I'm willing to bet that in a Sunday league game, someone has been filming the game on their phone and captured an incident, a Maradona style handball goal for example and the ref simply didn't see it but all the players and spectators saw it. Then the person that filmed it alerts the ref that he has a video of the incident and clears it up for everyone. And the ref and everyone is grateful for that. We even did that a under 7s tournament in 1995 when my dad was filming it on a camcorder.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yes really.
And it’s not really the crux of my point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is one of my points.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Yes really.
And it’s not really the crux of my point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% rid of it? How about an official on the sidelines looked up at the big screen that the fans saw a replay on and gasp in disbelief at and then just alerts the ref that he's facked up very quickly?
How about the official on the sidelines sees the incident and alerts the ref to it? The official is wearing glasses but little do we know these are not normal glasses. They have cameras on the front and screens on the inside that shows what the cameras show. Exactly like glasses do but in digital form. And the assistant alerts the ref to the mistake based on what he sees through has digital glasses? Still no?
The ref turns around and all of the the players are lying dead on the ground. Everyone in the ground is screaming as they saw the gun man shoot them down and run off. The ref asks what has happened and the officials say it was all captured on camera but they are not allowed to tell the ref what actually happened if he didn't see it. The ref blows for play on.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yes really.
And it’s not really the crux of my point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is one of my points.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And you’re wrong.
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Yes really.
And it’s not really the crux of my point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% rid of it? How about an official on the sidelines looked up at the big screen that the fans saw a replay on and gasp in disbelief at and then just alerts the ref that he's facked up very quickly?
How about the official on the sidelines sees the incident and alerts the ref to it? The official is wearing glasses but little do we know these are not normal glasses. They have cameras on the front and screens on the inside that shows what the cameras show. Exactly like glasses do but in digital form. And the assistant alerts the ref to the mistake based on what he sees through has digital glasses? Still no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Better yet, they can have me and the ref on facetime or phone during the game. I will be watching on my TV and tell the ref what to do within 20-30 seconds of any incident. I'm not even kidding. I don't know what they do in that VAR room apart from talk fast and mumble words. L
People at the game are the last to know anything and don't have a clue what the fack is going on anyway so also link me to the big screen and loud speaker and I can just tell everyone who is at the game what's going on as I watch on my TV.
Winston face me you coward
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 44 minutes ago
I’m amazed we can m get to this stage and still there are some people coming out with the ‘the problem isn’t VAR, it’s the officials’ line.
Utter crap.
VAR is absolutely part of the problem and what the last couple of years has laid bare is:
- There’s simply no way of deciding what is clear and obvious. It’s subjective. So the games are being re-refereed. In many cases, you’re simply transferring the opinion of referee to the opinion of the VAR official, with the latter judging an incident out of context.
- Slow motion distorts the perception of intent. Referees watching replays are not judging incidents fairly.
- The very notion of having referees watching replays gives an unrealistic notion of consistency and perfection.
- Deciding incidents via replays leads to rules being changes for the worse; judging handball on the positioning of the hand rather than whether it was deliberate.
Of course there’s issues with the officiating.
But the actual concept of VAR has proven to have problems that come as part of the package - as some of us predicted before it came in.
Perhaps those making such stupid comments never go to a match and think football is a TV programme. Or perhaps they’re just too pigheaded to admit they were wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get rid of clear and obvious then, they rarely use it anyhow. If the VAR believes a mistake has been made, he calls the ref to the screen. If he's absolutely certain and it's not subjective then he informs the ref, without the need of the screen.
Slow motion is only supposed to be used for the moment of impact. If they're judging using slow motion for anything else which I agree they have done, they're using it wrong and not following protocol.
I don't agree being able to watch an incident back forces law changes, for example on handball. I do agree however the changes they've made aren't for the better. It seems to me they were designed to take away soke of the subjectivity but this hasn't worked. They tried to make a subjective decision which handballs usually are a matter of fact, or close to it anyhow. This hasn't worked, although to be honest I'm not overly impressed with how it was before the changes either as they didn't judge whether they thought it was deliberate, they took many factors into account and called it deliberate if these factors were met. It's extremely rare to see an actual deliberate handball.
