Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
13 Jan 26
20:44
Joined:
Date Joined:
28 May 10
Just watched minutes 41, 42 and 43 and City well in charge. Men off the ball not giving Toon men on the ball a lot of help at present.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 38
|
By:
City playing like they on holiday
|
|
By:
Not one shot on goal pure joke football
|
|
By:
More VAR BU LL S H I T
|
|
By:
This is terrible
|
|
By:
Cooms think it was given for impacting the keeper. It was the defender he impacted, quite clearly
|
|
By:
Farcical that it takes so long to make a decision, surely just give the goal and get on with it.
After the VAR free FA Cup weekend, a perfect reminder why most fans hate it. |
|
By:
An absolutely diabolical decision, the worst that I can remember in recent months.
|
|
By:
Rather ironic that the eventual second city goal came at the end of the added time for that ridiculous VAR malarkey.
|
|
By:
It was a clear offside under the rules.
|
|
By:
Different rules for Man City though
 As they said; why did it take so long; if he is offside he is offside; VAR bottled it and got the ref to look at it so what is the point of VAR anyway if that is the case |
|
By:
Very true Dixie.
|
|
By:
I thought he impeded the defender from potentially stopping the shot so offside for me
|
|
By:
If it was that obvious he was offside, why did it take four minutes for the clowns at VAR HQ to send the ref to the screen ?
|
|
By:
There was clearly dissent amongst the VAR’s which undermines the whole system in my view.
|
|
By:
The 3 were standing in line so difficult to call whether offside but agreed shouldn't take 5 mins ffs
|
|
By:
Semi automated offside didn't work so they had to get
the line drawing equipment out of the drawer and draw some lines. At least it saved the goalie feigning injury to allow a time out. 1 minute extra time first half, lol, with a time out. |
|
By:
Pity they never took as much time with silvas shocking tackle and the fore arm smash into murphys face. These things happen when you bring your own ref though.
|
|
By:
Sorry Ramseys face,
|
|
By:
Ramsey, who was still off pitch when Citeh scored,
having belatedly been allowed treatment, when clearly having suffered head injury, |
|
By:
And obviously no poor challenges by the Newcastle players
Best team won End of ..... |
|
By:
Leads, haven't won anything, except all that stuff
relating to 116 charges. City made loads of bad challenges to break up Newcastle transitions and foul given but no card. Hall hacked down at least 3 times And Haaland hand ball Newcastle players booked for same, although Bruno got away with one. |
|
By:
Lewis Hall v citeh
https://x.com/i/status/2011245117924131060 .. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
And keeper was second last opponent on this occasion
so lines drawn to keeper v haaland. Ref called to monitor... He's told var consider the player to be interfering |
|
By:
The ref standing by his original decision is as rare as hens teeth. Pretty much pointless sending him to the monitor as we know 98% of the time what will happen.
VAR should have been a quick and easy way to get decisions right. Other countries (in the main) do not take so long. Our powers that be are actively looking for reasons to rule out goals, which is completely wrong imo. The life is being sucked out of the game, how can you celebrate a goal now as the immediate thought is "will VAR chalk it off ?", it's become farcical. How anyone can defend it taking nearly six minutes in total to disallow that goal last night is beyond me. Just get rid of VAR, if such a tight on field decision is later shown to have gone against you, just roll with the punches and chin up as the next one will likely go in your favour. At the end of the day it didn't cost City as they got their second goal at the end of "VAR added time" which is some kind of karma i suppose. |
|
By:
The ref is sent to monitor with the advice to overturn his decision
and video shows him why he needs to overturn his decision. He can stick, but he is not sent to have a look to re referee the game, he is sent with purpose. Ref was very quick once sent to screen Var took a long time as they had to get old technology out |
|
By:
Bit pointless sending the ref over to the monitor then, should just tell him to allow/disallow the goal and get on with it.
Who would have envisaged VAR causing even more controversy than we used to have without it ? Those in charge have tied themselves in knots complicating something that should be straightforward. Incidentally Keith Hackett was most unimpressed by the VAR shenanigans, mainly blaming Atwell and said he thought the goal should have stood. As ever, opinions are divided. Another reason why we may as well ditch VAR. |
|
By:
It's a courtesy to referee, and he can still oppose
the opinion of var operator. Some do stick with their decision. Ref viewing monitor last night was minimal time. So he obviously quickly saw what var sent him see and agreed. Big delay was because semi automated offside failed to decide on offside and var had to draw the lines old school. |
|
By:
I had a clear line of sight to goal, albeit from
70 yds or so. I couldn't see how thiaw would have stopped semenyo so was surprised var got involved. Once var does get involved it is a correct decision. Var not getting involved is also a correct decision. I argued against var, before it was introduced, and by and large still think we are better without it. Although factual offsides are improved, as is goal line technology. Wenger task force wants to introduce daylight offside so attacker would need to have all of his body offside to be flagged. Interesting theory, but better trialled than rammed down our throats. Fa cup was great with no var, kind of tells everybody it's not working. Sort out var so it's fair, or get rid of it. |
|
By:
Cricket has "Umpire's call" for marginal lbw decisions. Perhaps if a decision isn't immediately clear cut on the Var monitor, then refer to ref's original decision instead of taking 5 minutes trying to measure millimetres offside or not as the case may be.
|
|
By:
They do have an umpires call as such but favouring
the attacker by 5cm. This is due to each frame being 1/100th second apart and chance for debate on actual kick point, and it occuring between frames. So 4.99cm closer to goal than 2nd last defender is onside. 5.01 and you are offside. |
|
By:
There must be a point in cricket where 49.99 %
is hitting stumps and it's umpires call, and 50.01% is hitting stumps and it's out on review wickets hitting. But it's all done seemlessly by computer and accepted. As for Aussie snicko, well, that went well. |
|
By:
I dont like umpires call,Its open to cheating or weak umpiring should i say.
|
|
By:
It's + or - half a cricket ball or 1.4 inches which in metric terms is about 3.5 cm so comparable with your 5cm error in VAR.
|
|
By:
“Favours the attacker”. That, from the first instance, has been my main criticism of VAR. In cases of doubt, it should be designed to do the same. Those who decide the referee should “take a look” should already have made that decision.
|
|
By:
The rule itself (about impacting with the ability to play or challenge for the ball) was introduced to favour the attacker. They want these goals to stand but only where it's not unfair on the defending team. It means that fewer goals are disallowed, not more. You have to draw the line somewhere and in rare cases it's a fine line.
Arsenal's 1st goal last night was similar and would have been disallowed were it not for this rule. Gyok was not between the Chelsea player and the ball and more importantly the Chelsea player had his back to the ball at all times and wasn't concerned with playing it at all. You can't negatively impact that. It's not about whether the defender would have cleared it or got to it either, once he had a half chance of getting to it (ability... to challenge for) and that was impacted that is enough. |
|
By:
Deffo a fine line, and deciding Citeh goal doesnt
stand v arsenal goal standing is 2 blokes seeing different options. Either outcome could have happened at either situation. Neither 100% correct neither 100% wrong |
|
By:
Here's Dale Johnson who is the best reporter around on covering
Var decisions, formerly of espn, and now BBC.. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c7v0lz7q7q2o .. |