It seems more than a mite odd that the imminent World Cup will still not be deploying advanced technology for referees during the 64 matches. Not for the first time some of us are asking: what is it with football - unlike rugby, tennis, cricket and most other mainstream sports - that it cannot get its head around the video age?

I am heartneed by this -- I am not a fan of too much technology in officiating, but I've an open mind about it. One argument that just doesn't cut it with me, tho, is this idea that because other sports have it, our sport must, too. That makes no sense -- sports are different not just in their rules and aims but in their aesthetics, tradition and on. So what might be good for one isn't always for another.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter gave a strong hint on Tuesday that he does not support the use of goalline technology in football and suggests people in the game should "live with" errors.

"I am very conservative when it comes to the laws of the game," he told Reuters in an interview after the launching of a sponsorship deal with Coca-Cola in South Africa.

"I would say we shall live with the errors, not only the errors of the players and the coaches but we shall also live with the errors of the referees."

"So, let the game be as it is," Blatter said.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter has confirmed a "smartball" system will be tested at the World Under-17 Championships in Peru later this month.

Blatter said: "We will definitely use the technology in Germany next year if the experiment works in Peru."

Developed by sports firm adidas, a microchip in the ball sends a signal to the referee by triggering a wristband to vibrate and bleep when it passes over sensors on the touchline or goal-line.

But world football chief Blatter insists the move will not lead to a flood of gadgets and gizmos tampering with the game.

He added: "This goal-line technology is enough. Football must keep its human face and must accept errors.

"If we start to make it too scientific this game will lose its fascination."

Technology — in the form of 3-D mapping grids and microchips inside shinpads — exists to make the offside call foolproof, but it's expensive and bloodless. Soccer should not become more like Tron.

The only short-term, obvious fix is a strong edict urging linesmen to start favouring attackers over defenders. That will liven up the game and punish stingy teams. Because, in the end, soccer needs more Barcelonas and Brazils and fewer ... well, let's leave that one a mystery as well.

The author also suggests dropping the rule altogether, which is something I favor (I think).

A new study published in the British Medical Journal suggests that the human eye is unable to detect an offside position during a football match.

The study conducted by Dr Francisco Belda Maruenda analysed the physiology of the human eye to clarify if it is able to process all the visual information needed to apply the rule.

To apply the offside rule correctly, the referee must be able to keep at least five moving objects in his visual field at the same time (two players of the attacking team, the last two players of the defending team, and the ball).

But this is beyond the capacity of the human eye, especially as these five objects can be anywhere within the defenders' half of the pitch, an area of at least 3200m2.

A lot of folks want technology to handle this 'problem'. But what some see as a bug, I see as a feature. The difficulty -- nay, impossibility -- of being sure of an offsides call (except in the most blatant instances) opens up all sorts of creative space for strikers and defenders to take risks and gambles. It's one of the cool things about soccer, in my view.

Perhaps the most difficult rule to call correctly in the sports world is football's offside. Leave it to the Italians—who have complained about more than their fair share of dodgy calls—to dive into solving the problem. Experts at Italy's National Research Council are developing a computer-based system that could change the way the game is judged.

Here's how it would work: a camera installed on the sideline at midfield would offer a 180-degree view of the field. The camera's footage would be processed by a computer capable of distinguishing not only each player's position on the field, but also that of the ball in order to determine if a player is offside. At the moment of infringement, the machine will then wirelessly signal the referee.

I'm all for using technology for better officiating... in theory. In practice, I particularly dislike this one.

Yes, everyone knows officials botch the offsides call in soccer all the time, sometimes blowing the whistle when a player is not offsides, and sometimes failing to blow it when he clearly is offsides. There's human error involved and we all know that and we live with it.

The problem I have is how this technology will undermine the art some players have developed over years of practice of fooling players and officials to get that extra step. Great footie players are deft at faking their way offsides without getting caught. It's part of what's great about the game -- the element of risk, the artistry involved in fooling officials and fans and players. The application of precision offsides calls will undermine that skill that the great strikers developed over time. It would be a shame for the game.

My best shot at an answer was the following: Americans prefer professional sports where they know (or feel) that they are the best in the world. This applies to baseball, football, and basketball, the major professional sports in the United States. At tennis we are no joke. Chess became massively popular, but only briefly, when Bobby Fischer defeated Boris Spassky. The implicit prediction, of course, is that basketball will decline in popularity.

There's a lot to this. My hunch is the popularity of certain sports and specific teams has to do with tribalism and evolutionary psychology. It helps explains one obvious fact: that people tend to be fans of the sports in their regions and of the teams closest to them geographically.

In England, tiny neighborhoods can be insanely devoted to their soccer clubs, even though another club might only be a few miles away. This goes for lots of clubs throughout continental Europe, too. Since soccer was a late bloomer in the states, that effect hasn't kicked in, but it's clearly on display in other sports (longtime Brooklynites still pine for the Dodgers).

One consequence of a (relatively) highly advanced technological society, with frequent opportunities to travel and access to cable, satellite, and the Internet, is the possibility for a breakdown in the parochialism and tribalism typically found in most communities. This development bodes well for the development of soccer in the US. But until Americans get better at it (Freddy Adu, the next Pele?) it will be a long time before soccer is a major force in the US.

Cameroon has been fined US$154,000 and was docked six points from their World Cup qualifying group for wearing a one-piece Puma uniform during the recent African Cup of Nations in Tunisia. Apparently, FIFA warned the team beforehand that the uniform was not sanctioned, but team wore it anyway. Cameroon disputes this, saying that the warning came too late for replacement uniforms could be produced. Puma, the manufacturer, claims that the uniform violates no rules of the sport. With regard to basic equipment that a footballer must wear, Law 4 of the Laws of the Game states: 'The basic equipment of a player is a jersey or shirt, shorts, stockings, shinguards, footwear'. "Nowhere in the rules is it mentioned that shirts and shorts (must be kept separate)," added Widmann. Puma has indicated that it will take FIFA to court over the ruling.

There's more to this than meets the eye. As you can see from the photo here the top part of the uniform is skin tight. Any soccer/football fan knows that grabbing, pulling and tugging on an opposing player's jersey is part of effective defense. My hunch is the bigger problem isn't so much over the fact that the unis are one piece, but that there's no way for opposing players to grab the jerseys. Of course, if it's one piece there's no shirttail to grab. That's the real issue here.