However these are all things which can be worked on and improved. I certainly wouldn't want to go back to all the mistakes which VAR has highlighted and on many occasions fixed.
The three things I'd like to see which would make a massive improvement is independent VARs, removal of 'clear and obvious' and refining of the laws to help referees who on some occasions know it's wrong but can't change it.
It's also worth mentioning nobody is looking for perfection. You just want to make it as fair as possible and decisions as correct as they can be. Mistakes will always happen with humans involved.
TOOR, it’s got nothing to do with whether you use the words ‘clear and obvious’.
Every decision is subjective. You can’t avoid it. That part of VAR can’t be fixed. Pretty much any decision to stop the game for the referee to take a look will require the VAR official to make a judgement call.
Slow motions and still images are again a consequence of watching replays. It’s a flaw you can’t get past.
Whether you think VAR is worth having is a different discussion.
My point was simply to say that anyone still believing that there’s nothing wrong with the tech and it’s simply about the humans using it are delusional beyond belief.
Not every decision is subjective.
On the subject of whether it’s worth it though, I find it astounding that anyone can watch the mess it has created and think it’s a price worth paying.
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
I can’t think of many. The vast majority are still debatable, after VAR intervention.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 26 seconds ago
Not every decision is subjective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Outside the obvious, it is.
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
====
Around 90%
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 26 seconds ago
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
====
Around 90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you try and read the question slowly.
It seems ridiculous that every other sport can embrace technology and use it well, yet football is making such a mess of it. You want as quick as a decision as possible, and as many correct decisions as possible.
For me, many more decisions are being correctly made because of VAR, they need to sort out certain things when implementing it, which may include some tweaking of rule changes.
I would make offside being taken from the players' feet - this is where they 'move / push off from' and should be quicker rather than mucking about with under the arm etc.
Rugby isn't perfect, but the communication shown is lightyears ahead. Football needs the equivalent of a TMO - an actual proper conversation between the TMO, ref and the 2 linesmen - act as a team. The ref should say what he sees, and the TMO should say what he sees and why he has called him over. Ref has final decision, but checks everyone else is happy, so not doing anything stupidly obvious. Use the angles, BOTH slow-mo and in real time and make the decision.
Have it on the big screen so that everyone can see.
There will still be close calls, because there can be a thin line between yellows / reds, but that is more understandable than getting it blatantly wrong.
Those that don't want any technology are just burying their head in the sand
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 26 seconds ago
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
====
Around 90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you try and read the question slowly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did. Same answer.
VAR has increased accuracy from 93 to 98% so by my calculations that means at least 90% of absolute howlers.
The rare ones it misses are magnified and used as an excuse to want VAR out by idiot dinosaurs who don't want to move with the times.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 26 seconds ago
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
====
Around 90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you try and read the question slowly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did. Same answer.
VAR has increased accuracy from 93 to 98% so by my calculations that means at least 90% of absolute howlers.
The rare ones it misses are magnified and used as an excuse to want VAR out by idiot dinosaurs who don't want to move with the times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t ask what percentage. I asked how many.
Hope this helps.
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 6 minutes ago
It seems ridiculous that every other sport can embrace technology and use it well, yet football is making such a mess of it. You want as quick as a decision as possible, and as many correct decisions as possible.
For me, many more decisions are being correctly made because of VAR, they need to sort out certain things when implementing it, which may include some tweaking of rule changes.
I would make offside being taken from the players' feet - this is where they 'move / push off from' and should be quicker rather than mucking about with under the arm etc.
Rugby isn't perfect, but the communication shown is lightyears ahead. Football needs the equivalent of a TMO - an actual proper conversation between the TMO, ref and the 2 linesmen - act as a team. The ref should say what he sees, and the TMO should say what he sees and why he has called him over. Ref has final decision, but checks everyone else is happy, so not doing anything stupidly obvious. Use the angles, BOTH slow-mo and in real time and make the decision.
Have it on the big screen so that everyone can see.
There will still be close calls, because there can be a thin line between yellows / reds, but that is more understandable than getting it blatantly wrong.
Those that don't want any technology are just burying their head in the sand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That last line is pathetic.
It’s not about not wanting tech.
