Greater use of video technology is welcome in football, but rugby has crossed a line.

Ever since the first match of the Rugby World Cup, when a Fiji try was rescinded by the TMO without referee Jaco Peyper asking for his assistance, there has been some debate in rugby about the use of the video referee.

To avoid such situations, and the embarrassment that comes with wrongly awarding a try, match officials are normally quick to resort to the TMO when in doubt. There have been countless moments in the Rugby World Cup when a try appears to have been scored by the side of the pitch, the referee approaches the touch judge to confirm the try and the touch judge just stands there with a look that says ‘How the hell am I supposed to know whether it was a try or not? Do I look like I have access to the almighty video screen?’

And so continues the age old debate of whether the priority is to let the game flow or to produce the correct decision under all circumstances.

However, in this World Cup it appears that despite the use of video technology, the TMO is still not able to consistently make the correct decision, or so say rugby’s Citing Commissioners.

To take the example of the England v Australia match, Sam Burgess of England and Michael Hooper of Australia were both cited for foul play after the match. Burgess was given a retrospective yellow card, a punishment that made absolutely no difference with England being out of the tournament and three yellow cards required for a ban to be issued, while Hooper received a week-long ban.

Before the World Cup there was also the case of Dylan Hartley. The Northampton hooker was cited and banned for the first week of the tournament, and consequently dropped from the England squad, for a headbutt against Saracens after the TMO had already looked at the incident in detail and declined to even give a penalty.

It is baffling that with video technology used extensively during matches, there can be such disparity between the decisions of the TMO and the Citing Commissioner.

During this World Cup, and perhaps because of the use of Citing Commissioners, there seems to be a trend of TMOs erring on the side of caution for fear of ruining a global spectacle, followed by the unaccountable, busy-body commissioners and judicial officers dishing out cards and bans left, right and centre in order to justify their existence.

A retrospective  five-week ban on Samoa’s Alesana Tuilagi this week drew a furious reaction from current and former internationals. While everyone else thought the winger had simply run into a tackle, the Judicial Officer, Antony Davies, decided he had kneed Japan’s Harumichi Tatekawa in the head.

Unlike in rugby, footballl’s governing bodies have always come out firmly against the idea of ‘re-refereeing’ matches. Because of this, there are no circumstances in football where a retrospective ban can be applied if a referee has seen an incident and given a free kick or a yellow card.

If video technology is ever fully introduced to football, the authorities would be wise to continue in this vain and also issue a couple of ground rules.

First of all, referees who make the correct decision without the use of video technology should be assessed more positively than those who choose to use it. Secondly, the decision of a video referee should be absolutely final.

The first guideline would ensure referees remain the most important figures in the game, rather than the impotent ones they are becoming in rugby, while the second would mean that Citing Commissioners/Disciplinary Committees can stick to their constructive role of reviewing incidents where the on-field referee has clearly got a decision wrong. Without the benefit of a citing system after the match, video referees will also have more confidence in taking tough decisions, knowing that their verdicts are the only way for players to suffer consequences for serious offences.