The Front Row with John Leicester March 9, 2010

PARIS - At FIFA headquarters, they should carve this motto above the door: Why annoy some people some of the time when you can infuriate just about everyone all of the time?

In ruling out further experiments on the use of technology to determine whether a goal has been scored, the guardians of soccer have made a bad mistake.

Call it Murphy's law, divine intervention or mere unfortunate coincidence, but soon after the International Football Association Board voted this weekend to stay in the technological Dark Ages, the extent of the rule-makers' folly was exposed by a goal dispute in soccer's oldest domestic cup competition, England's FA Cup.

Had the technology been in use, then a ball with an embedded chip could have sent the message "Goal" or an earpiece beep to referee Steve Bennett when Liam Ridgewell's header for Birmingham crossed Portsmouth's line. Without a long and tiresome hold-up in play and without anyone in the crowd or on the pitch even having to know that he got a computerized helping hand, Bennett could have awarded the goal that would have cut Portsmouth's lead to 2-1 and, with some 10 minutes left to play, might have heralded a Birmingham comeback.

But instead, match officials didn't keep up with the action, as is too often the case. Bennett, forced to rely on nothing more than human eyesight, ruled it was not a goal. Unfairly for him, he was made to look incompetent by TV replays which subsequently showed the ball crossing the line before Portsmouth goalkeeper David James blocked it.

Reaching the cup semifinal would have netted Birmingham at least $680,000 in prize money. The fact that broke Portsmouth needs the cash more doesn't make this situation fair.

Let's hope now that a similar mistake mars the final of the World Cup on July 11. FIFA and the other IFAB members who refuse goal-line technology would have a far harder time justifying their blinkered approach if the outcome of soccer's showcase tournament is determined by yet another avoidable refereeing mistake.

As sad as it would be to see the World Cup won undeservedly, it could also be a necessary evil if it forces the IFAB to reconsider. Only such a huge embarrassment, in front of a global television audience of hundreds of millions, could perhaps do the trick. Because the rule-makers don't otherwise seem to give a hoot that their refusal of technology is incomprehensible to the game's leading lights, including Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger. It's their word and their word only that counts.

Soccer, as FIFA general secretary Jerome Valcke made so abundantly clear this weekend, is not a democracy, even if it is the planet's most popular sport.

Said Valcke: "Technology should not enter into the game, whatever are the opinions."

The IFAB, made up of FIFA and the football associations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is right to argue that soccer's human face and charms should be preserved. They are correct that referees' calls cause fans to chatter over beers in bars across the world. If referees and not video replays are to remain the final arbiters of the game, as they should, then occasional mistakes are inevitable perhaps even desirable.

But match officials also are being outgunned and second-guessed by television spectators and commentators armed with far more information than is available out on the pitch. According to Valcke, 32 cameras will cover each World Cup game, so viewers will see the action from angles that referees can't. Their mistakes will inevitably be spotted, which is bad for their credibility and that of soccer as a whole. Getting rid of the cameras clearly isn't the answer, getting the referees more help is.

Introducing video replays for other elements of the game, to spot fouls like Thierry Henry's infamous hand ball against Ireland in World Cup qualifying, for example, would take too much power out of the referees' hands, and there likely would be too many stoppages in play while videotape is reviewed.

But just because those technologies are undesirable doesn't mean that all technical solutions are. At the very least, referees should not be missing goals or awarding them when the ball did not cross the line. For the IFAB to claim that it wants to help referees, while at the same time ruling out further experimentation with goal-line technologies that could stop them from making the most elementary mistake, makes no sense.

John Leicester is an international sports columnist for The Associated Press. Write to him at jleicester@ap.org.