It’s about not wanting VAR in its current form.
Absolutely, it’s crazy that it’s been handled so badly. But there are fundamental flaws to the system as it stands. That’s just a fact.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 26 seconds ago
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
====
Around 90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you try and read the question slowly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did. Same answer.
VAR has increased accuracy from 93 to 98% so by my calculations that means at least 90% of absolute howlers.
The rare ones it misses are magnified and used as an excuse to want VAR out by idiot dinosaurs who don't want to move with the times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t ask what percentage. I asked how many.
Hope this helps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. You asked how many but didn't specify any time period or number of games. Provide those parameters and I will be glad to answer your query.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 6 minutes ago
It seems ridiculous that every other sport can embrace technology and use it well, yet football is making such a mess of it. You want as quick as a decision as possible, and as many correct decisions as possible.
For me, many more decisions are being correctly made because of VAR, they need to sort out certain things when implementing it, which may include some tweaking of rule changes.
I would make offside being taken from the players' feet - this is where they 'move / push off from' and should be quicker rather than mucking about with under the arm etc.
Rugby isn't perfect, but the communication shown is lightyears ahead. Football needs the equivalent of a TMO - an actual proper conversation between the TMO, ref and the 2 linesmen - act as a team. The ref should say what he sees, and the TMO should say what he sees and why he has called him over. Ref has final decision, but checks everyone else is happy, so not doing anything stupidly obvious. Use the angles, BOTH slow-mo and in real time and make the decision.
Have it on the big screen so that everyone can see.
There will still be close calls, because there can be a thin line between yellows / reds, but that is more understandable than getting it blatantly wrong.
Those that don't want any technology are just burying their head in the sand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That last line is pathetic.
It’s not about not wanting tech.
It’s about not wanting VAR in its current form.
Absolutely, it’s crazy that it’s been handled so badly. But there are fundamental flaws to the system as it stands. That’s just a fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So its not VAR that's the problem but it's implementation and general operation by the PGMOL?
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 26 seconds ago
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
====
Around 90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you try and read the question slowly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did. Same answer.
VAR has increased accuracy from 93 to 98% so by my calculations that means at least 90% of absolute howlers.
The rare ones it misses are magnified and used as an excuse to want VAR out by idiot dinosaurs who don't want to move with the times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t ask what percentage. I asked how many.
Hope this helps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. You asked how many but didn't specify any time period or number of games. Provide those parameters and I will be glad to answer your query.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that you have a percentage as your answer and then followed it up with stats that have no relevance to my point, I think I’ll pass, but thanks.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 6 minutes ago
It seems ridiculous that every other sport can embrace technology and use it well, yet football is making such a mess of it. You want as quick as a decision as possible, and as many correct decisions as possible.
For me, many more decisions are being correctly made because of VAR, they need to sort out certain things when implementing it, which may include some tweaking of rule changes.
I would make offside being taken from the players' feet - this is where they 'move / push off from' and should be quicker rather than mucking about with under the arm etc.
Rugby isn't perfect, but the communication shown is lightyears ahead. Football needs the equivalent of a TMO - an actual proper conversation between the TMO, ref and the 2 linesmen - act as a team. The ref should say what he sees, and the TMO should say what he sees and why he has called him over. Ref has final decision, but checks everyone else is happy, so not doing anything stupidly obvious. Use the angles, BOTH slow-mo and in real time and make the decision.
Have it on the big screen so that everyone can see.
There will still be close calls, because there can be a thin line between yellows / reds, but that is more understandable than getting it blatantly wrong.
Those that don't want any technology are just burying their head in the sand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That last line is pathetic.
It’s not about not wanting tech.
It’s about not wanting VAR in its current form.
Absolutely, it’s crazy that it’s been handled so badly. But there are fundamental flaws to the system as it stands. That’s just a fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So its not VAR that's the problem but it's implementation and general operation by the PGMOL?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s both.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 26 seconds ago
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
====
Around 90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you try and read the question slowly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did. Same answer.
VAR has increased accuracy from 93 to 98% so by my calculations that means at least 90% of absolute howlers.
The rare ones it misses are magnified and used as an excuse to want VAR out by idiot dinosaurs who don't want to move with the times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t ask what percentage. I asked how many.
