comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
So scrapping VAR now means you’re against all forms of tech in football?
Jesus wept.
Well, what I’d do first is remove the system they have and implement the semi auto offside system to run alongside goal line technology.
I’d change the ruling around offsides to require less precision and speed that up.
I’d remove tech related to subjective decisions and implement a testing programme to phase in a completely different model, as agreed with clubs. Possibly the one or two appeals per game per club rule.
If you look back at my first post, my comments weren’t about scrapping it. They were about how those who think it’s simply a problem with humans and not the tech itself are idiots.
It’d be nice if people actually debated what you’d said, instead of something that they made up but suits their narrative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The tech is simply reviewing video footage, what exactly would you change about that tech? What you are saying is rule changes, and bringing in automated offsides which we are all for. But using my example of the Henry handball v Ireland, what would you change about the technology which is simply looking at a video replay and simply clearing it up? You are saying that if Ireland had already used their two appeals, then there's nothing them or the ref could do? You are suggesting that's a better system than just easily making the correct decision?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m saying two things:
1. The negatives of VAR in its current form outweigh the benefits of resolving incidents like the one you describe.
2. Anything outside the automated use of tech needs to be scrapped and then introduced slowly, with careful testing. I don’t know the complete solution. No one does. Systems like this should be phased in and perhaps if they have been, we wouldn’t be seeing the current sheiteshow that we are right now.
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Automated offside decision up on the big screen:
"Maybe. It looks offside but Winston wanted less precise rules on offside to speed things up so we have blurred the images to make it less clear and now we are unsure but we need to be quick so let's just go with maybe. Hope that helps. Hi Linda how are the grandkids"
That's Winston's idea for clearing up offsides.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, someone’s a little upset.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Automated offside decision up on the big screen:
"Maybe. It looks offside but Winston wanted less precise rules on offside to speed things up so we have blurred the images to make it less clear and now we are unsure but we need to be quick so let's just go with maybe. Hope that helps. Hi Linda how are the grandkids"
That's Winston's idea for clearing up offsides.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, someone’s a little upset.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im almost certain he isnt
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
So scrapping VAR now means you’re against all forms of tech in football?
Jesus wept.
Well, what I’d do first is remove the system they have and implement the semi auto offside system to run alongside goal line technology.
I’d change the ruling around offsides to require less precision and speed that up.
I’d remove tech related to subjective decisions and implement a testing programme to phase in a completely different model, as agreed with clubs. Possibly the one or two appeals per game per club rule.
If you look back at my first post, my comments weren’t about scrapping it. They were about how those who think it’s simply a problem with humans and not the tech itself are idiots.
It’d be nice if people actually debated what you’d said, instead of something that they made up but suits their narrative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The tech is simply reviewing video footage, what exactly would you change about that tech? What you are saying is rule changes, and bringing in automated offsides which we are all for. But using my example of the Henry handball v Ireland, what would you change about the technology which is simply looking at a video replay and simply clearing it up? You are saying that if Ireland had already used their two appeals, then there's nothing them or the ref could do? You are suggesting that's a better system than just easily making the correct decision?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m saying two things:
1. The negatives of VAR in its current form outweigh the benefits of resolving incidents like the one you describe.
2. Anything outside the automated use of tech needs to be scrapped and then introduced slowly, with careful testing. I don’t know the complete solution. No one does. Systems like this should be phased in and perhaps if they have been, we wouldn’t be seeing the current sheiteshow that we are right now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they wouldn't have access to video images of such a blatant mistake such as the Henry handball, out of spite of the slowness of more subjective decisions made in the past?
They should ALWAYS have the option to look at something so blatant via video, that they have missed. It shouldn't be taken away completely just cos you're annoyed at some other aspects. As previously stated, looking at things in such a black and white way is what causes genocide and the like. So please do not go and do any genocide after this debate.
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
So scrapping VAR now means you’re against all forms of tech in football?
Jesus wept.
Well, what I’d do first is remove the system they have and implement the semi auto offside system to run alongside goal line technology.
I’d change the ruling around offsides to require less precision and speed that up.
I’d remove tech related to subjective decisions and implement a testing programme to phase in a completely different model, as agreed with clubs. Possibly the one or two appeals per game per club rule.
If you look back at my first post, my comments weren’t about scrapping it. They were about how those who think it’s simply a problem with humans and not the tech itself are idiots.
It’d be nice if people actually debated what you’d said, instead of something that they made up but suits their narrative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The tech is simply reviewing video footage, what exactly would you change about that tech? What you are saying is rule changes, and bringing in automated offsides which we are all for. But using my example of the Henry handball v Ireland, what would you change about the technology which is simply looking at a video replay and simply clearing it up? You are saying that if Ireland had already used their two appeals, then there's nothing them or the ref could do? You are suggesting that's a better system than just easily making the correct decision?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m saying two things:
1. The negatives of VAR in its current form outweigh the benefits of resolving incidents like the one you describe.
2. Anything outside the automated use of tech needs to be scrapped and then introduced slowly, with careful testing. I don’t know the complete solution. No one does. Systems like this should be phased in and perhaps if they have been, we wouldn’t be seeing the current sheiteshow that we are right now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they wouldn't have access to video images of such a blatant mistake such as the Henry handball, out of spite of the slowness of more subjective decisions made in the past?
