Why won't FIFA allow video referees? And why can't teams challenge dubious punishments handed out by referees?
South Africa's 2010 World Cup has done nothing to resolve these two burning questions.
Many fans remain bewildered why the most popular game on the planet refuses to avail itself of 21st century technology.
Especially when they see cheats get away with blue murder and innocents punished unfairly, at a time when other sports are using technology so successfully.
Rugby league might rely on it a little too often, but at least it gets it mostly right.
The challenge system in tennis works wonderfully well. Why couldn't a similar system work in football?
What if coaches had the right, say, to two unsuccessful challenges per half? And the referee could consult not only his assistants on the ground but an assistant in the grandstand, if he felt the occasion warranted it? Why couldn't this work?
Answer: no reason at all. Except that FIFA refuses to countenance the use of video.
The world body argues, in its antediluvian way, that human error is part of the game - for players, for coaches, for referees (and especially for FIFA itself).
FIFA president Sepp Blatter hasd said human error provides talking points for fans around the globe.
No argument there. But shouldn't those talking points concern the merits of one player or team over another, the strategies, the character, the skill, the art, the beauty?
Aren't there enough worthy issues to contemplate rather than one refereeing howler after another?
Harry Kewell's goal-line handball against Ghana seemed to polarise opinion about whether the Italian ref was right or wrong.
Roberto Rosetti may not have changed his mind even with the aid of a video referral, but on such a massive call would it hurt to allow him the luxury of technological assistance?
Some major decisions in South Africa have been clear blunders.
Brazilian Luis Fabiano "scored" a wonderful goal against Ivory Coast, with the help of not one handball but two.
Brazilian star Kaka was sent off in the same match after an opponent bumped into him and then dived to the ground clutching his head.
One of the game's biggest names missed a match, therefore, because a referee was conned.
Portugal's Cristiano Ronaldo got a yellow in similarly blameless fashion.
Many felt Italy's equalising penalty against New Zealand was won by virtue of a "dive", despite a teeny weeny bit of shirt-pulling, which happens all the time but is punished seemingly by a lottery system.
Australia's Tim Cahill was red-carded against Germany for a late tackle which very few observers - not even the man he tackled, Bastian Schweinsteiger - thought deserved any more than a yellow.
Would the referee have reconsidered with the aid of video?
Harry Kewell felt puzzled why Serbian defender Nemanja Vidic escaped with a yellow for a 100 per cent intentional handball against Germany, which led to a (missed) penalty.
America scored a "winner" against Slovenia which was astonishingly disallowed despite no evidence of off-side or fouls, other than those being committed by Slovenia's manhandling defenders.
FIFA does not encourage teams to challenge its whistlemen.
Most challenges against red cards, for example, are permitted only on the basis of mistaken identity of the player held to be at fault, rather than whether any sin was actually committed.
FIFA invests utter trust and authority in the refs.
It administers a game of long history which is simple and universally popular, and doesn't like to meddle with it.
That's a worthy ideal.
But it stretches football's credibility when billions of fans watching on TV can see - better than the refs - when the officials are being conned, or simply making horrendous judgements.
Many aggrieved fans feel that unlike any other sport, big calls - wrong calls - too often decided the fate of football matches.