Hope this helps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. You asked how many but didn't specify any time period or number of games. Provide those parameters and I will be glad to answer your query.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that you have a percentage as your answer and then followed it up with stats that have no relevance to my point, I think I’ll pass, but thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 6 minutes ago
It seems ridiculous that every other sport can embrace technology and use it well, yet football is making such a mess of it. You want as quick as a decision as possible, and as many correct decisions as possible.
For me, many more decisions are being correctly made because of VAR, they need to sort out certain things when implementing it, which may include some tweaking of rule changes.
I would make offside being taken from the players' feet - this is where they 'move / push off from' and should be quicker rather than mucking about with under the arm etc.
Rugby isn't perfect, but the communication shown is lightyears ahead. Football needs the equivalent of a TMO - an actual proper conversation between the TMO, ref and the 2 linesmen - act as a team. The ref should say what he sees, and the TMO should say what he sees and why he has called him over. Ref has final decision, but checks everyone else is happy, so not doing anything stupidly obvious. Use the angles, BOTH slow-mo and in real time and make the decision.
Have it on the big screen so that everyone can see.
There will still be close calls, because there can be a thin line between yellows / reds, but that is more understandable than getting it blatantly wrong.
Those that don't want any technology are just burying their head in the sand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That last line is pathetic.
It’s not about not wanting tech.
It’s about not wanting VAR in its current form.
Absolutely, it’s crazy that it’s been handled so badly. But there are fundamental flaws to the system as it stands. That’s just a fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why the last line is pathetic - there are a lot of people who want to go back to the old ways. I have made some suggestions of changes I would make so not sure my views are that different to yours
It’s lazy.
The debate is about VAR not about tech.
Those making out this is a bunch of old people who don’t want to move with the times are just desperately trying to point score because their argument is inadequate.
Perhaps that’s not what you were saying if so, then my apologies. Others have been, for sure.
Sign in if you want to comment
Scrap VAR
Page 4 of 13
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 17/1/24
I'm willing to bet that in a Sunday league game, someone has been filming the game on their phone and captured an incident, a Maradona style handball goal for example and the ref simply didn't see it but all the players and spectators saw it. Then the person that filmed it alerts the ref that he has a video of the incident and clears it up for everyone. And the ref and everyone is grateful for that. We even did that a under 7s tournament in 1995 when my dad was filming it on a camcorder.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yes really.
And it’s not really the crux of my point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is one of my points.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Yes really.
And it’s not really the crux of my point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% rid of it? How about an official on the sidelines looked up at the big screen that the fans saw a replay on and gasp in disbelief at and then just alerts the ref that he's facked up very quickly?
How about the official on the sidelines sees the incident and alerts the ref to it? The official is wearing glasses but little do we know these are not normal glasses. They have cameras on the front and screens on the inside that shows what the cameras show. Exactly like glasses do but in digital form. And the assistant alerts the ref to the mistake based on what he sees through has digital glasses? Still no?
posted on 17/1/24
The ref turns around and all of the the players are lying dead on the ground. Everyone in the ground is screaming as they saw the gun man shoot them down and run off. The ref asks what has happened and the officials say it was all captured on camera but they are not allowed to tell the ref what actually happened if he didn't see it. The ref blows for play on.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yes really.
And it’s not really the crux of my point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is one of my points.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And you’re wrong.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Yes really.
And it’s not really the crux of my point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% rid of it? How about an official on the sidelines looked up at the big screen that the fans saw a replay on and gasp in disbelief at and then just alerts the ref that he's facked up very quickly?
How about the official on the sidelines sees the incident and alerts the ref to it? The official is wearing glasses but little do we know these are not normal glasses. They have cameras on the front and screens on the inside that shows what the cameras show. Exactly like glasses do but in digital form. And the assistant alerts the ref to the mistake based on what he sees through has digital glasses? Still no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Better yet, they can have me and the ref on facetime or phone during the game. I will be watching on my TV and tell the ref what to do within 20-30 seconds of any incident. I'm not even kidding. I don't know what they do in that VAR room apart from talk fast and mumble words. L
People at the game are the last to know anything and don't have a clue what the fack is going on anyway so also link me to the big screen and loud speaker and I can just tell everyone who is at the game what's going on as I watch on my TV.
posted on 17/1/24
Winston face me you coward
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 44 minutes ago
I’m amazed we can m get to this stage and still there are some people coming out with the ‘the problem isn’t VAR, it’s the officials’ line.
