Video evidence will be used after Meekings furore

The furore over the Josh Meekings hand-ball incident last Sunday could have been nipped in the bud.

Instead, over 97 hours elapsed before the SFA released their explanation for the findings of their three-man independent panel.

Celtic manager Ronny Deila was right when he called for referees to be allowed to explain their decisions. Hearing why officials have dealt with certain incidents brings calm and clarity to the situation.

Celtic fans would still have been angry that Steven McLean denied their side a penalty. Nothing changes there. But hearing that he hadn’t seen the incident would surely have made it easier to take.

It would also have stopped some of the absurd conspiracy theories that swept the country in the aftermath of the Scottish Cup semi-final.

I don’t believe we need to ask the referee himself to take part in a post-match press conference after showpiece games. The SFA’s Head of Refereeing, John Fleming, could have a meeting with the officials, and then make a statement on their behalf. He could have simply explained that, having reviewed the incident, the officials realised it was a penalty and then issued an apology.

That would have removed the need for Celtic to send a letter to the SFA asking for a clarification about why they didn’t get a penalty against Inverness Caley Thistle. It’s a major disappointment that six officials all linked up with microphones at Hampden were unable to see the hand-ball.

It has been a poor season where refereeing standards in Scotland are concerned. Hopefully things will happen to change that. But we can’t have any more instances where the SFA Compliance Officer is offering suspensions for a hand-ball that wasn’t seen.

Retrospective action should only be taken in the case of simulation a measure introduced during my time as SFA Chief Executive and in cases where violent or dangerous challenges are missed.

We cannot start a system where every decision made by the referee is being reviewed and questioned. What if we find, after looking at video, that a tackle was just inside the penalty area and not just outside? Are we expecting the Compliance Officer to analyse all incidents of that type?

As things stand, we have to accept that referees just like players and managers will make mistakes. The way to minimise that would be to introduce video evidence.

If there is any good to come from the Meekings’ incident, it is that people are now discussing the possibility of using technology to help officials.

In 2009, when I was on the football committees of UEFA and FIFA, I put forward a proposal to introduce a video review system. Both bodies rejected the idea to have a set-up that worked, in a similar way to tennis.

Both technical areas would start the match having the right to challenge two incidents. If the challenge was correct, they remained with two.

FIFA Secretary General Jerome Valcke asked me what would have happened in an instance like the one where Thierry Henry handled the ball to set up the goal that defeated the Republic of Ireland in a World Cup play-off.

The match was in extra-time, and he couldn’t see how it would help if Ireland had already used their challenges. I said that the Irish would only have had themselves to blame for making two incorrect challenges.

My idea was rebuffed six years ago. But in light of last week’s furore, I’m more convinced than ever that it will happen one day.