They should ALWAYS have the option to look at something so blatant via video, that they have missed. It shouldn't be taken away completely just cos you're annoyed at some other aspects. As previously stated, looking at things in such a black and white way is what causes genocide and the like. So please do not go and do any genocide after this debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems you have real problems digesting words written to you, as you’re woefully misrepresenting what I’ve said.
Which means this is utterly pointless.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
So scrapping VAR now means you’re against all forms of tech in football?
Jesus wept.
Well, what I’d do first is remove the system they have and implement the semi auto offside system to run alongside goal line technology.
I’d change the ruling around offsides to require less precision and speed that up.
I’d remove tech related to subjective decisions and implement a testing programme to phase in a completely different model, as agreed with clubs. Possibly the one or two appeals per game per club rule.
If you look back at my first post, my comments weren’t about scrapping it. They were about how those who think it’s simply a problem with humans and not the tech itself are idiots.
It’d be nice if people actually debated what you’d said, instead of something that they made up but suits their narrative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The tech is simply reviewing video footage, what exactly would you change about that tech? What you are saying is rule changes, and bringing in automated offsides which we are all for. But using my example of the Henry handball v Ireland, what would you change about the technology which is simply looking at a video replay and simply clearing it up? You are saying that if Ireland had already used their two appeals, then there's nothing them or the ref could do? You are suggesting that's a better system than just easily making the correct decision?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m saying two things:
1. The negatives of VAR in its current form outweigh the benefits of resolving incidents like the one you describe.
2. Anything outside the automated use of tech needs to be scrapped and then introduced slowly, with careful testing. I don’t know the complete solution. No one does. Systems like this should be phased in and perhaps if they have been, we wouldn’t be seeing the current sheiteshow that we are right now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they wouldn't have access to video images of such a blatant mistake such as the Henry handball, out of spite of the slowness of more subjective decisions made in the past?
They should ALWAYS have the option to look at something so blatant via video, that they have missed. It shouldn't be taken away completely just cos you're annoyed at some other aspects. As previously stated, looking at things in such a black and white way is what causes genocide and the like. So please do not go and do any genocide after this debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems you have real problems digesting words written to you, as you’re woefully misrepresenting what I’ve said.
Which means this is utterly pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you agree that it is hugely important to have access to video images to review instances such as the Henry handball?
It's the whole approach to the use of VAR.
The ref gives a penalty. He should approach it as, I'm going to give a penalty unless VAR can tell me a reason otherwise. If VAR thinks there a reason, the the ref, VAr and the linesmen have a look on the big screen and discuss what they see - the ref then makes his decision with input from others, but it's the ref making the decision - don't be afraid to change your mind, don't be afraid to stick with original decision.
It's that lack of communication and interaction which can lead to poor decisions.
Some decisions will always be borderline, but you should be able to get rid of the blatantly wrong ones.
As for offside, rather than considering 'all body parts', which slows it up, take it from the feet - then everyone knows the rule and how to apply.
There really are questions about the communications skills between VAR and the ref - it all seems so panicky. I know they want to get it right, but it shouldn't be that difficult
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 15 minutes ago
It's the whole approach to the use of VAR.
The ref gives a penalty. He should approach it as, I'm going to give a penalty unless VAR can tell me a reason otherwise. If VAR thinks there a reason, the the ref, VAr and the linesmen have a look on the big screen and discuss what they see - the ref then makes his decision with input from others, but it's the ref making the decision - don't be afraid to change your mind, don't be afraid to stick with original decision.
It's that lack of communication and interaction which can lead to poor decisions.
Some decisions will always be borderline, but you should be able to get rid of the blatantly wrong ones.
As for offside, rather than considering 'all body parts', which slows it up, take it from the feet - then everyone knows the rule and how to apply.
There really are questions about the communications skills between VAR and the ref - it all seems so panicky. I know they want to get it right, but it shouldn't be that difficult
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The communication is one issue, but it’s not the only one.
There is a fundamental flaw in the system because to choose whether to intervene requires subjectivity and actually, there are very few 100% wrong decisions.
So all you’re doing is moving the subjectivity to a different person, and in doing so, you’re also asking for the incident to be judged out of context.
You’re not fixing the issue that people disagree with the decision. You’re not fixing that it’s a matter of opinion. You’re simply slowing the game down to effectively achieve the same thing as if you’d not used it.
Of course there are examples of absolute howlers like the Henry one, but how many of those actually are there? Not that many, I’d wager.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 15 minutes ago
It's the whole approach to the use of VAR.
