@DevC said:
You are right of course @bookertease that if you don't care about (or even actively want) key refereeing errors (and the diving epidemic to try to cause them that I think really is in danger of killing the game) , then yes I agree , there would be no point to VAR.
Sure I've heard this view point before but can you please help me find out where?
At work we often have to decide if making something 98% correct when it was 96% correct is worth it.
On alot of occasions the cost, time and pure hassle is just not worth it.
I see VAR as the perfect example of this. They are going for 100% when 96% is just fine
Listen to a chat on BBC3 Counties this morning with Andy Collins & his co presenters. Andy summed it up perfectly, it took 3 minutes and 38 seconds to decide that the "clear & obvious" decision that the Sheffield United striker had a little toe nail offside. Later in the game Sheffield United score again and almost nobody celebrated, (players & fans), as they anticipated that VAR would get involved & find another reason to disallow the goal. By the time the referee was told to allow the goal, the euphoria had diluted to such a degree that it was more of a shrug of the shoulders than a leaping of joy. A soulless experience & in the end fans will vote with their feet and not bother going. May as well play the game on a console with the sound down.
In addition, I watched that bbc bit with the fellow saying that he would give VAR a 7 out of 10 so far. The man couldn't stop grinning/laughing, made me want to punch him as even he surely doesn't believe that shite?
@Right_in_the_Middle I spent a minute or two trying to freeze fame that moment after the match. I failed. I was just intrigued as the first couple of times I watched it I didn’t think it had anywhere near crosses the line, but later viewings I started to think it had.
Didn’t actually care though. Happy to take the lino’s word for it.
@drcongo said: @Right_in_the_Middle I spent a minute or two trying to freeze fame that moment after the match. I failed. I was just intrigued as the first couple of times I watched it I didn’t think it had anywhere near crosses the line, but later viewings I started to think it had.
Didn’t actually care though. Happy to take the lino’s word for it.
Youtube allows you to play at 0.25 speed - it is impossible to say for certain IMO. In real time at the game I didn't think it had crossed the line but the guy behind me was convinced.
@drcongo said: @Right_in_the_Middle I spent a minute or two trying to freeze fame that moment after the match. I failed. I was just intrigued as the first couple of times I watched it I didn’t think it had anywhere near crosses the line, but later viewings I started to think it had.
Didn’t actually care though. Happy to take the lino’s word for it.
And there is the VAR debate in a nutshell. I agree with you
VAR would have made no difference with regard to Alex Samuel's shot off the cross bar. Goal line technology, which seems to be quick, reliable and non-disruptive to play, would have been used if in place.
@Uncle_T said:
VAR would have made no difference with regard to Alex Samuel's shot off the cross bar. Goal line technology, which seems to be quick, reliable and non-disruptive to play, would have been used if in place.
Funnily enough, it might have made a difference to Oboforh's goal, you can see that it clearly hits someone on the way through as it changes trajectory. It's moving so fast though that there's no way to tell who it hits - 36 metres per second, or 1.44 metres per frame of video.
If only we'd had a few men sat in a room in another city to skip backwards and forwards between frames so they could guess and then tell us that it's a fact.
@EwanHoosaami If @DevC has told you once, he’s told you 18,482 times - VAR guarantees the correct decision and therefore this BBC Sport article is fake news and obviously down to the BBC’s liberal bias.
@drcongo said: @EwanHoosaami If @DevC has told you once, he’s told you 18,482 times - VAR guarantees the correct decision and therefore this BBC Sport article is fake news and obviously down to the BBC’s liberal bias.
FFS @drcongo , for the 18483rd time, you plainly don’t understand what VAR is. Concentrate now, see if you can grasp it this time.
VAR is not designed to and cannot possibly “guarantee the correct decision” each time. There is no such thing as “the correct decision”. Refereeing decisions are judgements on whether contact constitutes a foul or not - different referees may judge the same facts differently. That will always be the case. All VAR does is give the referee the facts of what actually happened on which to base his judgement rather than him having to base that judgement on a split second impression. No more no less.
