Here's the gist of Nicholson's argument:
Goal-line tech would have awarded Ukraine a goal; a goal that was offside. England, rightly would complain that the application of this technology screwed them by only allowing one aspect of the move to be replayed and checked. Where is the fairness in that? The introduction of such technology is to iron out injustices but injustice happens all the time in football, stop one and you have to stop them all or you are no further forward as Tuesday night showed. Thus it is unsustainable to only have one form of technology and more will follow as sure as rhythm follows blues.
Pretty much every point he makes is bullshit.
The "fairness" of awarding Ukraine the goal would lie in the fact that the goal line decision was made correctly, even if the offside call wasn't. There's not a magical compensatory injustice hidden in the same run of play to balance out every major incorrect decision in football. That's not how it works.
The game will benefit from any incorrect decisions or unsportsmanlike behaviour you prevent with a new rule or method of enforcement. His claim, "stop one [injustice] and you have to stop them all", is false.
Advances are also achieved without the use of technology and contrarians of this guy's ilk (mostly) don't complain.
Administrators have struggled so long with the idea of introducing technology for goal line decisions that the "slippery slope" argument about opening the gate for other, more dubious uses carries little weight. Just moral panic nonsense.
All that said, I think retrospective video evidence for suspensions / reverses of incorrect cards would benefit the leagues more than goal line technology.
