Video Technology will gurantee the right result.

^^^^
Not if Daryl Hair is the man in charge.

I am not a regular listener of talksport but it just so happens it was on and Jack Bannister was reporting from the Windies and he said something along the lines of - If you are a football fan, the take note - you do not want video technology brought into the game.

The point will not be slowing down the pace of the game, the problem will come to the officials perception of the situation at hand.
The decisions that were made by Hair were attrocious - Beefy and Nasser were seething - if everyone else can see the ball hitting above the line of the stumps how does Hair "suggest" there is no reason to change the on fields umpires decision of giving it out.

At the end of the day, the hope is that a subjective decision will be made clear cut - but as we can see it is not the case.
Cricket has enough fools making the game a joke, we dont need incompetent officials making it more of a joke.

I agree this Test match has been very poor in the video room - but most of the time - they are far closer to 100% correct.

In Rugby its doing very well with both codes using video.

Id like to see it in football - but used in a red flag system as they have in American football.

Officials make the calls - if the coach\manager thinks they are wrong - they throw a red flag.

Game is stopped n checked.

It could be used by these wonderful managers in this country who have fantastic eyesight from the touchline who can throw the red flag when they see something wrong.

Obviously if they are right - they get the chance to throw it again later in the game.

If they are wrong - no more red flags that game.

Get 5 wrong red flags in a season - your club is deducted 3 points.

Yep its total Hollyhooks - but only then would managers see what a difficult job the officials have when the so called gifted players dive around like they are auditioning for the Burt Lancaster part in "The Swimmer" (If you dont know the film - Burt DIVES into ALOT of pools)

This is gonna be football orientated, sorry. As far as cricket goes, I support the new system if it means more decisions are made correctly. I dont agree with "i see no definitive reason why i shouldnt support your decision" bollocks. Man behind the camera should make his own umpiring call based on what he sees. If he REALLY REALLY REALLY cant make up his mind then a) the on field umpires call should stand and b) the umpire who can see multiple replays shouldnt be an umpire.

On to football, more specifically, responding to Tick.

First of all, American football is stop start and so stopping the game just happens when there is a break in play. In football this happens a lot less regularly and so such calls will break up the game.

Secondly. the calls can be so difficult that video technology might not help in some cases. Take Ronaldo's "penalty" incident in the Carling Cup final. The ref saw it as a dive in real time, I saw it as not a dive but not a penalty, Fergie's eagle eyes probably saw Ronaldo suffer GBH. The pundits in the studio (though morons) all say it was a 100% penalty and they had the benefit of video replays. I'm sure, nonetheless, that people would say with the benefit of the cameras that it was still a dive, that he was on his way down (which it does look like).
In such a case, we still have so much subjectivity and so which decision can be made?

I agree it might be a good idea to let managers have 1 or 2 shouts per game (not with the points deduction system and at least it will have to be more than 5), but I cant see past a) the breaks in play and b) the fact that some decisions through a camera will be as hard as to the naked eye. Sometimes, the man on the pitch just has a better view and a better feel in that moment than a man behind a screen.