whodunnit, no, you just can’t open your brain up to understand why your view is not the only one.
You can’t understand why there’s a trade off.
Accuracy = negative in many respects.
So we ask ourselves, why are we doing it? It’s not improving the game.
Hang on, are you talking about individuals betting? As in, that's a reason to have var so they don't lose their bets unfairly?
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
champions league finals, champ league slots in EPL. the play offs like you said.
not all money involved in football directly involves the two teams playing in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff is the biggest, right. Still a stretch to say hundreds of millions but whatever ok. Yes I'll take the point that big games raise the stakes. I'll make two points as to why that's not a great argument for why we have to have var:
1. Big games should be won by the better team. I (personally) don't see satisfaction in the team winning because of a millimetre offside. Or a clearly accidental handball given as a penalty etc. Basically, the idea itself of having factually correct decisions isn't always possible or desirable.
2. How many of those big games are actually decided by bad decisions? Because even agreeing with you that we HAVE to do something, the cost shouldn't outweigh the benefit. What we're doing, is changing the rules and the nature of the sport, in order to correct for a very small set of incidents that are largely hypothetical. This also ignores the fact that var officials can still make mistakes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not all money involves what it paid to clubs, betting for eg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't disagree. But that doesn't address either of my points.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your opinion of whether it would make a difference or not is irrelevant and thats all it is opinion.
football should be a game that is won by the team that legitimately scores more goals than the opposition. who plays better, how big the teams playing are, how often contentious decisions occur have nothing to do with determining who wins and should win a game of football.
Money has been and will be the reason that technology is used to try and get as close to a definitive correct decision regardless of anyones opinion as to whether it would make a difference or not.
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 3 minutes ago
Hang on, are you talking about individuals betting? As in, that's a reason to have var so they don't lose their bets unfairly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nope im saying thats one of the reasons as to why technology will be used and another example of many of how decisions can have huge financial implications.not just between the two teams on the field
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One wonders WTF is the future for humankind with an outlook like that? Thankfully, not prevalent so on we go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly how normal technology development and capitalism in general works. There's a problem or a demand and people solve it. What you're talking about is inventing demand to sell a solution.
Start a business with that approach see how you get on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are all over the place here. Huge amounts of guff is sold (being the operative word) on the back of convincing people they need it. Look at the scheite they sell in these magazines that fall out Sunday papers preying on old people and gullibles.
Watch 'The Founder' on Netflix and you'll understand how demand was invented and a wee business created.
Finding ways to create demand is the cornerstone of selling and invariably unduly rewarded. Usually but not always in parallel with product creation I will give you that
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
champions league finals, champ league slots in EPL. the play offs like you said.
not all money involved in football directly involves the two teams playing in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff is the biggest, right. Still a stretch to say hundreds of millions but whatever ok. Yes I'll take the point that big games raise the stakes. I'll make two points as to why that's not a great argument for why we have to have var:
1. Big games should be won by the better team. I (personally) don't see satisfaction in the team winning because of a millimetre offside. Or a clearly accidental handball given as a penalty etc. Basically, the idea itself of having factually correct decisions isn't always possible or desirable.
2. How many of those big games are actually decided by bad decisions? Because even agreeing with you that we HAVE to do something, the cost shouldn't outweigh the benefit. What we're doing, is changing the rules and the nature of the sport, in order to correct for a very small set of incidents that are largely hypothetical. This also ignores the fact that var officials can still make mistakes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not all money involves what it paid to clubs, betting for eg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't disagree. But that doesn't address either of my points.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your opinion of whether it would make a difference or not is irrelevant and thats all it is opinion.
football should be a game that is won by the team that legitimately scores more goals than the opposition. who plays better, how big the teams playing are, how often contentious decisions occur have nothing to do with determining who wins and should win a game of football.
Money has been and will be the reason that technology is used to try and get as close to a definitive correct decision regardless of anyones opinion as to whether it would make a difference or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've misinterpreted a few things I've said there.
And you're doubling down on the we should because we can angle. I get it, it's the mainstream point of view.
I think it's wrong because sport is entertainment and while ensuring that every decision is factually correct may entertaining for some (or that the occasional bad decision ruins the sport for them) that's not why I enjoy the game. Either playing or watching.
We're not going to agree. Though I would suggest that based on fan polls, there's a decent chunk of the fanbase that agree with me. Even if you're ambivalent to it, the creeping rule changes etc (and very real issue with the game not being the same the world over because you can't have the tech everywhere) have fundamentally changed the sport.
