http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8553629.stm

As someone posted in the Comments section, the main arguments against any kind of technology seem to be:
[quote]1) it slows the game down
2) controversy is part of the beauty of the game[/quote]

I'll give my twopenny's worth:
1. too much "black and white" thinking and slippery slope fallacies I reckon. It's important that we don't implement technology to such an extreme that it will seriously disrupt the flow of the game, but there is such a thing as "striking a balance" that seems to pass over quite a number of the nay-sayers.

2. I do think football needs a bit of controversy, but there is a big difference between controversy over contentious issues (which is often good for a sport) and controversy over obvious injustices which annoy a lot of those involved. No amount of technology would remove the need for referees, at times, to make decisions that are open to considerable debate. Of course there's also the usual "maintaining the status quo" arguments to defend point 2, e.g. "the traditional approach to the injustices associated with officiating always used to be 'that's life', so why change that?"- without the dominance of arguments like those I reckon the world as a whole would be a fairer place.

I don't just look at this from the players' and supporters' point of view, I also think of it from a referees' perspective (as presumably does Graham Poll as an ex-referee). The "respect" campaign is always at risk of being one-sided if there isn't an onus on referees to do a good job as well as players/managers, but referees are only human like the rest of us and it would help if it was made easier for them to do a good job.