The 2012 Annual General Meeting of the International FA Board in England on 3rd March has brought the introduction of goal line technology much nearer.

Two systems have been approved to move to the next stage of testing while another six have failed to meet the strict criteria set by the IFAB.

The two systems work on different principles. GoalRef, developed in Germany uses a magnetic field with a special ball to identify goal situations while the English Hawkeye system uses cameras.

The previous front runner, the Cairos/adidas chip in ball system, did not pass the first stage.

Stage two testing will take place between now and June and a final decision will be made in early July.

If a suitable system is approved it will be used in the 2014 FIFA world Cup in Brazil.

A decision will also be taken in June about the additional assistant experiment supported by UEFA President Michel Platini. From the comments made by FIFA President Sepp Blatter, recently, it is unlikely that the system will appear in Brazil, although it may continue in UEFA competitions.

If both systems pass the stage two test, it seems likely that the Hawkeye system would be introduced in the Premier League, probably in season 2013-14.

There could be some problems, however, in UEFA competitions if different systems are used in different countries or if some of the competing teams do not have a system installed at all.

The systems must be regularly calibrated to ensure complete accuracy and the expense of installation will limit their use for many clubs and competitions.

Most important for UEFA competitions, however, is the fact that its President is strongly opposed to the idea of using any form of goal line technology

In my time at FIFA and at the Scottish FA I have attended 16 Annual General Meetings of the International FA Board as well as Business Meetings and meetings of the Technical Sub-Committee.

I therefore take a keen interest in what is being discussed at the law making body of world football.

The Agenda for the 126th Annual General Meeting has its usual mixture of major and minor proposals, often promoted by members of the Board who are only acting as a vehicle for other interest groups whether or not they agree and indeed will support the proposals when it comes to the vote.

It is not unusual for a member of the Board to propose a certain amendment and say at the same time that it does not expect the amendment to be approved and indeed would be happy if it was rejected.

The Board member can therefore say to its constituent that it did raise a certain matter but it was rejected by the other ‘bad guys’.

I believe, and hope, the proposal of the Football Association to propose modifications to the Notes on the Laws of the Game – Modifications fits into this category.

Basically it proposes to allow modifications to the substitution procedures in all football except ‘the most senior domestic competition of a member association’.

Does this phrase mean the national cup is more important than the national league or vice versa? Which one would the modification apply to?

By my reading of the text, in any but the top national competition, this could allow any number of substitutions as well as rolling substitutes when players could be substituted and then return to the field of play later in the match.

If this proposal were to be accepted it could alter the whole concept of football worldwide regarding substitutions.

It could cause chaos and should be strongly resisted by the other members of the IFAB

An interesting item on the Agenda of the International FA Board meeting in London on 3rd March 2012 will be a request by the Asian Football Confederation that the ban on women’s wearing headscarves be overturned.

AFC Acting President Zhang said “Many women footballers in Asia wear headscarves,”

“I would like to request the IFAB to favourably consider FIFA’s proposal and review the rule and allow women players to play wearing a safe headscarf that covers the neck,” he said.

“My colleagues in the AFC Executive Committee strongly support the idea of reviewing the rule and I think it is in the interests of women’s football worldwide.”

He said several new designs of headscarves are now commercially available in the market that ensures the safety of the player.

This seems a sensible request.

The Laws over the years have been adapted to meet new demands and making headscarves legal will take away a major source of controversy, not only in Asia but in many other countries where religions demand certain dress codes.

Allowing headscarves will also raise the question of whether the ban on snoods which was passed at the Board meeting in 2011 should now be reversed.

Law 4 Players’ Equipment states that ‘A player must not wear anything that is dangerous to himself or another player (including any kind of jewellery).’

Headscarves and snoods do not seem to come into that category.

Football in Great Britain has been central to a number of controversies in recent weeks because of decisions taken by the Football Association and the Scottish Football Association based on and supported by television evidence.

The Luis Suarez case, when the Liverpool midfielder was found guilty of racially abusing Manchester United captain Patrice Evra and banned for eight matches has possibly been the most high profile case but there have been others which have been questionable to say the least.

In Scotland there was the case of Sone Aluko of Rangers who was banned for two matches for simulation – or diving. Had the referee recognised the offence he would have received a caution with no match ban. This is inconsistent.

Recent incidents in England involving high profile players such as Mario Balotelli and Joleon Lescott in the match between Manchester City and Spurs have highlighted major inconsistencies and matters of concern.