The ref gives a penalty. He should approach it as, I'm going to give a penalty unless VAR can tell me a reason otherwise. If VAR thinks there a reason, the the ref, VAr and the linesmen have a look on the big screen and discuss what they see - the ref then makes his decision with input from others, but it's the ref making the decision - don't be afraid to change your mind, don't be afraid to stick with original decision.
It's that lack of communication and interaction which can lead to poor decisions.
Some decisions will always be borderline, but you should be able to get rid of the blatantly wrong ones.
As for offside, rather than considering 'all body parts', which slows it up, take it from the feet - then everyone knows the rule and how to apply.
There really are questions about the communications skills between VAR and the ref - it all seems so panicky. I know they want to get it right, but it shouldn't be that difficult
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The communication is one issue, but it’s not the only one.
There is a fundamental flaw in the system because to choose whether to intervene requires subjectivity and actually, there are very few 100% wrong decisions.
So all you’re doing is moving the subjectivity to a different person, and in doing so, you’re also asking for the incident to be judged out of context.
You’re not fixing the issue that people disagree with the decision. You’re not fixing that it’s a matter of opinion. You’re simply slowing the game down to effectively achieve the same thing as if you’d not used it.
Of course there are examples of absolute howlers like the Henry one, but how many of those actually are there? Not that many, I’d wager.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are certainly enough clear mistakes to justify having some sort of access to video review. I am not sure how you can argue against that?
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 15 minutes ago
It's the whole approach to the use of VAR.
The ref gives a penalty. He should approach it as, I'm going to give a penalty unless VAR can tell me a reason otherwise. If VAR thinks there a reason, the the ref, VAr and the linesmen have a look on the big screen and discuss what they see - the ref then makes his decision with input from others, but it's the ref making the decision - don't be afraid to change your mind, don't be afraid to stick with original decision.
It's that lack of communication and interaction which can lead to poor decisions.
Some decisions will always be borderline, but you should be able to get rid of the blatantly wrong ones.
As for offside, rather than considering 'all body parts', which slows it up, take it from the feet - then everyone knows the rule and how to apply.
There really are questions about the communications skills between VAR and the ref - it all seems so panicky. I know they want to get it right, but it shouldn't be that difficult
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The communication is one issue, but it’s not the only one.
There is a fundamental flaw in the system because to choose whether to intervene requires subjectivity and actually, there are very few 100% wrong decisions.
So all you’re doing is moving the subjectivity to a different person, and in doing so, you’re also asking for the incident to be judged out of context.
You’re not fixing the issue that people disagree with the decision. You’re not fixing that it’s a matter of opinion. You’re simply slowing the game down to effectively achieve the same thing as if you’d not used it.
Of course there are examples of absolute howlers like the Henry one, but how many of those actually are there? Not that many, I’d wager.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are certainly enough clear mistakes to justify having some sort of access to video review. I am not sure how you can argue against that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and all the ones we miss cos the main tv camera didnt pick it up. loads of things are given at corners now that normally isnt seen in real time by the viewer.
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 15 minutes ago
It's the whole approach to the use of VAR.
The ref gives a penalty. He should approach it as, I'm going to give a penalty unless VAR can tell me a reason otherwise. If VAR thinks there a reason, the the ref, VAr and the linesmen have a look on the big screen and discuss what they see - the ref then makes his decision with input from others, but it's the ref making the decision - don't be afraid to change your mind, don't be afraid to stick with original decision.
It's that lack of communication and interaction which can lead to poor decisions.
Some decisions will always be borderline, but you should be able to get rid of the blatantly wrong ones.
As for offside, rather than considering 'all body parts', which slows it up, take it from the feet - then everyone knows the rule and how to apply.
There really are questions about the communications skills between VAR and the ref - it all seems so panicky. I know they want to get it right, but it shouldn't be that difficult
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The communication is one issue, but it’s not the only one.
There is a fundamental flaw in the system because to choose whether to intervene requires subjectivity and actually, there are very few 100% wrong decisions.
So all you’re doing is moving the subjectivity to a different person, and in doing so, you’re also asking for the incident to be judged out of context.
You’re not fixing the issue that people disagree with the decision. You’re not fixing that it’s a matter of opinion. You’re simply slowing the game down to effectively achieve the same thing as if you’d not used it.
Of course there are examples of absolute howlers like the Henry one, but how many of those actually are there? Not that many, I’d wager.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are certainly enough clear mistakes to justify having some sort of access to video review. I am not sure how you can argue against that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not, you berk.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 15 minutes ago
It's the whole approach to the use of VAR.
The ref gives a penalty. He should approach it as, I'm going to give a penalty unless VAR can tell me a reason otherwise. If VAR thinks there a reason, the the ref, VAr and the linesmen have a look on the big screen and discuss what they see - the ref then makes his decision with input from others, but it's the ref making the decision - don't be afraid to change your mind, don't be afraid to stick with original decision.
