I disagree with stopping the game. Seriously, if we can watch a replay from three perspectives until everybody has calmed down /stoppped celebrating, what would prevent everybody in the stadium to do this? If i remember correctly, Wolfsburg did it for a weekend (put replays of cards, fouls and situations like that on the screen) and got a warning that it is not allowed. They still show instant replays of goals and goal scoring opportunities on the screen at certain stadiums though which to me makes it look very possible in theory.
I've been in italy quite a few times and i've watched games with commercial interruptions. You'd get used to it trust me. They put the game in a tiny screen at the bottom or the top of the screen during advertisements.
But you still get a glimpse of whats going on though, as compared to american sports when there are so many 'fullscreen' commercial breaks and the games have too many stop-starts. Its one reason that I dont like watching american sports.
Watching Atleti - Sevilla on Gol TV, the handball in the Lyon - Real Madrid match came up during a discussion on officiating. Wouldn't you know it, the commentators each have a different view on the call (as you say, after 3 days worth of replays!). As for stopping the game for reviews? Ugh ... please no. If video replay ever gets introduced, we will be arguing about whether the coach should have challenged a play he didn't challenge and we'll be analyzing replays in ultra super slow motion trying to prove our personal view on the call (because you know we will not all agree!).
That makes me wonder how could the ref be so sure after 0 replays and like 0.5 sec of seeing it happen? I don't like teams being screwed over because of "little mistakes" that the ref makes. If it would mean the game lasting 5 or 10 mins longer i would have nothing against video tech refereeing.
The point is that those 5-10 minutes would in the majority of cases not produce a better decision that the referees. 10 ninutes discussing the Lyon handball would produce... ... ... ... nothing.
Why has that handball become a major point in pro or contra video tech? I am not saying 10 mins per every thing. Ref could take a look at a replay when he isn't sure. That wouldn't take long and it would improve refereeing a lot, especially in the big stages like CL or World Cup.
The handball is just as an example. I just don't see stopping the game for the ref to go and watch a video, which may or may not help him, as viable. In cricket it has resulted in decisions going to video that years ago the umpire would have given (and got right) without a second thought... just to be sure. It would get out of hand and 5-10 minutes would soon become 15-20 minutes. Decisions on fact (over the line?) can use VT, and as I said, a ref asking a video ref for a factual point he couldn't see (did the ball hit his hand or chest) are things I could take VT for... anything else I'm happy with the ref doing.
In tennis, if the call in question comes during a point in play, the player wishing to challenge has to stop the play immediately. If they are wrong, they not only lose the challenge, they lose the point. There is a risk involved in making a challenge. In the NFL, the limitations are there for challenges to be done only in certain circumstances. I believe something along these lines could work for football, but there would have to be clearly defined limits and a risk involved so they weren't done frivolously.
Well the way I see it is, a video ref is in contact with the actual ref. The ref makes a decision, the players contest, he asks the video ref for his opinion after watching a replay on the incident. If the video ref isn't sure, the refs original decision stands i.e. the handball vs Lyon. I don't think this can be used for offsides, but it could help with other decisions which are a lot more clear cut.
Your assumption is that the ref did not see the event, and not that his interpretation is being questioned. Example: against lyon, doubt the ref could deny seeing the handball but rather that it was unintentional. There has to be only one ref that has a final say.
Fifa says they are gonna continue testing Goal line technology: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/03032011/58/world-cup-fifa-continue-goal-line-testing.html So it isnt a dead in the water decision.
They want to use 6 refs at the Euros '12. That's the same they use in CL and EL currently i think. 5 refs on the field and 1 ref outside (aka 4th ref). Blatter also said that they've seen presentation of some technological solutions and that they might use them in Brazil if they improve some things. AS LINK