Cup game between Italy and Australia.

One assumes that, if challenges were allowed then, Guus Hiddink would have immediately thrust up his arm for a challenge. But what did the video prove? In my opinion nothing.

After watching a replay of that incident at least 30 times I still can't tell whether Fabio Grosso dived or in fact Lucas Neill committed a foul. Maybe it was a bit of both. I quizzed two FIFA referees about it and they gave different answers: one said it was a penalty, the other said it was a dive.

For an infringement in football to be an infringement, it has to be intentional, whether it's a handball, a foul or a dive. But here's the thing: video cannot read intent, for intent is an emotion. It will be a circus that will only generate more debate, and more problems than it will solve.

Football is a wonderful game that conquered the world over a century ago. The deduction has to be that there isn't too much wrong with it that needs fixing. And the few things that ARE wrong are far more serious, far more common and far more in need of eradicating than occasional refereeing errors.

FIFA, and Blatter, would be better advised to pay attention to things that truly are an ugly blight on the game. Such as:

Simulation, play-acting and prolonged spells of players writhing on the floor every time they cop the slightest nudge. Time-wasting. Racism and unsporting behavior. Incessant fouling being used as a legitimate tactic.

To eradicate all of the above, you don't need videos. What you need is a tougher punishment regime, again to help referees, not to replace them.

The simplest reason not to introduce video refereeing in football is that football doesn't need it.

And Sepp Blatter would be well advised to abandon the idea and veer away from this ugly case of populism.

Follow @lesmurraySBS