It's that lack of communication and interaction which can lead to poor decisions.
Some decisions will always be borderline, but you should be able to get rid of the blatantly wrong ones.
As for offside, rather than considering 'all body parts', which slows it up, take it from the feet - then everyone knows the rule and how to apply.
There really are questions about the communications skills between VAR and the ref - it all seems so panicky. I know they want to get it right, but it shouldn't be that difficult
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The communication is one issue, but it’s not the only one.
There is a fundamental flaw in the system because to choose whether to intervene requires subjectivity and actually, there are very few 100% wrong decisions.
So all you’re doing is moving the subjectivity to a different person, and in doing so, you’re also asking for the incident to be judged out of context.
You’re not fixing the issue that people disagree with the decision. You’re not fixing that it’s a matter of opinion. You’re simply slowing the game down to effectively achieve the same thing as if you’d not used it.
Of course there are examples of absolute howlers like the Henry one, but how many of those actually are there? Not that many, I’d wager.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are certainly enough clear mistakes to justify having some sort of access to video review. I am not sure how you can argue against that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not, you berk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston, British adult male, late 40s probably:
"Anything outside the automated use of tech needs to be scrapped"
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 15 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not, you berk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, someone’s a little upset.
You mentioned introducing a two appeal type system earlier Winston. So three calls go against you which were blatant, you just suck the third one up as you've already used your two calls? What's the timing of this? Who gets the appeal, The manager? I mean surely the managers have to look at their screens to decide whether they want to use one of their two calls? Does the game stop when the ball is out of play for them to look or do they have to just decide by what they have seen from a distance? Or is it the captain? Who may be a goalkeeper or a centre back? The closest player in consultation with the captain, who have a discussion before deciding whether to use one of the two calls?
This will never work in football.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 15 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not, you berk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, someone’s a little upset.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upset, no?
Frustrated? Maybe a little. It really doesn’t help this web site when people are incapable of understand a rather basic point.
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
You mentioned introducing a two appeal type system earlier Winston. So three calls go against you which were blatant, you just suck the third one up as you've already used your two calls? What's the timing of this? Who gets the appeal, The manager? I mean surely the managers have to look at their screens to decide whether they want to use one of their two calls? Does the game stop when the ball is out of play for them to look or do they have to just decide by what they have seen from a distance? Or is it the captain? Who may be a goalkeeper or a centre back? The closest player in consultation with the captain, who have a discussion before deciding whether to use one of the two calls?
This will never work in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You sound like a dinosaur.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 15 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not, you berk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, someone’s a little upset.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upset, no?
Frustrated? Maybe a little. It really doesn’t help this web site when people are incapable of understand a rather basic point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or when people are conceited.
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 7 minutes ago
You mentioned introducing a two appeal type system earlier Winston. So three calls go against you which were blatant, you just suck the third one up as you've already used your two calls? What's the timing of this? Who gets the appeal, The manager? I mean surely the managers have to look at their screens to decide whether they want to use one of their two calls? Does the game stop when the ball is out of play for them to look or do they have to just decide by what they have seen from a distance? Or is it the captain? Who may be a goalkeeper or a centre back? The closest player in consultation with the captain, who have a discussion before deciding whether to use one of the two calls?
This will never work in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
its one of the more silly ideas I have seen on this thread
So Winston are you going back on your statement that you don't want any tech other than automated tech to be used for decisions, particularly subjective decisions?
Just to note, if people are 99% sure a decision is incorrect, that's still subjective.
So it needs to be 100% certain and detectable via automated tech, for a decision to be changed. Is that correct?
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 15 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not, you berk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, someone’s a little upset.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upset, no?
Frustrated? Maybe a little. It really doesn’t help this web site when people are incapable of understand a rather basic point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or when people are conceited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bore off, troll.
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 9 minutes ago
So Winston are you going back on your statement that you don't want any tech other than automated tech to be used for decisions, particularly subjective decisions?
Just to note, if people are 99% sure a decision is incorrect, that's still subjective.
So it needs to be 100% certain and detectable via automated tech, for a decision to be changed. Is that correct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can only assume you’re trolling. Enjoy your day.
This is the most slow-burn Barrying I've ever witnessed
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 minutes ago
This is the most slow-burn Barrying I've ever witnessed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quxW1V8Hwlg
All VAR has done is double the amount of bias shown to clubs like Varpool, if the mug on the pitch doesn't get you, the mug in the studio will
Sign in if you want to comment
Scrap VAR
Page 6 of 13
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 18/1/24
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
So scrapping VAR now means you’re against all forms of tech in football?
Jesus wept.
Well, what I’d do first is remove the system they have and implement the semi auto offside system to run alongside goal line technology.
I’d change the ruling around offsides to require less precision and speed that up.