In my opinion that's not worth it. You can't point to all the hundreds of millions that have been lost/earned by var cos it's a nonsense. That's not how the game works.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
whodunnit, no, you just can’t open your brain up to understand why your view is not the only one.
You can’t understand why there’s a trade off.
Accuracy = negative in many respects.
So we ask ourselves, why are we doing it? It’s not improving the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I accept there's other points of view that are not wrong to those that hold them. Just seems bizarre to me, and, as Bale points out, the majority that the facts are it is only going one direction. Not one league has decided to go back to my knowledge? That must say something?
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One wonders WTF is the future for humankind with an outlook like that? Thankfully, not prevalent so on we go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly how normal technology development and capitalism in general works. There's a problem or a demand and people solve it. What you're talking about is inventing demand to sell a solution.
Start a business with that approach see how you get on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are all over the place here. Huge amounts of guff is sold (being the operative word) on the back of convincing people they need it. Look at the scheite they sell in these magazines that fall out Sunday papers preying on old people and gullibles.
Watch 'The Founder' on Netflix and you'll understand how demand was invented and a wee business created.
Finding ways to create demand is the cornerstone of selling and invariably unduly rewarded. Usually but not always in parallel with product creation I will give you that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not all over the place at all.
That stuff in magazines fulfills a need for those people. It's a stupid need for stupid people but it's still there.
The best actual examples of creating demand for a product are usually pretty evil like pharmaceutical companies making drugs and then testing them to try and find an application for them.
I'm not saying that creating demand is impossible but it's a backward (or straight up malicious) way to go about things.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
whodunnit, no, you just can’t open your brain up to understand why your view is not the only one.
You can’t understand why there’s a trade off.
Accuracy = negative in many respects.
So we ask ourselves, why are we doing it? It’s not improving the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I accept there's other points of view that are not wrong to those that hold them. Just seems bizarre to me, and, as Bale points out, the majority that the facts are it is only going one direction. Not one league has decided to go back to my knowledge? That must say something?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of people voted Brexit. Doesn't make it a good idea
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
whodunnit, no, you just can’t open your brain up to understand why your view is not the only one.
You can’t understand why there’s a trade off.
Accuracy = negative in many respects.
So we ask ourselves, why are we doing it? It’s not improving the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I accept there's other points of view that are not wrong to those that hold them. Just seems bizarre to me, and, as Bale points out, the majority that the facts are it is only going one direction. Not one league has decided to go back to my knowledge? That must say something?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of people voted Brexit. Doesn't make it a good idea
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's daft. It was a good idea to a majority on one specific day. That's all.
The Founder example is daft. People need to eat.
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One wonders WTF is the future for humankind with an outlook like that? Thankfully, not prevalent so on we go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly how normal technology development and capitalism in general works. There's a problem or a demand and people solve it. What you're talking about is inventing demand to sell a solution.
Start a business with that approach see how you get on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are all over the place here. Huge amounts of guff is sold (being the operative word) on the back of convincing people they need it. Look at the scheite they sell in these magazines that fall out Sunday papers preying on old people and gullibles.
Watch 'The Founder' on Netflix and you'll understand how demand was invented and a wee business created.
Finding ways to create demand is the cornerstone of selling and invariably unduly rewarded. Usually but not always in parallel with product creation I will give you that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not all over the place at all.
That stuff in magazines fulfills a need for those people. It's a stupid need for stupid people but it's still there.
The best actual examples of creating demand for a product are usually pretty evil like pharmaceutical companies making drugs and then testing them to try and find an application for them.
I'm not saying that creating demand is impossible but it's a backward (or straight up malicious) way to go about things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody wanted to pay to pay to watch football on TV until Sky came along and created a product and convinced them to shell out.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
whodunnit, no, you just can’t open your brain up to understand why your view is not the only one.
You can’t understand why there’s a trade off.
Accuracy = negative in many respects.
So we ask ourselves, why are we doing it? It’s not improving the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I accept there's other points of view that are not wrong to those that hold them. Just seems bizarre to me, and, as Bale points out, the majority that the facts are it is only going one direction. Not one league has decided to go back to my knowledge? That must say something?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that says that they have made a rod for their own back and it's irreversible, no matter how crap it is.
