Brisbane Roar goalkeeper Michael Theoklitos came in for a hammering from disgruntled Melbourne Victory supporters following his seemingly obvious handball in the dying seconds of last Friday's match at AAMI Park.
The debate raged after the game - did he or did he not handle the ball outside the box?
It did get heated at times but of course most of the more spiteful and illogical forum comments that adorned FourFourTwo and other websites were borne of frustration and disappointment. For the most part the offending parties on both sides can and should be forgiven.
We are all well aware that football (be it playing or watching) is a passionate pastime and getting swept up in the moment is part and parcel of that passion.
Kevin Muscat even showed that seasoned professionals are not immune to blowing off a bit of steam after the final whistle. Granted, maybe Madman Muscat isn't the best example but I'm sure you get what I mean.
Perhaps Roar fans can even have a touch of empathy for Victory supporters after they themselves were on the receiving end of a refereeing cop-out last season when Clint Bolton seemingly handled well outside the box and also received the benefit of the doubt.
Although Bolton's incident was not as clear cut as Theoklitos's, and ultimately it did not alter the result, they do have one thing in common - two groups of supporters can view the exact same footage of an incident and interpret it differently based upon pre-conceived bias.
And it is this concept of pre-conceived bias that prevents me from supporting the use of video replays for these types of incidents both during the game and after it.
You see, referees are just as human as fans, as the aforementioned incidents prove, and as such will have an instinctual reaction to what they see with the naked eye. It takes a very obvious replay to alter that initial perception - after all, it is much easier to have one's opinion confirmed by dubious evidence than it is to have it altered.
If you don't believe me have a look at a few conspiracy theory websites where grainy and fuzzy pictures are deemed by true believers as proof of everything from sasquatch to smoke on the grassy knoll to bombs strapped beneath passenger planes. To the sceptics though, they remain nothing more than blurry photos.
Earlier this year we saw this concept borne out in a football context with Patricio Perez's trial-by-video conviction for diving. It seemed it didn't matter how many times the footage was replayed, slowed down or even sped up with accompanying Benny Hill theme music - nobody's opinion was changed.
And so it is with the Theoklitos handball.
That being said, I will still direct your attention to two still images from last Friday's broadcast. It is not my intention to prove Theo's guilt one way or the other with these images, merely to provide a reminder of what we saw that night before continuing.
Now, if you believe that it was a handball you will likely make two points. Firstly, that the even the briefest of glances seems to confirm that it was clearly outside the box. And, secondly, that the camera never lies.
But of course the camera can and does lie. Sometimes that lie is deliberate since George Lucas clearly did not lug a camera to a galaxy far, far away in the mid-seventies to capture images of flying spaceships. At other times the lie is accidental, as Hey Hey It's Saturday's Phunny Fotos segment has proved over and over again for more than quarter of a century.
Conversely, those that argue it was not a handball will assert that stills show the ball did not completely cross the line and that Theo's body position changes though the ball position does not.
They will point out the positioning of Theoklitos' feet and hands, the position of the 22cm diameter ball in relation to the advertising hoardings, and the fact the camera is at an undetermined angle and thus distorts the viewer's perception of depth and width.
They are quite clearly clutching at straws, but it is still an argument that cannot be dismissed without a background in forensic photo analysis and jeweller's loupe.
Which of these opinions is right and which is wrong is in many ways completely irrelevant to this blog. A decision was made at the time and the result of the match will not be changed (much like the opinions of the fans).
Ultimately, we all have to fall back on that old adage that helped jilted players, managers and fans sleep in the years before video replay technology became a possibility - bad decisions even out over the season, so simply play the whistle and get on with it.
If the Melbourne Victory players had followed that wisdom then just maybe they wouldn't have conceded one of the softest equalisers we have seen all season.
An equaliser that could have been prevented had Kevin Muscat mustered all his "professionalism" and simply pushed Reinaldo in the back rather than allowed him an uncontested header from a speculative long-ball.
Although, as an avid Brisbane Roar fan, my opinion is just as bias as everyone else's. However, I am prepared to admit that - the question is, are you?