I’d remove tech related to subjective decisions and implement a testing programme to phase in a completely different model, as agreed with clubs. Possibly the one or two appeals per game per club rule.
If you look back at my first post, my comments weren’t about scrapping it. They were about how those who think it’s simply a problem with humans and not the tech itself are idiots.
It’d be nice if people actually debated what you’d said, instead of something that they made up but suits their narrative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The tech is simply reviewing video footage, what exactly would you change about that tech? What you are saying is rule changes, and bringing in automated offsides which we are all for. But using my example of the Henry handball v Ireland, what would you change about the technology which is simply looking at a video replay and simply clearing it up? You are saying that if Ireland had already used their two appeals, then there's nothing them or the ref could do? You are suggesting that's a better system than just easily making the correct decision?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m saying two things:
1. The negatives of VAR in its current form outweigh the benefits of resolving incidents like the one you describe.
2. Anything outside the automated use of tech needs to be scrapped and then introduced slowly, with careful testing. I don’t know the complete solution. No one does. Systems like this should be phased in and perhaps if they have been, we wouldn’t be seeing the current sheiteshow that we are right now.
posted on 18/1/24
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Automated offside decision up on the big screen:
"Maybe. It looks offside but Winston wanted less precise rules on offside to speed things up so we have blurred the images to make it less clear and now we are unsure but we need to be quick so let's just go with maybe. Hope that helps. Hi Linda how are the grandkids"
That's Winston's idea for clearing up offsides.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, someone’s a little upset.
posted on 18/1/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Automated offside decision up on the big screen:
"Maybe. It looks offside but Winston wanted less precise rules on offside to speed things up so we have blurred the images to make it less clear and now we are unsure but we need to be quick so let's just go with maybe. Hope that helps. Hi Linda how are the grandkids"
That's Winston's idea for clearing up offsides.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, someone’s a little upset.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im almost certain he isnt
posted on 18/1/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
So scrapping VAR now means you’re against all forms of tech in football?
Jesus wept.
Well, what I’d do first is remove the system they have and implement the semi auto offside system to run alongside goal line technology.
I’d change the ruling around offsides to require less precision and speed that up.
I’d remove tech related to subjective decisions and implement a testing programme to phase in a completely different model, as agreed with clubs. Possibly the one or two appeals per game per club rule.
If you look back at my first post, my comments weren’t about scrapping it. They were about how those who think it’s simply a problem with humans and not the tech itself are idiots.
It’d be nice if people actually debated what you’d said, instead of something that they made up but suits their narrative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The tech is simply reviewing video footage, what exactly would you change about that tech? What you are saying is rule changes, and bringing in automated offsides which we are all for. But using my example of the Henry handball v Ireland, what would you change about the technology which is simply looking at a video replay and simply clearing it up? You are saying that if Ireland had already used their two appeals, then there's nothing them or the ref could do? You are suggesting that's a better system than just easily making the correct decision?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m saying two things:
1. The negatives of VAR in its current form outweigh the benefits of resolving incidents like the one you describe.
2. Anything outside the automated use of tech needs to be scrapped and then introduced slowly, with careful testing. I don’t know the complete solution. No one does. Systems like this should be phased in and perhaps if they have been, we wouldn’t be seeing the current sheiteshow that we are right now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they wouldn't have access to video images of such a blatant mistake such as the Henry handball, out of spite of the slowness of more subjective decisions made in the past?
They should ALWAYS have the option to look at something so blatant via video, that they have missed. It shouldn't be taken away completely just cos you're annoyed at some other aspects. As previously stated, looking at things in such a black and white way is what causes genocide and the like. So please do not go and do any genocide after this debate.
posted on 18/1/24
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
So scrapping VAR now means you’re against all forms of tech in football?
Jesus wept.
Well, what I’d do first is remove the system they have and implement the semi auto offside system to run alongside goal line technology.
I’d change the ruling around offsides to require less precision and speed that up.
I’d remove tech related to subjective decisions and implement a testing programme to phase in a completely different model, as agreed with clubs. Possibly the one or two appeals per game per club rule.
If you look back at my first post, my comments weren’t about scrapping it. They were about how those who think it’s simply a problem with humans and not the tech itself are idiots.
It’d be nice if people actually debated what you’d said, instead of something that they made up but suits their narrative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The tech is simply reviewing video footage, what exactly would you change about that tech? What you are saying is rule changes, and bringing in automated offsides which we are all for. But using my example of the Henry handball v Ireland, what would you change about the technology which is simply looking at a video replay and simply clearing it up? You are saying that if Ireland had already used their two appeals, then there's nothing them or the ref could do? You are suggesting that's a better system than just easily making the correct decision?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m saying two things:
1. The negatives of VAR in its current form outweigh the benefits of resolving incidents like the one you describe.
2. Anything outside the automated use of tech needs to be scrapped and then introduced slowly, with careful testing. I don’t know the complete solution. No one does. Systems like this should be phased in and perhaps if they have been, we wouldn’t be seeing the current sheiteshow that we are right now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they wouldn't have access to video images of such a blatant mistake such as the Henry handball, out of spite of the slowness of more subjective decisions made in the past?