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 21 seconds ago
The Founder example is daft. People need to eat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure but they don't NEED to eat big Macs.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One wonders WTF is the future for humankind with an outlook like that? Thankfully, not prevalent so on we go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly how normal technology development and capitalism in general works. There's a problem or a demand and people solve it. What you're talking about is inventing demand to sell a solution.
Start a business with that approach see how you get on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are all over the place here. Huge amounts of guff is sold (being the operative word) on the back of convincing people they need it. Look at the scheite they sell in these magazines that fall out Sunday papers preying on old people and gullibles.
Watch 'The Founder' on Netflix and you'll understand how demand was invented and a wee business created.
Finding ways to create demand is the cornerstone of selling and invariably unduly rewarded. Usually but not always in parallel with product creation I will give you that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not all over the place at all.
That stuff in magazines fulfills a need for those people. It's a stupid need for stupid people but it's still there.
The best actual examples of creating demand for a product are usually pretty evil like pharmaceutical companies making drugs and then testing them to try and find an application for them.
I'm not saying that creating demand is impossible but it's a backward (or straight up malicious) way to go about things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody wanted to pay to pay to watch football on TV until Sky came along and created a product and convinced them to shell out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't make any sense. Football is the product, people wanted it.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 21 seconds ago
The Founder example is daft. People need to eat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure but they don't NEED to eat big Macs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not understanding the concept here. Driving sales for your specific product does not equal creating demand.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
whodunnit, no, you just can’t open your brain up to understand why your view is not the only one.
You can’t understand why there’s a trade off.
Accuracy = negative in many respects.
So we ask ourselves, why are we doing it? It’s not improving the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I accept there's other points of view that are not wrong to those that hold them. Just seems bizarre to me, and, as Bale points out, the majority that the facts are it is only going one direction. Not one league has decided to go back to my knowledge? That must say something?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that says that they have made a rod for their own back and it's irreversible, no matter how crap it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool Winnie.
BTW you never did answer dunnit about how big of a law infringement you'd be raging about if it is not 5mm.
Is 5m OK? That seem ridiculous? So, I'll assume your law infringement you'd like specified is somewhere between these two numbers? That good for you?
Silver, that's because it's a stupid question borne from people who need black and white in their lives... middle managers if ever I saw them.
Ideally we want all decisions correct, but we can't have that without an intrusive and disruptive VAR system, which encourages people to focus on the wrong things and has led to a change in the way that laws are interpreted.
It's ridiculous that we feel the need to perfect decisions that don't have any tangible effect on the game.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richest game in sport...apparently
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 minutes ago
Silver, that's because it's a stupid question borne from people who need black and white in their lives... middle managers if ever I saw them.
Ideally we want all decisions correct, but we can't have that without an intrusive and disruptive VAR system, which encourages people to focus on the wrong things and has led to a change in the way that laws are interpreted.
It's ridiculous that we feel the need to perfect decisions that don't have any tangible effect on the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahaha throwing insults about now. We all know what that is a sign of.
Enjoy your night.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 minutes ago
Silver, that's because it's a stupid question borne from people who need black and white in their lives... middle managers if ever I saw them.
Ideally we want all decisions correct, but we can't have that without an intrusive and disruptive VAR system, which encourages people to focus on the wrong things and has led to a change in the way that laws are interpreted.
It's ridiculous that we feel the need to perfect decisions that don't have any tangible effect on the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahaha throwing insults about now. We all know what that is a sign of.
Enjoy your night.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where's the insult?
And it wasn't even aimed at you.
But if you're going to get your knickers in a twist then it's best you go.
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 21 seconds ago
The Founder example is daft. People need to eat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure but they don't NEED to eat big Macs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not understanding the concept here. Driving sales for your specific product does not equal creating demand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are not understanding almost everything!
Nobody knew they wanted fast food until it was created against a majority saying it was not needed. They knew what pashed them off about the traditional slow ways of getting (or not) their food but only really wanted fast food once they found out the benefits. That there were equal or larger benefits for the producer ensured success and folk were scrambling, desperate for a MaccyDs in their town. It was almost all about that creating demand. 'I've not tried it but I've heard its great, I want one, bring us a Macdonalds' You should watch the film, it's decent.
The current handball rules are a complete farce, that City penalty last night should never be given as a handball, they need to get back to only giving handball if it is deliberate or they stop the ball with their hand by having it in an unnatural position. It all boils down to incompetent officials, most of them don`t know their arce from their elbow and don`t know the game.
