WHEN Jonny Wilkinson crossed the try line for England against Scotland the other week, and his effort was deemed to be valid, the notion of the supremacy of decisions made by video replays threatened to implode.

It was evident - and even to the naked eye in real time - that Wilkinson's right boot had landed outside the touchline before he grounded the ball during the Calcutta Cup match at Twickenham. And yet the score was awarded, undermining the value of a technical facility that should be a genuine benefit.

Fast forward to Sunday and a shockingly inept performance by the referee Dougie McDonald and his assistants during the Kilmarnock- Rangers game at Rugby Park.

No question, incompetence on the afternoon allowed Rangers to take the lead through a Kris Boyd penalty that never was and, equally, it denied a perfectly solid goal by Barry Ferguson just minutes later. Another penalty award to Rangers in the second half was no better than a 50-50 shout.

Therein lies the dilemma. Had McDonald enjoyed the back-up facility of a fifth official, able to watch replays and relay credibility, there's no way Boyd would have been deemed to have been fouled by Simon Ford, who won the ball fairly and outside the area at that.

Also, it would have been obvious Ferguson was a yard to the good - played on by Ford - when he was denied what would have been Rangers' second.

But those who question the march of time and progress can point to the ludicrous decision at Twickenham, which took the best part of two minutes to deliver, as evidence of the irrelevance of available technology.

If those trained in the minutiae of the laws of rugby can get it so wrong, having studied the incident from every angle and in slow motion, then what's the point in employing the facility, they would argue.

Well, the issue is about fairness. There's no telling if McDonald would have summoned technical help, had it been available, as he made his decisions and his posturing indicated he was convinced he had got it right first time and that his assistant was also correct in flagging Ferguson offside.

For the most part, football referees are highly wary of what they see as a creeping menace to their authority and so far their national associations and the governing bodies, Fifa and Uefa, have also shown themselves to be reluctant. This is the behaviour of the ostrich.

On average, major matches throughout the world are now covered by at least 20 cameras. Every nuance of the action is captured, allowing for decisions to be made and simultaneously broadcast to supporters on high-tech TVs.

Sure, there will be the occasional aberration, such as the Wilkinson incident, but 99% of contentious decisions would be clarified and accepted by all parties - players, coaches and, most significantly, spectators.

Walter Smith pointed to the two first-half decisions of McDonald evening themselves out, and you can see the logic in the argument.

However, it does not take into account the status and the flow of the game. Kilmarnock were attempting to build a strategy when their planning was disrupted and the loss of the first goal, which they considered grand larceny, must have altered their mindset.

It's all so unnecessary.

Referees might be paranoid - and they are entitled to be disturbed given the abuse they take - but they're subject to human frailties like the rest of us. If they can get their heads round the use of video evidence as a tool to aid them rather than a device to undermine them, their lives and careers will be the more comfortable.

No-one is asking them to interrupt the flow of a match by signalling for a re-run of a tackle in the midfield that might or might not be a foul. Only when a potentially crucial moment invokes serious doubt would the technical boffins be asked to lend a hand. In particular, goal-line incidents would be clarified within seconds.

Shortly before his death last year, I had a conversation with Tom Wharton on just this subject. He was in favour of the use of technology, something of a surprise from a figure whose very presence on a field commanded absolute respect from the toughest of players during the 1950s and 1960s.

Tom was never the most athletic of men - his height and bulk determining he refereed mostly from the middle of the park - but he had great eyes and didn't get a lot wrong. His dodgy decisions were seldom questioned.

He had a way with words. "You don't stare down technology and pretend it doesn't exist," he said. "You use it to benefit the sport, so I can't understand any great reluctance so long as the referee remains the ultimate arbiter." And that's the crux, a relationship rather than a conflict of interests.