They should ALWAYS have the option to look at something so blatant via video, that they have missed. It shouldn't be taken away completely just cos you're annoyed at some other aspects. As previously stated, looking at things in such a black and white way is what causes genocide and the like. So please do not go and do any genocide after this debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems you have real problems digesting words written to you, as you’re woefully misrepresenting what I’ve said.
Which means this is utterly pointless.
posted on 18/1/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
So scrapping VAR now means you’re against all forms of tech in football?
Jesus wept.
Well, what I’d do first is remove the system they have and implement the semi auto offside system to run alongside goal line technology.
I’d change the ruling around offsides to require less precision and speed that up.
I’d remove tech related to subjective decisions and implement a testing programme to phase in a completely different model, as agreed with clubs. Possibly the one or two appeals per game per club rule.
If you look back at my first post, my comments weren’t about scrapping it. They were about how those who think it’s simply a problem with humans and not the tech itself are idiots.
It’d be nice if people actually debated what you’d said, instead of something that they made up but suits their narrative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The tech is simply reviewing video footage, what exactly would you change about that tech? What you are saying is rule changes, and bringing in automated offsides which we are all for. But using my example of the Henry handball v Ireland, what would you change about the technology which is simply looking at a video replay and simply clearing it up? You are saying that if Ireland had already used their two appeals, then there's nothing them or the ref could do? You are suggesting that's a better system than just easily making the correct decision?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m saying two things:
1. The negatives of VAR in its current form outweigh the benefits of resolving incidents like the one you describe.
2. Anything outside the automated use of tech needs to be scrapped and then introduced slowly, with careful testing. I don’t know the complete solution. No one does. Systems like this should be phased in and perhaps if they have been, we wouldn’t be seeing the current sheiteshow that we are right now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they wouldn't have access to video images of such a blatant mistake such as the Henry handball, out of spite of the slowness of more subjective decisions made in the past?
They should ALWAYS have the option to look at something so blatant via video, that they have missed. It shouldn't be taken away completely just cos you're annoyed at some other aspects. As previously stated, looking at things in such a black and white way is what causes genocide and the like. So please do not go and do any genocide after this debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems you have real problems digesting words written to you, as you’re woefully misrepresenting what I’ve said.
Which means this is utterly pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you agree that it is hugely important to have access to video images to review instances such as the Henry handball?
posted on 18/1/24
It's the whole approach to the use of VAR.
The ref gives a penalty. He should approach it as, I'm going to give a penalty unless VAR can tell me a reason otherwise. If VAR thinks there a reason, the the ref, VAr and the linesmen have a look on the big screen and discuss what they see - the ref then makes his decision with input from others, but it's the ref making the decision - don't be afraid to change your mind, don't be afraid to stick with original decision.
It's that lack of communication and interaction which can lead to poor decisions.
Some decisions will always be borderline, but you should be able to get rid of the blatantly wrong ones.
As for offside, rather than considering 'all body parts', which slows it up, take it from the feet - then everyone knows the rule and how to apply.
There really are questions about the communications skills between VAR and the ref - it all seems so panicky. I know they want to get it right, but it shouldn't be that difficult
posted on 18/1/24
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 15 minutes ago
It's the whole approach to the use of VAR.
The ref gives a penalty. He should approach it as, I'm going to give a penalty unless VAR can tell me a reason otherwise. If VAR thinks there a reason, the the ref, VAr and the linesmen have a look on the big screen and discuss what they see - the ref then makes his decision with input from others, but it's the ref making the decision - don't be afraid to change your mind, don't be afraid to stick with original decision.
It's that lack of communication and interaction which can lead to poor decisions.
Some decisions will always be borderline, but you should be able to get rid of the blatantly wrong ones.
As for offside, rather than considering 'all body parts', which slows it up, take it from the feet - then everyone knows the rule and how to apply.
There really are questions about the communications skills between VAR and the ref - it all seems so panicky. I know they want to get it right, but it shouldn't be that difficult
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The communication is one issue, but it’s not the only one.
There is a fundamental flaw in the system because to choose whether to intervene requires subjectivity and actually, there are very few 100% wrong decisions.
So all you’re doing is moving the subjectivity to a different person, and in doing so, you’re also asking for the incident to be judged out of context.
You’re not fixing the issue that people disagree with the decision. You’re not fixing that it’s a matter of opinion. You’re simply slowing the game down to effectively achieve the same thing as if you’d not used it.
Of course there are examples of absolute howlers like the Henry one, but how many of those actually are there? Not that many, I’d wager.
posted on 18/1/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 15 minutes ago
It's the whole approach to the use of VAR.
