BELATEDLY, after grossly excessive resistance and delays under the flawed FIFA governance of the arch-procrastinator Sepp Blatter, technology is nudging its way towards grudging acceptance by football.

But only in principal.

The International Football Association Board agreed to the introduction of goal-line technology (GLT) when they met in a Surrey hotel over the weekend, but only if it is proven to be infallible, and its adoption will be "optional not obligatory".

When the IFAB met two years ago, Scottish and English FA votes helped block further consideration (they believed permanently) but now GLT could be in use by FIFA by the end of this year. It will definitely be utilised in next year's Confederations Cup and in the 2014 World Cup.

The IFAB have excluded six systems which had been under testing but approved final analysis of the British Hawk-Eye system already used by tennis and cricket, and GoalRef, a German-Danish one. The final vote will be taken immediately after the European Championships in Poland and Ukraine this summer.

The IFAB comprises FIFA (four votes) and the four home associations (one each). FIFA president Blatter had a Damascene moment when Frank Lampard was denied a goal which would have levelled the scores at 2-2 during a 2010 World Cup second-round tie which England ultimately lost 4-1 to Germany. Previously agin it, Blatter subsequently backed GLT's introduction.

Michel Platini, the UEFA president, remains firmly opposed as does Franz Beckenbauer, leader of a FIFA project on how to improve the game. Platini would prefer two additional goal-line assistants, and there remains the possibility of technology and extra officials being used in European competitions. The dinosaurs remain at work.

Indications are that Scotland's cash-strapped game may have to wait until GLT costs (believed to be in the region of £250,000 per ground) have fallen due to widespread adoption.

And so, football is still at the end of the queue to join a club that horse racing started 65 years ago this spring.

The truth is that, used properly, technology improves and enhances the game for spectators, minimises errors of judgment, and removes players' sense of injustice and frustration at perceived wrong calls. Cricket and tennis are unquestionably the better for the employment of technology. Why would you not use available and reliable technology to avoid wrong decisions? Especially with the increasing rewards at stake.

Rugby league has used technology for more than 15 years. Union, though slower to adopt it, does so frequently – most recently in the high-profile decision to deny England a try at Twickenham against Wales.

In hockey, the umpire can call for video evidence of a ball crossing the line, or any infringement in the build-up to a goal. In ice hockey, a video review team in Toronto routinely adjudicates on NHL goals scored more than a thousand miles away. Basketball and baseball use video, as does athletics. In gridiron its use is widespread. The coach of either team can even challenge a referee's decision and call for a video review.

The pity of football embracing technology is that it does not go far enough. It could be used (doubtless more expensively) to adjudicate on offside, foul play including diving and handball in the penalty area. FIFA demands instant adjudication (ie within a second), a requirement fulfilled by Hawkeye which operates at 500 frames per second, accurate up to five millimetres – some three sixteenths of an inch.

With such a tool, the major elements of contention: cheating and injustice, and their capacity to impact unfairly on results, could be radically reduced. A predictable outcome of minimising crowd trouble can only be speculated upon. It might even help combat result manipulation by betting syndicates.

Platini has actually opined that the game thrives on injustice. Only dictators and despots thrive on injustice.

Yes, we would be denied that joyous frisson of Schadenfreude at Diego Maradona's "hand of God" or of that by Thierry Henry which cost the Republic of Ireland a World Cup place for the 2010 finals. Oh, and Joe Jordan against Wales. Why, it would even have clocked Geoff Hurst's dodgy goal in 1966 – and who knows, Germany might not have lost that final to England. If only . . .

When I predicted future acceptance of GLT some years ago, I warned that the genie was out of the bottle, and that it would be but a short step to a fourth official watching a screen and drawing the referee's attention to incidents on or off the ball. That day is now a step closer.