Utter crap.
VAR is absolutely part of the problem and what the last couple of years has laid bare is:
- There’s simply no way of deciding what is clear and obvious. It’s subjective. So the games are being re-refereed. In many cases, you’re simply transferring the opinion of referee to the opinion of the VAR official, with the latter judging an incident out of context.
- Slow motion distorts the perception of intent. Referees watching replays are not judging incidents fairly.
- The very notion of having referees watching replays gives an unrealistic notion of consistency and perfection.
- Deciding incidents via replays leads to rules being changes for the worse; judging handball on the positioning of the hand rather than whether it was deliberate.
Of course there’s issues with the officiating.
But the actual concept of VAR has proven to have problems that come as part of the package - as some of us predicted before it came in.
Perhaps those making such stupid comments never go to a match and think football is a TV programme. Or perhaps they’re just too pigheaded to admit they were wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get rid of clear and obvious then, they rarely use it anyhow. If the VAR believes a mistake has been made, he calls the ref to the screen. If he's absolutely certain and it's not subjective then he informs the ref, without the need of the screen.
Slow motion is only supposed to be used for the moment of impact. If they're judging using slow motion for anything else which I agree they have done, they're using it wrong and not following protocol.
I don't agree being able to watch an incident back forces law changes, for example on handball. I do agree however the changes they've made aren't for the better. It seems to me they were designed to take away soke of the subjectivity but this hasn't worked. They tried to make a subjective decision which handballs usually are a matter of fact, or close to it anyhow. This hasn't worked, although to be honest I'm not overly impressed with how it was before the changes either as they didn't judge whether they thought it was deliberate, they took many factors into account and called it deliberate if these factors were met. It's extremely rare to see an actual deliberate handball.
However these are all things which can be worked on and improved. I certainly wouldn't want to go back to all the mistakes which VAR has highlighted and on many occasions fixed.
The three things I'd like to see which would make a massive improvement is independent VARs, removal of 'clear and obvious' and refining of the laws to help referees who on some occasions know it's wrong but can't change it.
It's also worth mentioning nobody is looking for perfection. You just want to make it as fair as possible and decisions as correct as they can be. Mistakes will always happen with humans involved.
posted on 17/1/24
TOOR, it’s got nothing to do with whether you use the words ‘clear and obvious’.
Every decision is subjective. You can’t avoid it. That part of VAR can’t be fixed. Pretty much any decision to stop the game for the referee to take a look will require the VAR official to make a judgement call.
Slow motions and still images are again a consequence of watching replays. It’s a flaw you can’t get past.
Whether you think VAR is worth having is a different discussion.
My point was simply to say that anyone still believing that there’s nothing wrong with the tech and it’s simply about the humans using it are delusional beyond belief.
posted on 17/1/24
Not every decision is subjective.
posted on 17/1/24
On the subject of whether it’s worth it though, I find it astounding that anyone can watch the mess it has created and think it’s a price worth paying.
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
I can’t think of many. The vast majority are still debatable, after VAR intervention.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 26 seconds ago
Not every decision is subjective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Outside the obvious, it is.
posted on 17/1/24
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
====
Around 90%
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 26 seconds ago
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
====
Around 90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you try and read the question slowly.
posted on 17/1/24
It seems ridiculous that every other sport can embrace technology and use it well, yet football is making such a mess of it. You want as quick as a decision as possible, and as many correct decisions as possible.
For me, many more decisions are being correctly made because of VAR, they need to sort out certain things when implementing it, which may include some tweaking of rule changes.
I would make offside being taken from the players' feet - this is where they 'move / push off from' and should be quicker rather than mucking about with under the arm etc.
Rugby isn't perfect, but the communication shown is lightyears ahead. Football needs the equivalent of a TMO - an actual proper conversation between the TMO, ref and the 2 linesmen - act as a team. The ref should say what he sees, and the TMO should say what he sees and why he has called him over. Ref has final decision, but checks everyone else is happy, so not doing anything stupidly obvious. Use the angles, BOTH slow-mo and in real time and make the decision.