The ref gives a penalty. He should approach it as, I'm going to give a penalty unless VAR can tell me a reason otherwise. If VAR thinks there a reason, the the ref, VAr and the linesmen have a look on the big screen and discuss what they see - the ref then makes his decision with input from others, but it's the ref making the decision - don't be afraid to change your mind, don't be afraid to stick with original decision.
It's that lack of communication and interaction which can lead to poor decisions.
Some decisions will always be borderline, but you should be able to get rid of the blatantly wrong ones.
As for offside, rather than considering 'all body parts', which slows it up, take it from the feet - then everyone knows the rule and how to apply.
There really are questions about the communications skills between VAR and the ref - it all seems so panicky. I know they want to get it right, but it shouldn't be that difficult
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The communication is one issue, but it’s not the only one.
There is a fundamental flaw in the system because to choose whether to intervene requires subjectivity and actually, there are very few 100% wrong decisions.
So all you’re doing is moving the subjectivity to a different person, and in doing so, you’re also asking for the incident to be judged out of context.
You’re not fixing the issue that people disagree with the decision. You’re not fixing that it’s a matter of opinion. You’re simply slowing the game down to effectively achieve the same thing as if you’d not used it.
Of course there are examples of absolute howlers like the Henry one, but how many of those actually are there? Not that many, I’d wager.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are certainly enough clear mistakes to justify having some sort of access to video review. I am not sure how you can argue against that?
posted on 18/1/24
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 15 minutes ago
It's the whole approach to the use of VAR.
The ref gives a penalty. He should approach it as, I'm going to give a penalty unless VAR can tell me a reason otherwise. If VAR thinks there a reason, the the ref, VAr and the linesmen have a look on the big screen and discuss what they see - the ref then makes his decision with input from others, but it's the ref making the decision - don't be afraid to change your mind, don't be afraid to stick with original decision.
It's that lack of communication and interaction which can lead to poor decisions.
Some decisions will always be borderline, but you should be able to get rid of the blatantly wrong ones.
As for offside, rather than considering 'all body parts', which slows it up, take it from the feet - then everyone knows the rule and how to apply.
There really are questions about the communications skills between VAR and the ref - it all seems so panicky. I know they want to get it right, but it shouldn't be that difficult
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The communication is one issue, but it’s not the only one.
There is a fundamental flaw in the system because to choose whether to intervene requires subjectivity and actually, there are very few 100% wrong decisions.
So all you’re doing is moving the subjectivity to a different person, and in doing so, you’re also asking for the incident to be judged out of context.
You’re not fixing the issue that people disagree with the decision. You’re not fixing that it’s a matter of opinion. You’re simply slowing the game down to effectively achieve the same thing as if you’d not used it.
Of course there are examples of absolute howlers like the Henry one, but how many of those actually are there? Not that many, I’d wager.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are certainly enough clear mistakes to justify having some sort of access to video review. I am not sure how you can argue against that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and all the ones we miss cos the main tv camera didnt pick it up. loads of things are given at corners now that normally isnt seen in real time by the viewer.
posted on 18/1/24
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 15 minutes ago
It's the whole approach to the use of VAR.
The ref gives a penalty. He should approach it as, I'm going to give a penalty unless VAR can tell me a reason otherwise. If VAR thinks there a reason, the the ref, VAr and the linesmen have a look on the big screen and discuss what they see - the ref then makes his decision with input from others, but it's the ref making the decision - don't be afraid to change your mind, don't be afraid to stick with original decision.
It's that lack of communication and interaction which can lead to poor decisions.
Some decisions will always be borderline, but you should be able to get rid of the blatantly wrong ones.
As for offside, rather than considering 'all body parts', which slows it up, take it from the feet - then everyone knows the rule and how to apply.
There really are questions about the communications skills between VAR and the ref - it all seems so panicky. I know they want to get it right, but it shouldn't be that difficult
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The communication is one issue, but it’s not the only one.
There is a fundamental flaw in the system because to choose whether to intervene requires subjectivity and actually, there are very few 100% wrong decisions.
So all you’re doing is moving the subjectivity to a different person, and in doing so, you’re also asking for the incident to be judged out of context.
You’re not fixing the issue that people disagree with the decision. You’re not fixing that it’s a matter of opinion. You’re simply slowing the game down to effectively achieve the same thing as if you’d not used it.
Of course there are examples of absolute howlers like the Henry one, but how many of those actually are there? Not that many, I’d wager.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are certainly enough clear mistakes to justify having some sort of access to video review. I am not sure how you can argue against that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not, you berk.
posted on 18/1/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 15 minutes ago
It's the whole approach to the use of VAR.
The ref gives a penalty. He should approach it as, I'm going to give a penalty unless VAR can tell me a reason otherwise. If VAR thinks there a reason, the the ref, VAr and the linesmen have a look on the big screen and discuss what they see - the ref then makes his decision with input from others, but it's the ref making the decision - don't be afraid to change your mind, don't be afraid to stick with original decision.