The randomly chosen Bournemouth game had no clear refereeing errors. VAR sat in the background, didn’t affect the game but was there in case a refereeing mistake threatened to affect the outcome of the match, as indeed they did in the majority of Premier league games today.
Will the success of VAR today receive back page headlines in the media. No of course not. Not the media’s agenda. And these days newspapers create news to fit their agendas rather than report news reality.
1 random game, no significant delays, no errors corrected. Chelsea West Ham next week.
And these days newspapers create news to fit their agendas rather than report news reality.
With the danger of going slightly off topic, I think the ‘these days’ is redundant - this has always been an issue with newspapers and the reason why the incredibly rich have been so interested in owning the media.
@DevC said on page 2:
VAR would have given him more opportunity to judge the situation and as far as we technically can ensure that decision was correct.
Your first post in this thread. Can’t be bother to go through finding the other several thousand.
@DevC said on page 23:
There is no such thing as “the correct decision”.
Can we just all agree to disagree? Some people think getting the ‘best informed’ decision (or some decisions) is worth the expenditure and possible disruption to the flow of the game. Some people think it is worth the expenditure for it to run quietly in the background and only rarely intervene if there is a clear and obvious refereeing error. Some people think it’s not worth the expenditure and/or interference and we should readily accept the game-changing errors (the 95% argument). Some people would rather die in a ditch than have it introduced if it can’t also apply to games on the Rye. Some people don’t give a toss. Some people are incredibly bored by arguments about it going around in circles. And some people should be extradited to Greenland.
@DevC said:
FFS @drcongo , for the 18483rd time, you plainly don’t understand what VAR is. Concentrate now, see if you can grasp it this time.
What an incredibly rude and arrogant comment to make. Just dissapear somewhere if this is the level you've dropped to. There are so many good stories and feelings coming from Wycombe Wanderers at the moment. This type of abuse is totally unacceptable
So the headline on the BBC page states: VAR incorrectly overruled decisions four times - Premier League referees' chief Mike Riley
@DevC says, There is no such thing as “the correct decision”.
If there is no such thing, (in your words), as a correct decision, how can there be an incorrect one? I am now utterly confused, (not difficult I know), by your statement @DevC . My head hurts!
Goal line tech is an absolute. It's either over the line or not.
With pens a lot of them are still subjective decisions. Even now with some random gnomes in a shed in uxbridge.
Comments
Sure I've heard this view point before but can you please help me find out where?
At work we often have to decide if making something 98% correct when it was 96% correct is worth it.
On alot of occasions the cost, time and pure hassle is just not worth it.
I see VAR as the perfect example of this. They are going for 100% when 96% is just fine
Listen to a chat on BBC3 Counties this morning with Andy Collins & his co presenters. Andy summed it up perfectly, it took 3 minutes and 38 seconds to decide that the "clear & obvious" decision that the Sheffield United striker had a little toe nail offside. Later in the game Sheffield United score again and almost nobody celebrated, (players & fans), as they anticipated that VAR would get involved & find another reason to disallow the goal. By the time the referee was told to allow the goal, the euphoria had diluted to such a degree that it was more of a shrug of the shoulders than a leaping of joy. A soulless experience & in the end fans will vote with their feet and not bother going. May as well play the game on a console with the sound down.
In addition, I watched that bbc bit with the fellow saying that he would give VAR a 7 out of 10 so far. The man couldn't stop grinning/laughing, made me want to punch him as even he surely doesn't believe that shite?
A perfect summary of why it is so dreadful
What would VAR make of Alex Samuel's shot off the crossbar last night?
@Right_in_the_Middle I spent a minute or two trying to freeze fame that moment after the match. I failed. I was just intrigued as the first couple of times I watched it I didn’t think it had anywhere near crosses the line, but later viewings I started to think it had.
Didn’t actually care though. Happy to take the lino’s word for it.
Youtube allows you to play at 0.25 speed - it is impossible to say for certain IMO. In real time at the game I didn't think it had crossed the line but the guy behind me was convinced.
And there is the VAR debate in a nutshell. I agree with you
Mr Samuel is probably our most honest player, so if he's reacting so strongly, there's got to be a good chance it was over.
