Football FanCast columnist David Mooney feels it is about time technology was introduced to aid our referees.

On a popular forum which I post, there has been criticism aimed towards Graham Poll for giving decisions that were to ‘further his career'. He had said on Radio Five Live that all referees make decisions to further their careers and, when pressed on the matter, he explained how a bad decision he made got him sent home from the 2002 world cup finals in Japan.

Personally, I don't see any problem in what he's said. But a lot of people have made the connection that he might have given some ‘career benefiting' decisions in the Premiership. And that's probably right.

But before you reach for your pitchfork and head over to Graham's house, let me explain.

I think referees do make decisions that will get them big profile games, just how footballers try to impress during games against better opposition in the hope of being signed on for a better team. Now, granted, this mightn't happen that often in the Premiership, but it certainly happens on Melland's (local Manchester football pitches) on a Saturday morning.

Now, referees are going to get bigger games if they show that they can handle the pressure and aren't afraid to make a big call and make it correctly. And that's not simply giving a penalty against Chelsea that wins Aston Villa the game, but making that decision and getting it right.

Of course, these are rarely given and that, I think, comes from the fear of being wrong. We have to forget that we, as the people who watch highlights and live TV games, get the benefit of replays, from all angles, and in slow motion. The referee gets one view, just like the fans at the game, to see. Add to that 40,000 people who are prepared to shout all kinds of abuse in your direction if you give the controversial decision, right or wrong, and suddenly, the easy option is ‘not to see it'.

And I'm sure that goes on more at Old Trafford, at Stamford Bridge, the Emirates and Anfield. But that's not to suggest that referees are fixing the results of games to further their careers.

I'm sure there's some data out there on who gets the most good and bad decisions, but, and I'll be honest with you here, I've not bothered to look, simply because it's a very subjective thing. I think every referee is against my beloved City, when, in actual fact, they're not.

They have good games and bad games, just like players. I play in goal and I know when I've made a bad decision - to punch or a dropped catch or whatever - and that usually results in a goal. But we seem to view referees as the perfect guy who can see everything as we expect it to be seen, which isn't the case.

In fact, I think all that I've just said advocates why we need to employ video technology into football. And my opinion on this is the same - it's needed. Tennis, cricket and even snooker employ the use of Hawk Eye (albeit snooker for simply digital representations of where the balls are placed. I like snooker. Don't mock me).

I accept the argument that football doesn't have natural breaks in play, like tennis or cricket, but, actually, I don't think that's strictly speaking true. There are throw-ins, goal kicks, free kicks, corners... Perhaps we should have a video referee, who the main referee can consult on one of these natural breaks - for example, on one of those Geoff Hurst, did it/didn't it cross the line, the play goes on until the ball goes out and then we look at the video. If the goal is given, we move the clock back and re-start from the centre spot. If it isn't, we re-start from where we left off.

Then we could, say, add the tennis aspect - each manager or captain, say, gets three chances during a match to ask the video referee to look at a decision - a penalty or a red card, say - and it has to be used at the next natural break. Give them an extra challenge in extra time and everyone's happy.

Or are we? It's a system I see few flaws in, but I await your comments!