It's that lack of communication and interaction which can lead to poor decisions.
Some decisions will always be borderline, but you should be able to get rid of the blatantly wrong ones.
As for offside, rather than considering 'all body parts', which slows it up, take it from the feet - then everyone knows the rule and how to apply.
There really are questions about the communications skills between VAR and the ref - it all seems so panicky. I know they want to get it right, but it shouldn't be that difficult
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The communication is one issue, but it’s not the only one.
There is a fundamental flaw in the system because to choose whether to intervene requires subjectivity and actually, there are very few 100% wrong decisions.
So all you’re doing is moving the subjectivity to a different person, and in doing so, you’re also asking for the incident to be judged out of context.
You’re not fixing the issue that people disagree with the decision. You’re not fixing that it’s a matter of opinion. You’re simply slowing the game down to effectively achieve the same thing as if you’d not used it.
Of course there are examples of absolute howlers like the Henry one, but how many of those actually are there? Not that many, I’d wager.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are certainly enough clear mistakes to justify having some sort of access to video review. I am not sure how you can argue against that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not, you berk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston, British adult male, late 40s probably:
"Anything outside the automated use of tech needs to be scrapped"
posted on 18/1/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 15 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not, you berk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, someone’s a little upset.
posted on 18/1/24
You mentioned introducing a two appeal type system earlier Winston. So three calls go against you which were blatant, you just suck the third one up as you've already used your two calls? What's the timing of this? Who gets the appeal, The manager? I mean surely the managers have to look at their screens to decide whether they want to use one of their two calls? Does the game stop when the ball is out of play for them to look or do they have to just decide by what they have seen from a distance? Or is it the captain? Who may be a goalkeeper or a centre back? The closest player in consultation with the captain, who have a discussion before deciding whether to use one of the two calls?
This will never work in football.
posted on 18/1/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 15 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not, you berk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, someone’s a little upset.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upset, no?
Frustrated? Maybe a little. It really doesn’t help this web site when people are incapable of understand a rather basic point.
posted on 18/1/24
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
You mentioned introducing a two appeal type system earlier Winston. So three calls go against you which were blatant, you just suck the third one up as you've already used your two calls? What's the timing of this? Who gets the appeal, The manager? I mean surely the managers have to look at their screens to decide whether they want to use one of their two calls? Does the game stop when the ball is out of play for them to look or do they have to just decide by what they have seen from a distance? Or is it the captain? Who may be a goalkeeper or a centre back? The closest player in consultation with the captain, who have a discussion before deciding whether to use one of the two calls?
This will never work in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You sound like a dinosaur.
posted on 18/1/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 15 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not, you berk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, someone’s a little upset.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upset, no?
Frustrated? Maybe a little. It really doesn’t help this web site when people are incapable of understand a rather basic point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or when people are conceited.
posted on 18/1/24
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 7 minutes ago
You mentioned introducing a two appeal type system earlier Winston. So three calls go against you which were blatant, you just suck the third one up as you've already used your two calls? What's the timing of this? Who gets the appeal, The manager? I mean surely the managers have to look at their screens to decide whether they want to use one of their two calls? Does the game stop when the ball is out of play for them to look or do they have to just decide by what they have seen from a distance? Or is it the captain? Who may be a goalkeeper or a centre back? The closest player in consultation with the captain, who have a discussion before deciding whether to use one of the two calls?
This will never work in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
its one of the more silly ideas I have seen on this thread
posted on 18/1/24
So Winston are you going back on your statement that you don't want any tech other than automated tech to be used for decisions, particularly subjective decisions?
Just to note, if people are 99% sure a decision is incorrect, that's still subjective.
So it needs to be 100% certain and detectable via automated tech, for a decision to be changed. Is that correct?
posted on 18/1/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 15 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not, you berk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, someone’s a little upset.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upset, no?
Frustrated? Maybe a little. It really doesn’t help this web site when people are incapable of understand a rather basic point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or when people are conceited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bore off, troll.
posted on 18/1/24
comment by Frank van Eijs (U1734)
posted 9 minutes ago
So Winston are you going back on your statement that you don't want any tech other than automated tech to be used for decisions, particularly subjective decisions?
Just to note, if people are 99% sure a decision is incorrect, that's still subjective.
So it needs to be 100% certain and detectable via automated tech, for a decision to be changed. Is that correct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can only assume you’re trolling. Enjoy your day.
posted on 18/1/24
This is the most slow-burn Barrying I've ever witnessed
posted on 18/1/24
posted on 18/1/24
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 minutes ago
This is the most slow-burn Barrying I've ever witnessed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quxW1V8Hwlg
posted on 18/1/24
All VAR has done is double the amount of bias shown to clubs like Varpool, if the mug on the pitch doesn't get you, the mug in the studio will
Page 6 of 13
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11