VAR would have made no difference with regard to Alex Samuel's shot off the cross bar. Goal line technology, which seems to be quick, reliable and non-disruptive to play, would have been used if in place.
I wonder how much goal line tech costs. That'd definitely be a benefit in any division.
It’s very rare for the ball to bounce down from the crossbar on to or near the goal line isn’t it?
depends if it's at Wembley and your town was invaded by the Nazis...
Funnily enough, it might have made a difference to Oboforh's goal, you can see that it clearly hits someone on the way through as it changes trajectory. It's moving so fast though that there's no way to tell who it hits - 36 metres per second, or 1.44 metres per frame of video.
If only we'd had a few men sat in a room in another city to skip backwards and forwards between frames so they could guess and then tell us that it's a fact.
Are the VAR lot In a room in the stadium, or literally miles away?
Literally miles away. Which is the perfect cue for me to ask @DevC to definitively tell us for a fact who the ball hits between these two frames.
You'd hope the VAR boys would have a slightly less blurry version than that!
FAO: @DevC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50517096
Oh no, not another episode of visual aid controversy.
Suppose I have to concede inadvertently starting it.
@DevC What happened in Bournemouth v Wolves?
@EwanHoosaami If @DevC has told you once, he’s told you 18,482 times - VAR guarantees the correct decision and therefore this BBC Sport article is fake news and obviously down to the BBC’s liberal bias.
No responce so far @drcongo
FFS @drcongo , for the 18483rd time, you plainly don’t understand what VAR is. Concentrate now, see if you can grasp it this time.
VAR is not designed to and cannot possibly “guarantee the correct decision” each time. There is no such thing as “the correct decision”. Refereeing decisions are judgements on whether contact constitutes a foul or not - different referees may judge the same facts differently. That will always be the case. All VAR does is give the referee the facts of what actually happened on which to base his judgement rather than him having to base that judgement on a split second impression. No more no less.
The randomly chosen Bournemouth game had no clear refereeing errors. VAR sat in the background, didn’t affect the game but was there in case a refereeing mistake threatened to affect the outcome of the match, as indeed they did in the majority of Premier league games today.
Will the success of VAR today receive back page headlines in the media. No of course not. Not the media’s agenda. And these days newspapers create news to fit their agendas rather than report news reality.
1 random game, no significant delays, no errors corrected. Chelsea West Ham next week.
With the danger of going slightly off topic, I think the ‘these days’ is redundant - this has always been an issue with newspapers and the reason why the incredibly rich have been so interested in owning the media.
Your first post in this thread. Can’t be bother to go through finding the other several thousand.
Incredible levels of doublethink.
18483 posts to choose from and the best you can come up with , even with some judicious editing, says the opposite of your claim.
Building straw men never works IMHO. Stick to reality or just stop digging?
Can we just all agree to disagree? Some people think getting the ‘best informed’ decision (or some decisions) is worth the expenditure and possible disruption to the flow of the game. Some people think it is worth the expenditure for it to run quietly in the background and only rarely intervene if there is a clear and obvious refereeing error. Some people think it’s not worth the expenditure and/or interference and we should readily accept the game-changing errors (the 95% argument). Some people would rather die in a ditch than have it introduced if it can’t also apply to games on the Rye. Some people don’t give a toss. Some people are incredibly bored by arguments about it going around in circles. And some people should be extradited to Greenland.
What an incredibly rude and arrogant comment to make. Just dissapear somewhere if this is the level you've dropped to. There are so many good stories and feelings coming from Wycombe Wanderers at the moment. This type of abuse is totally unacceptable
So the headline on the BBC page states: VAR incorrectly overruled decisions four times - Premier League referees' chief Mike Riley
@DevC says, There is no such thing as “the correct decision”.
If there is no such thing, (in your words), as a correct decision, how can there be an incorrect one? I am now utterly confused, (not difficult I know), by your statement @DevC . My head hurts!
Goal line tech is an absolute. It's either over the line or not.
With pens a lot of them are still subjective decisions. Even now with some random gnomes in a shed in uxbridge.