Goal judges or technology and the infallibility?

The goal of Pirlo Juventus-Parma has reopened the old problem of ghost goal: the goal judges they were not wrong, at least according to the magnifying glass of the replays, but if you want the infallibility of the only way is the technology. New year, new season, old controversies. Very old. At times even nauseating. No time to uncork the first bottles of champagne for the new Serie A season and we are all committed again to talk about conspiracies, favoritism, various subjugation, injustice, distorted tournament and all that useless binder that has always accompanied the Italian football . The whole 'blame' Pirlo, Mirante and ... Ciampi. And we're not talking, of course, Carlo Azeglio but the goal judge who upheld the second goal for Juventus. Justices of the door? Yes, you understood perfectly. A new intriguing and right , as well as that of the benches enlarged for this new Serie A. Good. pity that already in the second game were born the first problems. Assuming that in both cases the two most discussed (penalty goals and pro Juventus) Russian Ciampi and indeed they were not wrong (on the penalty you could instead discuss the departure of offside Lichtsteiner, but there the 'blame' is attributed to the linesman ), the risk of spending the next nine months to ride new controversy fueled dall'infallibilità human is very high. Nicchi rightly congratulated all the referees - especially highlighting the impeccable work of the judges of the door - at the end of Juventus-Parma. 's right. But then we are sure that instead of insisting on human limitations - the goal judges are referees, assistant referees and, and then with a character, prompting them to be too often the protagonists in the field (you may want to change at all costs the decisions of the first whistle) - it would not be better to focus all technology? Against human eye eagle eye (we borrow the term tennis is a technology that already works perfectly)? ... The eternal dilemma