I AM a believer in video evidence to solve or make decisions in sport mainly because when a ball is moving at 100mph plus you cannot trust the human eye to make a correct decision every time.

Video evidence works well in tennis, marvellously well I would say, and also in cricket and Rugby Union. Again I think it has been a brilliant addition to the game of cricket, especially when used for that old mischief, the lbw decision, and for catches behind the wicket.

Unfortunately football has not got it right.

In Rugby Union and cricket you do not see the referee or umpire walk off the field to study an action replay, the decision is made for them upstairs or in the video replay room. It was totally inappropriate to ask the referee in a World Cup Final to walk off the pitch and study a video replay. That’s the job of the people upstairs who are away from the heat of the game and the emotions of the players and fans.

Video evidence or video assisted refereeing is needed in football, because if it had been used in the past, Maradona’s goal with his hand against England would never have stood while Frank Lampard’s shot against Germany in 2014 which went over the line would have stood, and, at that time in the game, would have made a great difference to the result.

John Phelan, Howden-le-Wear