Though I have great sympathy for the Irish, I am more inclined to agree with the sentiment expressed by Roy Keane, who – after Thierry Henry´s handball – reminded us that the Irish had benefited from a controversial penalty decision against Georgia earlier in the campaign.

The Irish FA did not appeal then.

There are several arguments against video replays. Keane implies that “what goes around, comes around'' - but the most important of these points against the video is that such replays are not always incontrovertible.

I was at the Brazil-England 2002 World Cup quarter-final in Shizuoka, Japan, and – despite being unable to see what had happened – joined in the booing-off of Ronaldinho after his foul on Danny Mills earned him a red card.

On the train after England's defeat, I sat with a TV camera crew who showed me their footage of the incident.

Their angle showed the Brazilian had done nothing wrong and my misery at England´s exit was compounded by the feeling that I had unjustly booed an innocent man.

A different angle on television later confirmed that Ronaldinho had gone in with his studs up and that the sending-off had been correct. Video replays don't inevitably provide indisputable evidence, then.

In cases of alleged fouls and handballs, there will almost always be a subjective element to the decision. Every fan knows this. Watching action replays of the same incident, supporters of different teams will see justification for a decision which favours their club.

The ensuing arguments are part of the fun of being a passionate supporter.

The second point against the use of video replays in football is the question of who owns the technology. At the moment, companies such as Sky and Setanta pay billions to televise the games and it is this we use to judge events in a match.

If their video becomes part of the rules of the matches, why would they continue to pay such sums to televise it? More importantly, however, there may be legitimate doubts about the biased nature of the media.

To assume that multi-national telecommunications corporations have no self-interest in decisions that affect big football clubs - which millions pay those corporations to watch - is simply naive.

What if, after a minute´s delay, the footage of a crucial incident affecting the Premier League survival of a big team was said to have been “accidentally deleted” by the television company?

Accidents happen, sorry. During some international games, only entities from the host nation have control of television cameras. We hear the BBC commentator saying “we have no control over what images we see” as a controversial decision is simply not replayed.

This fact is demonstrably open to abuse and could become extremely contentious.

These two points easily override arguments for the use of video replays in football.

It is fine to say that only captains could request replays and that the number could be limited by removing one for each incorrect challenge. But this does not deal with the essential fact that video can and does lie and would not resolve most issues to the satisfaction of players with so much at stake.

These points do not preclude goal-line technology. FIFA has not ruled out the use of a chip at the centre of the ball combined with computer technology that alerts officials if the ball crosses the line .

This seems flawless (television angles are not conclusive) and does not preclude the ruling-out of the goal for other reasons.

To my mind, this technology is far superior to the current Hawk-Eye technology used in tennis, which, after all, relies on cameras and a projection of the ball´s statistically most likely path.

Not only that, but there have been numerous examples of mistaken Hawk-Eye decisions, the latest being in this year´s Indian Wells Masters quarter-final match between Andy Murray and Ivan Ljubicic.

Perfected goal-line technology? OK. Video replays? Never.