The mancityfans.net football forum

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

Moonchesteri wrote:

Dubaimancityfan wrote:

phips wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Has overturned two decisions in the France v Spain game. One for a goal awarded and one for a goal not being awarded. Correct decisions reached on both occasions

how long did it take?

From BBC
Replays showed Layvin Kurzawa was narrowly offside when he headed the ball to Griezmann, with the decision to overturn the goal made in about 30 seconds.
Deulofeu's goal - from a Jordi Alba cross - was awarded after a conversation between the referee and the video assistant that lasted about a minute.

So no delay at all. I'm all in favour of this.

Too long for me. Wait until you have a hawkseye technology to offsides as that will give you the signal immediately.

For goals we thankfully already have hawkseye which has proved to work - because it gives the ref the signal IMMEDIATELY.


For penalty shouts and red card incidents - for these this might work as no one celebrates these like goals.
However why do people think this actually makes it a level playing field? Most incidents are debatable anyway

I don't understand why you think it was too long. It was done in the amount of time it normally takes for the scoring team to celebrate and get back in their own half to restart.

Perhaps on the second overruled decision I can see your point because there would be little delay between taking the ball out of the net and taking the free given for offside so in that instance you're getting a longer delay than you normally would.

personally I just think that celebrating a goal after 30, 60, 90 seconds of video reviewing is shite. i've seen it happen in other sports and it takes surprisingly much out of the joy of scoring.

Big decisions are regularly drawn out by teams surrounding the refs and lino's. This wouldn't take any longer and may reduce the players challenging refs etc.

No brainer for me.

I'd much rather a couple of short interruptions and a couple of extra minutes at the end of the game if it meant an authenticated 1-0 win rather than a travesty of justice 1-0 defeat.

Dubaimancityfan wrote:

phips wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Has overturned two decisions in the France v Spain game. One for a goal awarded and one for a goal not being awarded. Correct decisions reached on both occasions

how long did it take?

From BBC
Replays showed Layvin Kurzawa was narrowly offside when he headed the ball to Griezmann, with the decision to overturn the goal made in about 30 seconds.
Deulofeu's goal - from a Jordi Alba cross - was awarded after a conversation between the referee and the video assistant that lasted about a minute.

So no delay at all. I'm all in favour of this.

wow. thats faster than i expected.

although i watched a video this morning and it actually seemed the other way around. the Griezmann one felt like 2 mins while the Deulofeu one felt like 15 seconds. i guess they edited the videos.

It would almost make you wonder what else is edited... actually forget it.

Just for arguments sake. Note the time on the clock.

Ball crosses the line:


Decision made:


Ball crosses the line:


Decision made:


Silva's penalty crosses the line:


Game restarts:

Talking of video evidence and being selective when it's used, did the rag Valencia ever get charged for his recent stamp?

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:Talking of video evidence and being selective when it's used, did the rag Valencia ever get charged for his recent stamp?

Ask phips.

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Just for arguments sake. Note the time on the clock.....

It's not just the length of the delay that's at issue, it's the context that is the problem
this earlier post puts it succinctly

Moonchesteri wrote:personally I just think that celebrating a goal after 30, 60, 90 seconds of video reviewing is shite. i've seen it happen in other sports and it takes surprisingly much out of the joy of scoring.

If the video ref's verdict can be transmitted to the onfield ref within the same short interval as goalline technology currently allows AND before his public decision - great.

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Just for arguments sake. Note the time on the clock.

Ball crosses the line:


Decision made:


Ball crosses the line:


Decision made:


Silva's penalty crosses the line:


Game restarts:

Great post. Both were under 1 min. I like it

The qualm i have is that the human ref had to ask the VAR for advice on these two.
What if he feels certain he/his linesman is right but hes actually wrong? Can he be overridden or is VAR only used when the ref asks for it?

Saul Goodman wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Just for arguments sake. Note the time on the clock.

Great post. Both were under 1 min. I like it
The qualm i have is that the human ref had to ask the VAR for advice on these two.
What if he feels certain he/his linesman is right but hes actually wrong? Can he be overridden or is VAR only used when the ref asks for it?

he didn't ask for advice, he was buzzed and told his onfield decision was incorrect - he did have the option to ignore the video ref's verdict as I understand it.

johnny crossan wrote:

Saul Goodman wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Just for arguments sake. Note the time on the clock.

Great post. Both were under 1 min. I like it
The qualm i have is that the human ref had to ask the VAR for advice on these two.
What if he feels certain he/his linesman is right but hes actually wrong? Can he be overridden or is VAR only used when the ref asks for it?

he didn't ask for advice, he was buzzed and told his onfield decision was incorrect - he did have the option to ignore the video ref's verdict as I understand it.

So they fourth official, or whomever is watching the match on a monitor somewhere is the guy who rules what's what? Why would this guy be any less corrupt than the referee. They are employed by the same people are they not?

nottsblue wrote:

johnny crossan wrote:

Saul Goodman wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Just for arguments sake. Note the time on the clock.

Great post. Both were under 1 min. I like it
The qualm i have is that the human ref had to ask the VAR for advice on these two.
What if he feels certain he/his linesman is right but hes actually wrong? Can he be overridden or is VAR only used when the ref asks for it?

he didn't ask for advice, he was buzzed and told his onfield decision was incorrect - he did have the option to ignore the video ref's verdict as I understand it.