These millimetre offsides are also a complete farce, the technology is not accurate enough to be making toenail decisions, and we are relying on a clown in a studio implementing the technology correctly, they can quite easily get it wrong or sway one way or another depending on who their favourites are.
Not for me, if the benefits going to anyone it has to be the defend,er far riskier and far harder job they deserve the benefit not the attackers. I get from a fan view they wanna see goals but lets not eradicate some of the hardest skills in football the offside traps etc.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 21 seconds ago
The Founder example is daft. People need to eat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure but they don't NEED to eat big Macs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not understanding the concept here. Driving sales for your specific product does not equal creating demand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are not understanding almost everything!
Nobody knew they wanted fast food until it was created against a majority saying it was not needed. They knew what pashed them off about the traditional slow ways of getting (or not) their food but only really wanted fast food once they found out the benefits. That there were equal or larger benefits for the producer ensured success and folk were scrambling, desperate for a MaccyDs in their town. It was almost all about that creating demand. 'I've not tried it but I've heard its great, I want one, bring us a Macdonalds' You should watch the film, it's decent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll check the film out but I still think we're talking at cross purposes.
My original point was that when talking about how tech in football could improve to make var better you started going on about different sensors to monitor players' positioning and heading and whatnot. I take issue with the approach of just throwing technology at the sport because it exists in the hope that it might make it better without actually understanding the problem first. If you don't do that you can't decide what better is, anyway. That's partly my issue with the whole thing. The original problem var was supposed to solve was clear and obvious, egregious errors that pretty much everyone can we want out. Now it's every decision.. the approach is fundamentally flawed because success is impossible.
I'll try to get around to the documentary, it does sound interesting. But it seems to me they invented a clever way of delivering food (that everyone likes) in a convenient way (everyone likes things that are more convenient), marketed in such a way it seemed better than the alternative. Or at least didn't have the negative connotations that convenience food might have had. They created demand for a specific brand, not a product type. Which is what I should have said ages ago. That's my bad
Sign in if you want to comment
Football (Ass Like) Laws
Page 3 of 4
posted on 15/3/23
whodunnit, no, you just can’t open your brain up to understand why your view is not the only one.
You can’t understand why there’s a trade off.
Accuracy = negative in many respects.
So we ask ourselves, why are we doing it? It’s not improving the game.
posted on 15/3/23
Hang on, are you talking about individuals betting? As in, that's a reason to have var so they don't lose their bets unfairly?
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
champions league finals, champ league slots in EPL. the play offs like you said.
not all money involved in football directly involves the two teams playing in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff is the biggest, right. Still a stretch to say hundreds of millions but whatever ok. Yes I'll take the point that big games raise the stakes. I'll make two points as to why that's not a great argument for why we have to have var:
1. Big games should be won by the better team. I (personally) don't see satisfaction in the team winning because of a millimetre offside. Or a clearly accidental handball given as a penalty etc. Basically, the idea itself of having factually correct decisions isn't always possible or desirable.
2. How many of those big games are actually decided by bad decisions? Because even agreeing with you that we HAVE to do something, the cost shouldn't outweigh the benefit. What we're doing, is changing the rules and the nature of the sport, in order to correct for a very small set of incidents that are largely hypothetical. This also ignores the fact that var officials can still make mistakes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not all money involves what it paid to clubs, betting for eg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't disagree. But that doesn't address either of my points.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your opinion of whether it would make a difference or not is irrelevant and thats all it is opinion.
football should be a game that is won by the team that legitimately scores more goals than the opposition. who plays better, how big the teams playing are, how often contentious decisions occur have nothing to do with determining who wins and should win a game of football.
Money has been and will be the reason that technology is used to try and get as close to a definitive correct decision regardless of anyones opinion as to whether it would make a difference or not.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 3 minutes ago
Hang on, are you talking about individuals betting? As in, that's a reason to have var so they don't lose their bets unfairly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nope im saying thats one of the reasons as to why technology will be used and another example of many of how decisions can have huge financial implications.not just between the two teams on the field
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One wonders WTF is the future for humankind with an outlook like that? Thankfully, not prevalent so on we go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly how normal technology development and capitalism in general works. There's a problem or a demand and people solve it. What you're talking about is inventing demand to sell a solution.