Have it on the big screen so that everyone can see.
There will still be close calls, because there can be a thin line between yellows / reds, but that is more understandable than getting it blatantly wrong.
Those that don't want any technology are just burying their head in the sand
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 26 seconds ago
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
====
Around 90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you try and read the question slowly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did. Same answer.
VAR has increased accuracy from 93 to 98% so by my calculations that means at least 90% of absolute howlers.
The rare ones it misses are magnified and used as an excuse to want VAR out by idiot dinosaurs who don't want to move with the times.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 26 seconds ago
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
====
Around 90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you try and read the question slowly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did. Same answer.
VAR has increased accuracy from 93 to 98% so by my calculations that means at least 90% of absolute howlers.
The rare ones it misses are magnified and used as an excuse to want VAR out by idiot dinosaurs who don't want to move with the times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t ask what percentage. I asked how many.
Hope this helps.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 6 minutes ago
It seems ridiculous that every other sport can embrace technology and use it well, yet football is making such a mess of it. You want as quick as a decision as possible, and as many correct decisions as possible.
For me, many more decisions are being correctly made because of VAR, they need to sort out certain things when implementing it, which may include some tweaking of rule changes.
I would make offside being taken from the players' feet - this is where they 'move / push off from' and should be quicker rather than mucking about with under the arm etc.
Rugby isn't perfect, but the communication shown is lightyears ahead. Football needs the equivalent of a TMO - an actual proper conversation between the TMO, ref and the 2 linesmen - act as a team. The ref should say what he sees, and the TMO should say what he sees and why he has called him over. Ref has final decision, but checks everyone else is happy, so not doing anything stupidly obvious. Use the angles, BOTH slow-mo and in real time and make the decision.
Have it on the big screen so that everyone can see.
There will still be close calls, because there can be a thin line between yellows / reds, but that is more understandable than getting it blatantly wrong.
Those that don't want any technology are just burying their head in the sand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That last line is pathetic.
It’s not about not wanting tech.
It’s about not wanting VAR in its current form.
Absolutely, it’s crazy that it’s been handled so badly. But there are fundamental flaws to the system as it stands. That’s just a fact.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 26 seconds ago
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
====
Around 90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you try and read the question slowly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did. Same answer.
VAR has increased accuracy from 93 to 98% so by my calculations that means at least 90% of absolute howlers.
The rare ones it misses are magnified and used as an excuse to want VAR out by idiot dinosaurs who don't want to move with the times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t ask what percentage. I asked how many.
Hope this helps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. You asked how many but didn't specify any time period or number of games. Provide those parameters and I will be glad to answer your query.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 6 minutes ago
It seems ridiculous that every other sport can embrace technology and use it well, yet football is making such a mess of it. You want as quick as a decision as possible, and as many correct decisions as possible.
For me, many more decisions are being correctly made because of VAR, they need to sort out certain things when implementing it, which may include some tweaking of rule changes.
I would make offside being taken from the players' feet - this is where they 'move / push off from' and should be quicker rather than mucking about with under the arm etc.
Rugby isn't perfect, but the communication shown is lightyears ahead. Football needs the equivalent of a TMO - an actual proper conversation between the TMO, ref and the 2 linesmen - act as a team. The ref should say what he sees, and the TMO should say what he sees and why he has called him over. Ref has final decision, but checks everyone else is happy, so not doing anything stupidly obvious. Use the angles, BOTH slow-mo and in real time and make the decision.
Have it on the big screen so that everyone can see.
There will still be close calls, because there can be a thin line between yellows / reds, but that is more understandable than getting it blatantly wrong.
Those that don't want any technology are just burying their head in the sand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That last line is pathetic.
It’s not about not wanting tech.
It’s about not wanting VAR in its current form.
Absolutely, it’s crazy that it’s been handled so badly. But there are fundamental flaws to the system as it stands. That’s just a fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So its not VAR that's the problem but it's implementation and general operation by the PGMOL?
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 26 seconds ago
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
====
Around 90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you try and read the question slowly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did. Same answer.
