Comments on: Chelsea vs Barcelona: The Best Argument for Video Replay This Side of Vicarage Road

By: nikolas

nikolas — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:35:52 +0000

I hate barca. the referee was corrupt. Chelsea should
won the game at least by 4-0. that’s all.

By: Gene Branam

Gene Branam — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:02:44 +0000

American football uses the replay to judege decisions. So who mans the viedo replay, other refrees that usually have the same way of thinking as the ref on the field. Most calls from the field are upheld after viedo review. So all that is accomplished is one hour of playing time turns into three or four hours of watching very little action on the field. I really do not want to see soccer change to a 3 hour game of watching the refs making a decision through viedo.

By: Asim Saeed

Asim Saeed — Wed, 13 May 2009 10:29:32 +0000

There is no doubt about video replays’ presence in games like cricket have always brought the deserving team ahead. Keeping football game’s pace in mind, it can help judging if foul is foul or not; replay hardly takes 30-60 second to judge what is what, at least better than the players’ arguments with referee for more than 30-60 seconds, which are always fruitless of course … it can’t harm the pace, enthusiasm or passion of the game; infect it can bring more of that; as only deserving teams will go through…

Talking about Chelsea n’ Barca’s game; there were clearly fouls and handball against Chelsea; which from 6 mtr behind the referee couldn’t see, or if he saw then he couldn’t judge. But as a fan of football game; it strike me as he was blind or has predefined Barca’ as winner… watching the game I was wondering if Barca’ are playing with 3 goal keepers or the referee was from some Rugby Premier league, that he didn’t react over any fouls/handball; this poor performance of referee caused Chelsea a big blow… those who saw that match; can easily judge who deserved to be in final but who went through; just because of blind referee’s performance… there is much to say more abt it… but I think its enough for now…

By: Asim Saeed

Asim Saeed — Wed, 13 May 2009 10:04:54 +0000

By: Jackson

Jackson — Mon, 11 May 2009 10:02:31 +0000

Yes, yes, yes… agree completely with what your saying.

There is also one more point I’d like to bring up, football violence today might not be as wide spread as was but having video replays would also help dicipate anger from players/fans alike. The feeling of being robbed due to the poor decisions of one man is a terrible one and should not exist in a modern professional sport.

By: FF

FF — Mon, 11 May 2009 08:02:39 +0000

BTW, I forgot to mention: on FairFootball it’s Chelsea that win. If that’s any consolation.

By: MsL DON

MsL DON — Sun, 10 May 2009 11:12:02 +0000

i really think chelsea were deserved to be out ! ! firstly they fall for all minor touches ! ! tats pathetic ! ! is tat why u train ur phsical fitness for?? u play fairly n decisions will go ur way…clean ur own back first chelsea ! Man Utd to thrash Barcelona in finals ! ! !

By: FF

FF — Sun, 10 May 2009 04:06:25 +0000

> Back to the point of video “proof”: Let’s decide on using video proof after a panel of 10 experts discuss the video to this game and when 10 out of 10 agree on every decision. They will discuss for hours, and they will never be unanimous.

So it’s either perfect or we don’t want it ? With this philosophy we’d still be living in caves. It *would* be a major improvement over the actual state of things, so let’s put it to work as quickly as possible.

By: FF

FF — Sun, 10 May 2009 04:03:37 +0000

nikolaus heger:

> Just because Ballack freaks out doesn’t mean anybody can get away from a 100km/h ball when hit at 2m distance.

Not really. Eto’o knew he was going to shoot at him, that’s why he turned around in the first place. He should have kept his arm stuck to his body. Besides, it was more like 5 – 6 meters.

> But if you play-act so much, you can’t be surprised if the ref doesn’t give a foul when you are really fouled

With video replays this should change, that’s exactly the point. The decisions would be more accurate regardless whether the player in question is a diver. And players would have much less to gain from diving so maybe, just maybe, it would stop.

By: luckyman/heavy

luckyman/heavy — Sat, 09 May 2009 15:05:34 +0000

To me it is a clear cheating to chelsea side,cos the ref wont tell me he didnt see all those penalties,he just did it on his personal intensions ,we know we were the clear winner of that match, and the ref must not go unpunished.