Start a business with that approach see how you get on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are all over the place here. Huge amounts of guff is sold (being the operative word) on the back of convincing people they need it. Look at the scheite they sell in these magazines that fall out Sunday papers preying on old people and gullibles.
Watch 'The Founder' on Netflix and you'll understand how demand was invented and a wee business created.
Finding ways to create demand is the cornerstone of selling and invariably unduly rewarded. Usually but not always in parallel with product creation I will give you that
posted on 15/3/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
champions league finals, champ league slots in EPL. the play offs like you said.
not all money involved in football directly involves the two teams playing in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff is the biggest, right. Still a stretch to say hundreds of millions but whatever ok. Yes I'll take the point that big games raise the stakes. I'll make two points as to why that's not a great argument for why we have to have var:
1. Big games should be won by the better team. I (personally) don't see satisfaction in the team winning because of a millimetre offside. Or a clearly accidental handball given as a penalty etc. Basically, the idea itself of having factually correct decisions isn't always possible or desirable.
2. How many of those big games are actually decided by bad decisions? Because even agreeing with you that we HAVE to do something, the cost shouldn't outweigh the benefit. What we're doing, is changing the rules and the nature of the sport, in order to correct for a very small set of incidents that are largely hypothetical. This also ignores the fact that var officials can still make mistakes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not all money involves what it paid to clubs, betting for eg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't disagree. But that doesn't address either of my points.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your opinion of whether it would make a difference or not is irrelevant and thats all it is opinion.
football should be a game that is won by the team that legitimately scores more goals than the opposition. who plays better, how big the teams playing are, how often contentious decisions occur have nothing to do with determining who wins and should win a game of football.
Money has been and will be the reason that technology is used to try and get as close to a definitive correct decision regardless of anyones opinion as to whether it would make a difference or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've misinterpreted a few things I've said there.
And you're doubling down on the we should because we can angle. I get it, it's the mainstream point of view.
I think it's wrong because sport is entertainment and while ensuring that every decision is factually correct may entertaining for some (or that the occasional bad decision ruins the sport for them) that's not why I enjoy the game. Either playing or watching.
We're not going to agree. Though I would suggest that based on fan polls, there's a decent chunk of the fanbase that agree with me. Even if you're ambivalent to it, the creeping rule changes etc (and very real issue with the game not being the same the world over because you can't have the tech everywhere) have fundamentally changed the sport.
In my opinion that's not worth it. You can't point to all the hundreds of millions that have been lost/earned by var cos it's a nonsense. That's not how the game works.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
whodunnit, no, you just can’t open your brain up to understand why your view is not the only one.
You can’t understand why there’s a trade off.
Accuracy = negative in many respects.
So we ask ourselves, why are we doing it? It’s not improving the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I accept there's other points of view that are not wrong to those that hold them. Just seems bizarre to me, and, as Bale points out, the majority that the facts are it is only going one direction. Not one league has decided to go back to my knowledge? That must say something?
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One wonders WTF is the future for humankind with an outlook like that? Thankfully, not prevalent so on we go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly how normal technology development and capitalism in general works. There's a problem or a demand and people solve it. What you're talking about is inventing demand to sell a solution.
Start a business with that approach see how you get on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are all over the place here. Huge amounts of guff is sold (being the operative word) on the back of convincing people they need it. Look at the scheite they sell in these magazines that fall out Sunday papers preying on old people and gullibles.
Watch 'The Founder' on Netflix and you'll understand how demand was invented and a wee business created.
Finding ways to create demand is the cornerstone of selling and invariably unduly rewarded. Usually but not always in parallel with product creation I will give you that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not all over the place at all.
That stuff in magazines fulfills a need for those people. It's a stupid need for stupid people but it's still there.
The best actual examples of creating demand for a product are usually pretty evil like pharmaceutical companies making drugs and then testing them to try and find an application for them.
I'm not saying that creating demand is impossible but it's a backward (or straight up malicious) way to go about things.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
whodunnit, no, you just can’t open your brain up to understand why your view is not the only one.
You can’t understand why there’s a trade off.
Accuracy = negative in many respects.
So we ask ourselves, why are we doing it? It’s not improving the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I accept there's other points of view that are not wrong to those that hold them. Just seems bizarre to me, and, as Bale points out, the majority that the facts are it is only going one direction. Not one league has decided to go back to my knowledge? That must say something?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of people voted Brexit. Doesn't make it a good idea
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
whodunnit, no, you just can’t open your brain up to understand why your view is not the only one.
