Dithering over goal-line technology is so pointless

England go into their quarter-final against Italy this Sunday having drawn 1-1 against Ukraine on Tuesday. Except England were awarded three points and Ukraine, co-hosts of the tournament, were awarded none. That’s because officially the score was 1-0 to England, despite the fact that a shot from Marko Devic crossed the line before John Terry cleared it, that traditionally being the criterion for awarding a team a goal.

Sepp Blatter, the head of Fifa, football’s governing body, tweeted “After last night’s match #GLT [goal-line technology] is no longer an alternative but a necessity.” Alas for him, Michel Platini, who runs football in Europe and is the favourite to succeed Blatter, restated his opposition. And so football’s Dark Ages holiday took an extension.

Each argument given for opposing goal-line technology is bunkum. First it is suggested that it would undermine the referees’ authority; but the evidence from cricket, tennis and rugby is that it does not.

Then we are told it will cause delays — but there are lengthy stoppages around bookings and after fouls already, and such delays would in any case add to rather than subtract from the drama. Critics also say the technology can’t always be trusted; in which case, get better technology. It worked fine in those other sports.

Blatter has at least seen the light, having been converted by Frank Lampard’s disallowed “goal” against Germany in the 2010 World Cup. He had previously articulated a common refrain when saying: “I am in favour of putting the whole thing on ice. We have to live with errors. Football has to keep its human face.”

The idea that football would lose its humanity if goals were justly awarded is ludicrous, of course; and the fetishisation of human error, being a relic of theology, ought to be discarded. But it’s as nothing compared with the sloppy logic that still reigns in Platini’s mind.

“Goal-line technology isn’t a problem,” he said before England’s match. “The problem is the arrival of technology because, after, you’ll need technology for deciding handballs then for offside decisions and so on. It’ll never stop. That’s the problem I have.” This is that trusted crutch of the amateur philosopher: the slippery slope. Like all slippery slope reasoning, it belongs in the playground. There is no necessary connection between the introduction of goal-line technology and other types of referral.

Sport only works because there are rules to which all participants adhere, and gaining unfair advantage or cheating is a breach of the contract that makes each contest meaningful. Platini’s willingness to sanction it is therefore a threat to the very integrity of football.

The fight over goal-line technology is a contest between so much that I hate and so much I love. In the hate column: misanthropy, technophobia, reactionary stupidity, sloppy logic. In the love column: sport, justice, progress, reason. It’s a fight between those who would speed history up and those who would slow it down.

Alas for Platini, the thing about history is that it happens eventually. Injustices such as that visited on Ukraine this week will eventually be extinguished. If the Frenchman is too stupid to take the credit when that happens, somebody else will.

twitter.com/amolrajan