So they fourth official, or whomever is watching the match on a monitor somewhere is the guy who rules what's what? Why would this guy be any less corrupt than the referee. They are employed by the same people are they not?

With this technology in place imo their is nowhere to hide for the let's say "visually challenged" plus they use the tv feed so they couldn't cheat as all the viewers will see the same pictures. Last night this tech was %100 correct so it gets the thumbs up from me.

gillie wrote:

nottsblue wrote:

johnny crossan wrote:

Saul Goodman wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Just for arguments sake. Note the time on the clock.

Great post. Both were under 1 min. I like it
The qualm i have is that the human ref had to ask the VAR for advice on these two.
What if he feels certain he/his linesman is right but hes actually wrong? Can he be overridden or is VAR only used when the ref asks for it?

he didn't ask for advice, he was buzzed and told his onfield decision was incorrect - he did have the option to ignore the video ref's verdict as I understand it.

So they fourth official, or whomever is watching the match on a monitor somewhere is the guy who rules what's what? Why would this guy be any less corrupt than the referee. They are employed by the same people are they not?

With this technology in place imo their is nowhere to hide for the let's say "visually challenged" plus they use the tv feed so they couldn't cheat as all the viewers will see the same pictures. Last night this tech was %100 correct so it gets the thumbs up from me.

There's nowhere for the refs to hide at the moment. The rank shocking decisions they make game after game after game are there for all to see. Yet they continue and if nothing was untoward

It's a beautiful, beautiful thing.

If we had it from the start of this season, we'd probably win the league.

And the rags would be roughly 9th

gillie wrote:

nottsblue wrote:

johnny crossan wrote:

Saul Goodman wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Just for arguments sake. Note the time on the clock.

Great post. Both were under 1 min. I like it
The qualm i have is that the human ref had to ask the VAR for advice on these two.
What if he feels certain he/his linesman is right but hes actually wrong? Can he be overridden or is VAR only used when the ref asks for it?

he didn't ask for advice, he was buzzed and told his onfield decision was incorrect - he did have the option to ignore the video ref's verdict as I understand it.

So they fourth official, or whomever is watching the match on a monitor somewhere is the guy who rules what's what? Why would this guy be any less corrupt than the referee. They are employed by the same people are they not?

With this technology in place imo their is nowhere to hide for the let's say "visually challenged" plus they use the tv feed so they couldn't cheat as all the viewers will see the same pictures. Last night this tech was %100 correct so it gets the thumbs up from me.

Didn't watch it, but if it happened as described then happy days.
Personally I'm all for it, but the whole process will have to be transparent.
We should see the replays and hear the discussions like in Rugby.
I know there are concerns, but in my view, we stand to gain more than most from transparency in the officiating.

What I would hate is if they bring in VAR but don't let the public in on the TMO conversations and video evidence they are using, which is what I am convinced was being used in the Monaco game. (Aguero penalty/yellow card)

That would be just a further way to control the outcome of games.

Original Dub wrote:It's a beautiful, beautiful thing.

If we had it from the start of this season, we'd probably win the league.

And the rags would be roughly 9th

Totally agree OD. I'd wait 2 minutes for a correct decision rather than sit in the stands knowing full well we have been fucked over AGAIN.

Bring. It. On

gmercer1 wrote:

Original Dub wrote:It's a beautiful, beautiful thing.

If we had it from the start of this season, we'd probably win the league.

And the rags would be roughly 9th

Totally agree OD. I'd wait 2 minutes for a correct decision rather than sit in the stands knowing full well we have been fucked over AGAIN.

Bring. It. On

But what happens when you're sat there, the 2 minutes pass and there's still no call?

I totally agree that technology is a tool that can be used to enhance the game but it's all about who is using it, and for what purpose. I'm sure we've seen it in action this season with the mysterious decisions that have taken time to come through. Luiz non-decision, Aguero booking and the 5th official now seemingly getting involved in a game, after years of standing there doing nothing at all with his baton.

Will it be used to get the right decision or used to the benefit of certain clubs? We'll see.

Beefymcfc wrote:

gmercer1 wrote:

Original Dub wrote:It's a beautiful, beautiful thing.

If we had it from the start of this season, we'd probably win the league.

And the rags would be roughly 9th

Totally agree OD. I'd wait 2 minutes for a correct decision rather than sit in the stands knowing full well we have been fucked over AGAIN.

Bring. It. On

But what happens when you're sat there, the 2 minutes pass and there's still no call?

I totally agree that technology is a tool that can be used to enhance the game but it's all about who is using it, and for what purpose. I'm sure we've seen it in action this season with the mysterious decisions that have taken time to come through. Luiz non-decision, Aguero booking and the 5th official now seemingly getting involved in a game, after years of standing there doing nothing at all with his baton.

Will it be used to get the right decision or used to the benefit of certain clubs? We'll see.

Exactly. It will have to be open and transparent. It could work if we can trust it.

Otherwise it will be used as Beefy has described. i. e. Barca 6-1 and our Monaco home game.
Honestly. Those goal line officials have never made a decision since their inception and yet we're lead to believe they've had the call on key decisions on the CL this year that we know were wrong.

I'm convinced something is being trialled by UEFA but I'm not convinced it's for the good of the game.
Not sure about the FA, but it wouldn't surprise me.

how will they deal with chuckle 1's 'on the edge of offside' ?