Firstly the media are now setting the agenda for punishments, having had the luxury to review incidents over and over again and then to demand action from the authorities.

The authorities have over-reacted by issuing punishments which far exceed what would have been given had the referee seen the incident in the first place.

This in turn totally undermines the authority of the match referee.

Perhaps the review panels should be more prepared to issue additional points to the players’ disciplinary record for ’unprofessional conduct’ or for ‘bringing the game into disrepute’ – importantly neither is an offence in the Laws of the Game.

This would recognise the need for punishment but avoid an automatic suspension which might often appear excessive.

Refereeing is a mysterious art and sometimes the paying public are not aware of some hidden agendas.

In the recent Carling Cup Semi Final between Cardiff City and Queens Park Rangers the two leg match finished level at 1-1 after 180 minutes of play.

Extra time was required and, after a goalless 30 minute period, kicks from the penalty mark were used to determine the winner.

Referee Howard Webb, when tossing the coin with the captains for the restart of extra time, not only tossed for the team which would restart the match but also decided the end of the stadium at which any kicks from the penalty mark would be taken.

Forward planning in kicks from the penalty mark is important.

If the surface of a particular goal area has been damaged it should be avoided.

If most spectators are at one end of the stadium and there are very few at the other end there is no problem in choosing the goal to be used.

Where there are opposing supporters at each end, the decision of which goal to use becomes more problematic.

The simple way to solve the problem, as Howard Webb did in the Carling Cup, is to toss a coin and so everyone knows which end will be used.

There are also special situations such as safety and security and by alerting the police to the end to be used this problem can be minimised.

The main consideration for the referee is to ensure that everything is fair.

Having refereed a torrid 180 minutes of play successfully, the last thing a referee needs is to be criticised for is the administration of kicks from the penalty mark.

The demand for the use of television evidence continues, at the moment concentrated on goal line incidents but there is also a push that television evidence should be used in other match incidents.

Television evidence is used by a number of associations, however, to deal with cases which are not seen by the referee during the match.

In the recent match between Manchester city and Tottenham Hotspur, Italian Mario Balotelli, appeared to stamp on the head of Spurs’ midfielder Scott Parker.

The incident was replayed over and over again by Sky TV and the studio pundits and the Spurs’manager, Harry Redknapp had divided opinions.

The Football Association has now decided the player has a case to answer and has banned him for four matches.

In the Scottish Premier League match between Dundee United and Motherwell, Michael Higdon, the Motherwell striker scored the equalising goal and reacted to the jeers he had received from his own supporters by making a gesture towards them.

The match was not televised live, but the BBC producer decided to replay the end of match incident and so generated a post match discussion on whether he should receive retrospective punishment from the Scottish FA.

There is always a case to use television evidence deal with serious incidents which are not seen by the match officials but Motherwell manager, Stuart McCall, has rightly raised the question of whether the television producers are now setting the agenda on disciplinary matters.

If television producers are now spending their time trawling through the match footages to look for controversy we are moving along a dangerous road.

Might these same producers have the same power if television replays are allowed during a match?

Royal Mint, which is responsible for producing coins in the UK, has produced a series of 29 fifty pence pieces to commemorate the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Possibly the most intriguing is one produced by production journalist Neil Wolfson which explains football’s offside rule.

Wolfson is a football fan and a qualified referee and his simple design on the reverse side of the coin gives anyone with a fifty pence piece in their pocket and instant guide to the intricacies of offside.

Offside is one of the shortest of the 17 Laws of the Game but it is the most technical.

It is also essential for the structure of the game, If there was no offside for example the easiest tactic would be to crowd each penalty area with attackers, and therefore defenders, and kick a long ball from one end of the field to the other.

It has evolved over the years.

It used to state that there should be three defenders between an attacker and the goal when he had the ball played to him. This was later reduced to two and in 1990 the attacker became onside if he was level with the second last defender.

There have also been changes in the interpretation of the Law.

The concept of active and passive play was introduced which confirmed that being in an offside position was not an offence in itself.

The assistant referees are the ones with the pressure of signaling for offside in the difficult situations when, for example defenders are running out and attackers are running toward goal or when a long ball is played.

The amazing thing is they get it right most times – even without the help of a fifty pence piece in their pockets.