You can’t understand why there’s a trade off.
Accuracy = negative in many respects.
So we ask ourselves, why are we doing it? It’s not improving the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I accept there's other points of view that are not wrong to those that hold them. Just seems bizarre to me, and, as Bale points out, the majority that the facts are it is only going one direction. Not one league has decided to go back to my knowledge? That must say something?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of people voted Brexit. Doesn't make it a good idea
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's daft. It was a good idea to a majority on one specific day. That's all.
posted on 15/3/23
The Founder example is daft. People need to eat.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One wonders WTF is the future for humankind with an outlook like that? Thankfully, not prevalent so on we go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly how normal technology development and capitalism in general works. There's a problem or a demand and people solve it. What you're talking about is inventing demand to sell a solution.
Start a business with that approach see how you get on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are all over the place here. Huge amounts of guff is sold (being the operative word) on the back of convincing people they need it. Look at the scheite they sell in these magazines that fall out Sunday papers preying on old people and gullibles.
Watch 'The Founder' on Netflix and you'll understand how demand was invented and a wee business created.
Finding ways to create demand is the cornerstone of selling and invariably unduly rewarded. Usually but not always in parallel with product creation I will give you that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not all over the place at all.
That stuff in magazines fulfills a need for those people. It's a stupid need for stupid people but it's still there.
The best actual examples of creating demand for a product are usually pretty evil like pharmaceutical companies making drugs and then testing them to try and find an application for them.
I'm not saying that creating demand is impossible but it's a backward (or straight up malicious) way to go about things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody wanted to pay to pay to watch football on TV until Sky came along and created a product and convinced them to shell out.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
whodunnit, no, you just can’t open your brain up to understand why your view is not the only one.
You can’t understand why there’s a trade off.
Accuracy = negative in many respects.
So we ask ourselves, why are we doing it? It’s not improving the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I accept there's other points of view that are not wrong to those that hold them. Just seems bizarre to me, and, as Bale points out, the majority that the facts are it is only going one direction. Not one league has decided to go back to my knowledge? That must say something?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that says that they have made a rod for their own back and it's irreversible, no matter how crap it is.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 21 seconds ago
The Founder example is daft. People need to eat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure but they don't NEED to eat big Macs.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One wonders WTF is the future for humankind with an outlook like that? Thankfully, not prevalent so on we go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly how normal technology development and capitalism in general works. There's a problem or a demand and people solve it. What you're talking about is inventing demand to sell a solution.
Start a business with that approach see how you get on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are all over the place here. Huge amounts of guff is sold (being the operative word) on the back of convincing people they need it. Look at the scheite they sell in these magazines that fall out Sunday papers preying on old people and gullibles.
Watch 'The Founder' on Netflix and you'll understand how demand was invented and a wee business created.
Finding ways to create demand is the cornerstone of selling and invariably unduly rewarded. Usually but not always in parallel with product creation I will give you that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not all over the place at all.
That stuff in magazines fulfills a need for those people. It's a stupid need for stupid people but it's still there.
The best actual examples of creating demand for a product are usually pretty evil like pharmaceutical companies making drugs and then testing them to try and find an application for them.
I'm not saying that creating demand is impossible but it's a backward (or straight up malicious) way to go about things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody wanted to pay to pay to watch football on TV until Sky came along and created a product and convinced them to shell out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't make any sense. Football is the product, people wanted it.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 21 seconds ago
The Founder example is daft. People need to eat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure but they don't NEED to eat big Macs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not understanding the concept here. Driving sales for your specific product does not equal creating demand.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
whodunnit, no, you just can’t open your brain up to understand why your view is not the only one.
You can’t understand why there’s a trade off.
Accuracy = negative in many respects.
So we ask ourselves, why are we doing it? It’s not improving the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I accept there's other points of view that are not wrong to those that hold them. Just seems bizarre to me, and, as Bale points out, the majority that the facts are it is only going one direction. Not one league has decided to go back to my knowledge? That must say something?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that says that they have made a rod for their own back and it's irreversible, no matter how crap it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool Winnie.
BTW you never did answer dunnit about how big of a law infringement you'd be raging about if it is not 5mm.
Is 5m OK? That seem ridiculous? So, I'll assume your law infringement you'd like specified is somewhere between these two numbers? That good for you?
posted on 15/3/23
Silver, that's because it's a stupid question borne from people who need black and white in their lives... middle managers if ever I saw them.
