The mancityfans.net football forum

definitely need a thread for this joke of tool
sort the fucking rules out fifa

Late night Nige?

john@staustell wrote:Late night Nige?

watched the 3 mins of deliberation for the derby ’goal when i got back in after a few last night. a fucking varce

VAR got the Jesus Penno wrong last week and I still think it proved Kane was offside rather than on the night before.

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:VAR got the Jesus Penno wrong last week and I still think it proved Kane was offside rather than on the night before.

Me too. I think the PL have got the interpretations wrong to be honest. Sarri said it used to be like this in Italy but they eventually got the hang of it. Surely to God it needs to be clearly wrong to change a decision??

We got this VAR now for the second season in Bundesliga. They did a few right decisions in a season but left very much confusing ones. It is just a fifth (or so) official who decides, with all the right/wrong possibility of a decision, Bayern got it in their way, relegation fodder the other way round and so on......
You calm down very fast when you are in the ground and nearly all main decision have to be checked by the VAR who takes his time......

The future of VAR is this.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47336170

Why was our goal disallowed when the VAR still showed it was onside?

Dubciteh wrote:Why was our goal disallowed when the VAR still showed it was onside?

I suspect VAR officials might say they only overrule the on field decision already given if there is a "clear and obvious error".
Because it was such a borderline decision it wasn't clear the linesman had made a mistake!

Ironically if the linesman had not flagged, (as they are supposed to do under VAR if there's doubt), and said he thought Sergio was onside, I don't think it would have been disallowed!

I don't think it helped having Martin Atkinson in charge of VAR. As we found with the home derby last year, when he refused several stonewall penalty shouts, he hates to give us anything.

Dubciteh wrote:Why was our goal disallowed when the VAR still showed it was onside?

I can only suggest that it wasn't the "clear and obvious error" they are looking for. It was close enough that it could have gone either way and I suppose they went with the on-field ref's decision because of that. And though it was wrong, I can live with it. I might think differently had we lost, however.

With offside, it needs to be clarified which part of the body matters, say, the further foot back or the head or the torso. But it needs to be consistent and stated clearly in the laws.

Just a quick question that I was going to post after the Schalke game:

I've seen multiple interpretations of and opinions on how VAR should be applied "according to the rules", with lots contradicting one another. However, is there just one single international set of rules for its use, or do they vary from competition to competition (or governing body to governing body), considering it's still in its early/trial stages?

Tokyo Blue wrote:

Dubciteh wrote:Why was our goal disallowed when the VAR still showed it was onside?

I can only suggest that it wasn't the "clear and obvious error" they are looking for. It was close enough that it could have gone either way and I suppose they went with the on-field ref's decision because of that. And though it was wrong, I can live with it. I might think differently had we lost, however.

With offside, it needs to be clarified which part of the body matters, say, the further foot back or the head or the torso. But it needs to be consistent and stated clearly in the laws.

It is clearly stated in the laws. Any part of the body that can legally touch the ball can be offside.

Tokyo Blue wrote:The future of VAR is this.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47336170

Agreed, there seems greater scope for dubious penalties to be given or not given.

The system is only as good as the people running it. When they seem to have an agenda it gives greater opportunity for altering game outcomes. Corrupt officials could give betting syndicates a field day.
Additionally there are many in the world football that want us to fail and VAR penalty reviews may well be used to get favourable match results, as Shalke. Watch this space...

Plain Speaking wrote:

Tokyo Blue wrote:The future of VAR is this.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47336170

Agreed, there seems greater scope for dubious penalties to be given or not given.

The system is only as good as the people running it. When they seem to have an agenda it gives greater opportunity for altering game outcomes. Corrupt officials could give betting syndicates a field day.
Additionally there are many in the world football that want us to fail and VAR penalty reviews may well be used to get favourable match results, as Shalke. Watch this space...

The two VAR decisions were absolutely correct. The first was a handball and the ref was obviously wrong to not give it first time. The second he gave a pen for and even though it looked like a dive, and probably was, he wasn't obviously wrong to do so and correctly wasn't overruled.

The potential stinker is the decision not to use VAR up the other end for Levante. But then any claims of corruption are somewhat diluted by the fact the ref referred his decision to give the second penalty. He didn't have to.

Scatman wrote:

Plain Speaking wrote:

Tokyo Blue wrote:The future of VAR is this.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47336170

Agreed, there seems greater scope for dubious penalties to be given or not given.

The system is only as good as the people running it. When they seem to have an agenda it gives greater opportunity for altering game outcomes. Corrupt officials could give betting syndicates a field day.
Additionally there are many in the world football that want us to fail and VAR penalty reviews may well be used to get favourable match results, as Shalke. Watch this space...

The two VAR decisions were absolutely correct. The first was a handball and the ref was obviously wrong to not give it first time. The second he gave a pen for and even though it looked like a dive, and probably was, he wasn't obviously wrong to do so and correctly wasn't overruled.

The potential stinker is the decision not to use VAR up the other end for Levante. But then any claims of corruption are somewhat diluted by the fact the ref referred his decision to give the second penalty. He didn't have to.

I'm not following your logic on the second penalty, if it was a dive then he was obviously wrong to award a pen

Scatman wrote:

Plain Speaking wrote:

Tokyo Blue wrote:The future of VAR is this.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47336170

Agreed, there seems greater scope for dubious penalties to be given or not given.

The system is only as good as the people running it. When they seem to have an agenda it gives greater opportunity for altering game outcomes. Corrupt officials could give betting syndicates a field day.
Additionally there are many in the world football that want us to fail and VAR penalty reviews may well be used to get favourable match results, as Shalke. Watch this space...

The two VAR decisions were absolutely correct. The first was a handball and the ref was obviously wrong to not give it first time. The second he gave a pen for and even though it looked like a dive, and probably was, he wasn't obviously wrong to do so and correctly wasn't overruled.

The potential stinker is the decision not to use VAR up the other end for Levante. But then any claims of corruption are somewhat diluted by the fact the ref referred his decision to give the second penalty. He didn't have to.

It's simplistic to say giving penalties are "absolutely correct" they are personal interpretations. Some officials give them others wouldn't. Most observers would agree Ota didn't deliberately handle the ball. There was overwhelming agreement on the BBC HYS post match, that the penalties were unfair, (even from fans of other rival clubs like Utd and Liverpool). Ota was trying to move his arm out of the way and the ball hit him. I realise handballs are given more frequently on the continent than in England. I don't agree that the referee was wrong not to give it.
Viewing live footage in slow motion can give a misrepresentative view of speed.

How the fuck can anyone think otamendi was a hand ball

why didn't the var ref flag up that serg got a elbow in the face,that should of been a red and would of helped us to win before pens

Nickyboy wrote:

Tokyo Blue wrote:

Dubciteh wrote:Why was our goal disallowed when the VAR still showed it was onside?

I can only suggest that it wasn't the "clear and obvious error" they are looking for. It was close enough that it could have gone either way and I suppose they went with the on-field ref's decision because of that. And though it was wrong, I can live with it. I might think differently had we lost, however.

With offside, it needs to be clarified which part of the body matters, say, the further foot back or the head or the torso. But it needs to be consistent and stated clearly in the laws.

It is clearly stated in the laws. Any part of the body that can legally touch the ball can be offside.

I think it would be clearer if both attackers' and, more importantly, defenders' positions were defined by one particular part of the body. The head, perhaps.

I'd like to see interpretation taken away as much as possible.

stevefromdonny wrote:why didn't the var ref flag up that serg got a elbow in the face,that should of been a red and would of helped us to win before pens

I think you have answered your own question there, mate.