New Year messages are common at this time of year but one of the most depressing was the statement by Hugh Robertson, the UK Olympics Minister, that he considers match fixing to be the biggest threat to the reputation of the Olympics.

Britain is to mount an unprecedented security operation in 2012 against betting syndicates trying to bribe athletes into fixing events at the London Olympic Games this summer.

There is increasing evidence of Olympic competitors and officials in sports including football, tennis and handball being offered bribes to fix matches. Gambling syndicates largely in the Indian sub-continent and Far East are expected to bet billions of pounds on the Olympics.

In a recent high profile court case in England three Pakistani cricketers were found guilty of corruption in a test match at Lord’s. The fixers were from the Indian sub-continent.

New evidence has been submitted to the International Olympic Committee of attempted match-fixing at previous Olympics.

In one case, a Chinese fixer claimed to have bribed members of the Ghanaian team with $550,000 to throw a match with Japan at the Athens Games in 2004.

Ghana lost 1-0. Players admitted being approached but said they had refused the offer to fix the match.

Handball, a sport with the third-highest viewing figures at the Beijing Games, has also been embroiled in controversy.

Two Olympic handball referees, Bernd Ullrich and Frank Lemme, who were in charge of the men’s gold medal match, were banned after $50,000 was found in their luggage after a match in Russia. They admitted being approached by a fixer, but denied accepting cash and successfully appealed on “procedural grounds” against the decision to ban them.

Fixing the result of matches is one thing but the more recent increase in spot betting is more difficult to identify.

Bets are now made on when the first corner or free kick will be awarded or when the first caution will be issued in football, when the first double fault will take place in tennis or when the first no ball will be bowled in cricket.

Previously performance enhancing drugs were the big problems in many sports – although possibly less in football than some other sports – but now the big challenge is to fight corruption which is a threat to all the major sports.

There are many matches regarded as the great derbies in world football.

El Clasico in Spain between Real Madrid and Barcelona is one, as is the famous Egyptian derby between Al Ahly and Zamalek and the Scottish Old Firm derby between Rangers and Celtic.

At international level Argentina v Brazil is an eagerly awaited fixture, as is any match between England and Germany.

When a controversial incident occurs in such high profile matches it is always going to hit the headlines.

FIFA had been totally opposed to the use of goal line technology but the controversial decision not to award a goal to England in the match against Germany in South Africa 2010 reignited the argument and FIFA President Sepp Blatter was forced to change his position.

This week’s Scottish derby between Celtic and Rangers had its usual controversy, this time a question of whether or not the ball had crossed the line for a goal to Rangers in the 7th minute.

It was a very borderline decision, even after frame by frame analysis on television.

The referee and the assistant referee, whose line of sight was blocked by at least one player, had no chance of giving a definite decision and play continued.

Goal line technology might have given a goal or indicated that the ball had not crossed the line. It was so marginal.

At the moment nine goal line technology companies are making presentations to FIFA and the International FA Board and present indications are that only two, the Cairos chip in the ball system, linked with adidas and Hawkeye, the system used in tennis and cricket, seem able to move to the next stage in the verification process.

It is highly unlikely that any system will be in place for the 2012-2013 season and questions remain whether it will be ready for the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil.

In Scotland, there has been a lot of publicity about this week’s goal line incident, but this is the first such incident at an Old Firm in the last ten years.

Football must not over-react to a single incident and do not expect goal line technology to be introduced worldwide, even if a system is shown to meet the IFAB criteria.

It costs money and very often the referee and assistant get it right anyway!

The Laws of the Game state that decisions are given ‘in the opinion of the referee’ but things have changed recently.

In Scotland, for exanple, the Scottish FA has appointed a new Compliance Officer who can look at controversial incidents over any weekend on Monday morning and decide if some players should be punished retrospectively.

An appeal by a club against a decision can be referred to a tribunal.

There is some merit in this system but it is in its infancy and already some controversial have emerged.

Rangers forward Sone Aluko, for example, was banned for two matches for diving in the penalty area and winning a match winning penalty kick against Dunfermline recently.

Had the referee recognised the dive he would have been cautioned and that would have been the end of the story.

A week later another player was seen on television to punch an opponent in the stomach and he also received a two match ban.

These offences are very different and should be punished differently.

I believe the principle of post match review of incidents has value but only if the Review Panel shows consistency in its punishments.

Obviously the system must still be regarded as ‘work in progress – could do better’!