Ideally we want all decisions correct, but we can't have that without an intrusive and disruptive VAR system, which encourages people to focus on the wrong things and has led to a change in the way that laws are interpreted.
It's ridiculous that we feel the need to perfect decisions that don't have any tangible effect on the game.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richest game in sport...apparently
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 minutes ago
Silver, that's because it's a stupid question borne from people who need black and white in their lives... middle managers if ever I saw them.
Ideally we want all decisions correct, but we can't have that without an intrusive and disruptive VAR system, which encourages people to focus on the wrong things and has led to a change in the way that laws are interpreted.
It's ridiculous that we feel the need to perfect decisions that don't have any tangible effect on the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahaha throwing insults about now. We all know what that is a sign of.
Enjoy your night.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 minutes ago
Silver, that's because it's a stupid question borne from people who need black and white in their lives... middle managers if ever I saw them.
Ideally we want all decisions correct, but we can't have that without an intrusive and disruptive VAR system, which encourages people to focus on the wrong things and has led to a change in the way that laws are interpreted.
It's ridiculous that we feel the need to perfect decisions that don't have any tangible effect on the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahaha throwing insults about now. We all know what that is a sign of.
Enjoy your night.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where's the insult?
And it wasn't even aimed at you.
But if you're going to get your knickers in a twist then it's best you go.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 21 seconds ago
The Founder example is daft. People need to eat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure but they don't NEED to eat big Macs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not understanding the concept here. Driving sales for your specific product does not equal creating demand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are not understanding almost everything!
Nobody knew they wanted fast food until it was created against a majority saying it was not needed. They knew what pashed them off about the traditional slow ways of getting (or not) their food but only really wanted fast food once they found out the benefits. That there were equal or larger benefits for the producer ensured success and folk were scrambling, desperate for a MaccyDs in their town. It was almost all about that creating demand. 'I've not tried it but I've heard its great, I want one, bring us a Macdonalds' You should watch the film, it's decent.
posted on 15/3/23
The current handball rules are a complete farce, that City penalty last night should never be given as a handball, they need to get back to only giving handball if it is deliberate or they stop the ball with their hand by having it in an unnatural position. It all boils down to incompetent officials, most of them don`t know their arce from their elbow and don`t know the game.
These millimetre offsides are also a complete farce, the technology is not accurate enough to be making toenail decisions, and we are relying on a clown in a studio implementing the technology correctly, they can quite easily get it wrong or sway one way or another depending on who their favourites are.
posted on 15/3/23
Not for me, if the benefits going to anyone it has to be the defend,er far riskier and far harder job they deserve the benefit not the attackers. I get from a fan view they wanna see goals but lets not eradicate some of the hardest skills in football the offside traps etc.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 21 seconds ago
The Founder example is daft. People need to eat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure but they don't NEED to eat big Macs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not understanding the concept here. Driving sales for your specific product does not equal creating demand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are not understanding almost everything!
Nobody knew they wanted fast food until it was created against a majority saying it was not needed. They knew what pashed them off about the traditional slow ways of getting (or not) their food but only really wanted fast food once they found out the benefits. That there were equal or larger benefits for the producer ensured success and folk were scrambling, desperate for a MaccyDs in their town. It was almost all about that creating demand. 'I've not tried it but I've heard its great, I want one, bring us a Macdonalds' You should watch the film, it's decent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll check the film out but I still think we're talking at cross purposes.
My original point was that when talking about how tech in football could improve to make var better you started going on about different sensors to monitor players' positioning and heading and whatnot. I take issue with the approach of just throwing technology at the sport because it exists in the hope that it might make it better without actually understanding the problem first. If you don't do that you can't decide what better is, anyway. That's partly my issue with the whole thing. The original problem var was supposed to solve was clear and obvious, egregious errors that pretty much everyone can we want out. Now it's every decision.. the approach is fundamentally flawed because success is impossible.
I'll try to get around to the documentary, it does sound interesting. But it seems to me they invented a clever way of delivering food (that everyone likes) in a convenient way (everyone likes things that are more convenient), marketed in such a way it seemed better than the alternative. Or at least didn't have the negative connotations that convenience food might have had. They created demand for a specific brand, not a product type. Which is what I should have said ages ago. That's my bad
Page 3 of 4