VAR has increased accuracy from 93 to 98% so by my calculations that means at least 90% of absolute howlers.
The rare ones it misses are magnified and used as an excuse to want VAR out by idiot dinosaurs who don't want to move with the times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t ask what percentage. I asked how many.
Hope this helps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. You asked how many but didn't specify any time period or number of games. Provide those parameters and I will be glad to answer your query.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that you have a percentage as your answer and then followed it up with stats that have no relevance to my point, I think I’ll pass, but thanks.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 6 minutes ago
It seems ridiculous that every other sport can embrace technology and use it well, yet football is making such a mess of it. You want as quick as a decision as possible, and as many correct decisions as possible.
For me, many more decisions are being correctly made because of VAR, they need to sort out certain things when implementing it, which may include some tweaking of rule changes.
I would make offside being taken from the players' feet - this is where they 'move / push off from' and should be quicker rather than mucking about with under the arm etc.
Rugby isn't perfect, but the communication shown is lightyears ahead. Football needs the equivalent of a TMO - an actual proper conversation between the TMO, ref and the 2 linesmen - act as a team. The ref should say what he sees, and the TMO should say what he sees and why he has called him over. Ref has final decision, but checks everyone else is happy, so not doing anything stupidly obvious. Use the angles, BOTH slow-mo and in real time and make the decision.
Have it on the big screen so that everyone can see.
There will still be close calls, because there can be a thin line between yellows / reds, but that is more understandable than getting it blatantly wrong.
Those that don't want any technology are just burying their head in the sand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That last line is pathetic.
It’s not about not wanting tech.
It’s about not wanting VAR in its current form.
Absolutely, it’s crazy that it’s been handled so badly. But there are fundamental flaws to the system as it stands. That’s just a fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So its not VAR that's the problem but it's implementation and general operation by the PGMOL?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s both.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 26 seconds ago
How many absolute howlers does it fix, outside offside?
====
Around 90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you try and read the question slowly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did. Same answer.
VAR has increased accuracy from 93 to 98% so by my calculations that means at least 90% of absolute howlers.
The rare ones it misses are magnified and used as an excuse to want VAR out by idiot dinosaurs who don't want to move with the times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t ask what percentage. I asked how many.
Hope this helps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. You asked how many but didn't specify any time period or number of games. Provide those parameters and I will be glad to answer your query.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that you have a percentage as your answer and then followed it up with stats that have no relevance to my point, I think I’ll pass, but thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 6 minutes ago
It seems ridiculous that every other sport can embrace technology and use it well, yet football is making such a mess of it. You want as quick as a decision as possible, and as many correct decisions as possible.
For me, many more decisions are being correctly made because of VAR, they need to sort out certain things when implementing it, which may include some tweaking of rule changes.
I would make offside being taken from the players' feet - this is where they 'move / push off from' and should be quicker rather than mucking about with under the arm etc.
Rugby isn't perfect, but the communication shown is lightyears ahead. Football needs the equivalent of a TMO - an actual proper conversation between the TMO, ref and the 2 linesmen - act as a team. The ref should say what he sees, and the TMO should say what he sees and why he has called him over. Ref has final decision, but checks everyone else is happy, so not doing anything stupidly obvious. Use the angles, BOTH slow-mo and in real time and make the decision.
Have it on the big screen so that everyone can see.
There will still be close calls, because there can be a thin line between yellows / reds, but that is more understandable than getting it blatantly wrong.
Those that don't want any technology are just burying their head in the sand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That last line is pathetic.
It’s not about not wanting tech.
It’s about not wanting VAR in its current form.
Absolutely, it’s crazy that it’s been handled so badly. But there are fundamental flaws to the system as it stands. That’s just a fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why the last line is pathetic - there are a lot of people who want to go back to the old ways. I have made some suggestions of changes I would make so not sure my views are that different to yours
posted on 17/1/24
It’s lazy.
The debate is about VAR not about tech.
Those making out this is a bunch of old people who don’t want to move with the times are just desperately trying to point score because their argument is inadequate.
Perhaps that’s not what you were saying if so, then my apologies. Others have been, for sure.
Page 4 of 13
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10