THINK of quite how many times you use modern technology in a day: your toothbrush, your watch, your TV, your mobile phone, your laptop, your camera.

Hold that thought a second. So, if a sporting event is watched, enjoyed by and affects millions, and has millions of pounds on it, surely you would use this technology to help produce an accurate result?

Apparently not! Fifa, the world governing body of football, feel they simply know better than anyone else, as demonstrated by their reluctance to embrace the use of technology in sport.

But there is another way — rugby union has led the charge in embracing the use of technology in sport.

The International Rugby Board (IRB) has utilised technology for over a decade now, with leading rugby referee Nigel Owens explaining that it “gives officials confidence to know that technology is working for us, rather than against us.”

Thus when refereeing a big game the referee knows that if he and his touch judges miss an incident, like someone being tackled without the ball, the television match official (TMO) can use technology to help make the correct decision.

The TMO possesses something no referee currently has in football: a second look from a wide array of camera angles, allowing them to address what could otherwise be frequently missed due to the fast-paced nature of rugby.

This reduces the chances of indiscretions, like tripping an opponent, punching or stamping at the breakdown or starting a fight, going unnoticed and unpunished.

Moreover the citing system means that in the rare event that a player “gets away with it” retrospective punishment can be quickly distributed.

Similarly football could utilise this to provide better and more immediate punishment for unsavoury incidents, particularly diving, that spoil the game and set a terrible example for the next generation.

I have heard people argue that referees would lose their authority due to relying on technology, though I believe that it would actually gain them more respect.

This is because people tend to berate and lose respect for referees who constantly make poor decisions. How often have you seen this happen in football, particularly over big decisions?

Leading rugby referee Wayne Barnes explains that technology is part of helping rugby referees to “get more of the big decisions right.”

For example, if it correctly overturned an initially wrong penalty call, technology could be allowed to have a positive impact.

At present, a referee being genuinely unsure but unable to access this support means technology works against officials.

It becomes ruthlessly utilised to highlight a wrong decision, vastly undermining the officials’ credibility, an example coming from when Argentina scored against Mexico at the 2010 World Cup.

Carlos Tevez put Argentina ahead despite being yards offside. The large screen within the ground immediately replayed the incident, with players and fans watching while the referee could not change his decision based on technology’s influence.

This kind of scenario should surely be avoided at all costs and seems likely only to produce confrontation, incorrect decisions and less respect for referees.

One counter-argument to technology says that sport matches are decided largely by how many human mistakes each team makes, such as missing tackles or giving away possession of the ball, meaning that mistakes from officials are equally a “part of the game.”

I wholeheartedly disagree and believe that in competitive sport we would rather not see a team win simply due to benefiting from an incorrect refereeing decision.

Technology certainly helps get more decisions right, and that has got to be good for the game, though it is largely ignored that use of this does not remove subjectivity from officiating.

These decisions are still being made by humans, who will make the mistakes — Wayne Barnes says that “we’ll never get every decision right because we will get in wrong persons and many other reasons.”

An estimated 95 per cent of decisions in the English Premier League were correct last season, according to the Professional Game Match Officials, so referees are clearly doing well despite a highly pressurised environment.

Do these referees not deserve the best possible chance to make correct decisions?

An argument used against involving technology in football concerns it being too difficult to implement due to the fast-paced nature of the game, though the use of goal-line technology in the Premier League recently shows it is possible.

The decision is made within a second and its success means one must consider utilising it for, say, penalty and offside decisions.

These events are of equivalent importance to the “big decisions” Barnes speaks of as looking to get right in rugby, such as whether a try has been scored legally.

There could be a review system where each team has a set number of challenges where technology can be used per match, as is seen in test match cricket, while of course the referee can utilise the TMO whenever they believe it is necessary.

Rugby and cricket have also shown that the suspense held while these key decisions are being deliberated through technology can provide added entertainment to the crowd through the heightened tension, confounding beliefs that this could cause long and tedious stoppages.

I acknowledge there are potentially practical difficulties but if a fast-paced sport like rugby can do it, why can’t football too?

Unfortunately Fifa persistently resists any sense of change, and seemingly refuses to study the positive example that other sports like rugby set.

Football is still stuck in the dinosaur age.

Do you know how many sports in the 2012 Olympics failed to utilise technology in any form to assist the referee/umpire/judge of the event?

One — association football.

Much more can be done in football, and it must be done because currently the rest of sport, rugby in particular, is light years ahead.