SPORT in general, and football in particular, is taken far too seriously, but the controversy over the goal-that-wasn't shows the use of these pastimes.

Yesterday's silence in memory of those killed by the Asian tsunami was well observed everywhere. But only madness lies in dwelling forever on the horror of the deaths of up to 200,000 people - if you visualise a 40ft wall of water washing away your young child from a beach you would deny them ever going to a favourite childhood playground, just in case.

So sport in general, and football in particular, provides a useful diversion from, and a little levity in, a very harsh world.

And so our sympathies go to the Chester-le-Street referee, Mark Clattenburg. A promising young official, he failed to spot the ball was a good metre inside the net and so allowed Manchester United to draw 0-0 with Spurs.

From his position, on a level playing field, it would have been very difficult to see what was happening at the other end of the pitch.

But the technological eye in the stand saw everything, and replayed it time and again to all who were watching.

Of course, the Manchester United goalkeeper should have been honest enough to have, in football parlance, held his hands up and said the ball was over the line. But cricketers no longer walk, and footballers dive and feign injury.

And so now, for straightforward black-and-white decisions - like did the ball go over the line - there is no argument against the introduction of technological assistance, either through video replay or by putting a microchip inside the ball.

The irony is that the technology is already in use. In the press box at Middlesbrough there is a large screen which shows instantaneous action replays for the benefit of journalists. It is so large that most of the main stand automatically turns round to see whether the referee has made the right decision.

In fact, the Spurs manager said that the replay was on the screen in his dugout within three or four seconds.

So journalists, the crowd and the managers all have immediate access to screens so that they can assess from all angles whether the referee was right. But the referee himself has only his one angle from his own eyes and a split second to make his mind up.

He's the one who needs all the help, yet at the moment he's the only one who is denied it.