Article:Video Evidence Good or Bad?

Michel Platini has stated time and time again that he would not like the use of video in the game of football to decide the outcome of goals, offside’s and fouls. But many have insisted, one of whom is Arsenal Skipper Arsene Wenger, to accommodate the use of Video Evidence into the game for the outcome of difficult calls, which are as stated above goals, offside’s and fouls. But Is this a good Idea, the use of Video Evidence is used in games such as basketball and American Football. But using it in Soccer a.k.a Football will have a good effect or slow the game down in which it changes completely and strips away its beauty. Or will it perfect the game from Human Error and Influence and make it more exciting. In my opinion, I believe the use of Video Evidence could have a bad effect on the game, like the game of Baseball if we used Video Evidence on every call play and catch there would be somewhat of a downside to it, as it makes the game more exciting to see the umpire call "he's Out!" when maybe he was actually safe. But as of this year, the MLB has enforced a new rule stating that the umpires can go to Video Evidence to check if a Homerun is one or not. Now that sounds alright to me as in some fields or domes it is quite difficult to say, as the sun might get in the way, the walls of the domes have the same color as the ball and it is hard to tell because of the different angles the Umpires might have. But away from baseball, is Video Evidence Good or Bad, Football is known for its fast pace and nonstop clock, the clock never stops, so using the video Evidence won't it stop the clock and slow the game down and change the game completely, as for the special ball that decides whether the ball has crossed the plate or not it seems that is alright as it does not slow the game down and its becoming more reliable. But I would like to ask all of you whether Video Evidence is the right thing for this Sport, not baseball or American Football.