Sigh.
I didn’t say it was an improper use.
I’m using it as an example to prove the flaw in VAR that was discussed earlier in this article.
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, you’ll refer to the stats around how many correct VAR decisions there have been, which conveniently distracts from the objections that people have to VAR
------------------------------------------------------------
"conveniently" like arguing for hospitals using stats of how many lives they have saved, conveniently forgetting how many people have died in hospitals.
Hopsitals are useful tools for helping save lives. Yes some people also die in hospitals. Yes, a small majority die BECAUSE they were in hospital and wouldn't have died if they didn't go to hospital but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of having the hospital.
BUT WAIT TIMES IN HOSPITALS ARE RIDICULOUS. DO AWAY WITH THEM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is this mess?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
It certainly can change perception in some incidents, even though it's only supposed to be used for facts. Although I'd argue watching on the pitch from one angle, sometimes at a distance, sometimes with players in the way, changes perception much more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not right.
Watching on the pitch just limits your view of what happened, it doesn’t change the perception of it because you only see it once.
It’s a huge flaw in the system, and one that seemingly can’t be fixed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
absolulte tosh!!
if a plyer obscures a refs view partially , to the extent that he doesnt see part of what was a foul how is that blocked view not changing his perspective of the event?
a ref cant call for something he didnt see, if he didnt see the foul how is that not changing his perspective of the incident?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus wept.
Your perception of an incident can only change if you see it more than once.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and it can also be wrong if you only view the incident once. There has been plenty instances that refs have reversed incorrect decisions based on changing their perspective with more information available to them.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 10 hours, 36 minutes ago
And tonight demonstrated why using it for point of contact is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
even so, cos it was used in that way doesnt mean that applies to every application of it.
Slow motions is neccessary cos sometimes it can give a clearer picture of what happens in instances too quick to pick up with the eye. As almost everyone has said it should be used in collaboration with other views and speeds of play.
the problem isnt the slow motions its the person being a decision on it being in slo mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never claimed it applies to every application.
But the vast, vast majority of uses when dealing with a penalty incident will involve slow motion or stills.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
again nonesense ... we see a tiny margin and minority of incidents reviewed by VAR. they take place during the game. what we see being discussed is one incident and check of hundreds that have taken place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously I’m talking about the incidents that are reviewed by VAR, you dullard.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
It certainly can change perception in some incidents, even though it's only supposed to be used for facts. Although I'd argue watching on the pitch from one angle, sometimes at a distance, sometimes with players in the way, changes perception much more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not right.
Watching on the pitch just limits your view of what happened, it doesn’t change the perception of it because you only see it once.
It’s a huge flaw in the system, and one that seemingly can’t be fixed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
absolulte tosh!!
if a plyer obscures a refs view partially , to the extent that he doesnt see part of what was a foul how is that blocked view not changing his perspective of the event?
a ref cant call for something he didnt see, if he didnt see the foul how is that not changing his perspective of the incident?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus wept.
Your perception of an incident can only change if you see it more than once.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and it can also be wrong if you only view the incident once. There has been plenty instances that refs have reversed incorrect decisions based on changing their perspective with more information available to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said otherwise.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, you’ll refer to the stats around how many correct VAR decisions there have been, which conveniently distracts from the objections that people have to VAR
------------------------------------------------------------
"conveniently" like arguing for hospitals using stats of how many lives they have saved, conveniently forgetting how many people have died in hospitals.
Hopsitals are useful tools for helping save lives. Yes some people also die in hospitals. Yes, a small majority die BECAUSE they were in hospital and wouldn't have died if they didn't go to hospital but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of having the hospital.
BUT WAIT TIMES IN HOSPITALS ARE RIDICULOUS. DO AWAY WITH THEM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is this mess?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the logic behind your argument against VAR.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
It certainly can change perception in some incidents, even though it's only supposed to be used for facts. Although I'd argue watching on the pitch from one angle, sometimes at a distance, sometimes with players in the way, changes perception much more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not right.
Watching on the pitch just limits your view of what happened, it doesn’t change the perception of it because you only see it once.
It’s a huge flaw in the system, and one that seemingly can’t be fixed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
absolulte tosh!!
if a plyer obscures a refs view partially , to the extent that he doesnt see part of what was a foul how is that blocked view not changing his perspective of the event?
a ref cant call for something he didnt see, if he didnt see the foul how is that not changing his perspective of the incident?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus wept.
Your perception of an incident can only change if you see it more than once.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and it can also be wrong if you only view the incident once. There has been plenty instances that refs have reversed incorrect decisions based on changing their perspective with more information available to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so you admitting then it does benefit the refs then? and your whole argument is pi$h.
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, you’ll refer to the stats around how many correct VAR decisions there have been, which conveniently distracts from the objections that people have to VAR
------------------------------------------------------------
"conveniently" like arguing for hospitals using stats of how many lives they have saved, conveniently forgetting how many people have died in hospitals.
Hopsitals are useful tools for helping save lives. Yes some people also die in hospitals. Yes, a small majority die BECAUSE they were in hospital and wouldn't have died if they didn't go to hospital but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of having the hospital.
BUT WAIT TIMES IN HOSPITALS ARE RIDICULOUS. DO AWAY WITH THEM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is this mess?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the logic behind your argument against VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
Well, I’ve explained why there is.
It changes the perception of the incident.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what was your perception of the two Chelsea penalties this week....?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought the first one was a penalty and the second one wasn't. First one I thought it was a dive in real time but with better angles on the replay it looked a penalty to me.
Second one I thought penalty in real time but with better angles, I thought whilst there was contact, it was not a foul.
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, you’ll refer to the stats around how many correct VAR decisions there have been, which conveniently distracts from the objections that people have to VAR
------------------------------------------------------------
"conveniently" like arguing for hospitals using stats of how many lives they have saved, conveniently forgetting how many people have died in hospitals.
Hopsitals are useful tools for helping save lives. Yes some people also die in hospitals. Yes, a small majority die BECAUSE they were in hospital and wouldn't have died if they didn't go to hospital but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of having the hospital.
BUT WAIT TIMES IN HOSPITALS ARE RIDICULOUS. DO AWAY WITH THEM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is this mess?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the logic behind your argument against VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really not. It's idiotic.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
It certainly can change perception in some incidents, even though it's only supposed to be used for facts. Although I'd argue watching on the pitch from one angle, sometimes at a distance, sometimes with players in the way, changes perception much more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not right.
Watching on the pitch just limits your view of what happened, it doesn’t change the perception of it because you only see it once.
It’s a huge flaw in the system, and one that seemingly can’t be fixed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
absolulte tosh!!
if a plyer obscures a refs view partially , to the extent that he doesnt see part of what was a foul how is that blocked view not changing his perspective of the event?
a ref cant call for something he didnt see, if he didnt see the foul how is that not changing his perspective of the incident?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus wept.
Your perception of an incident can only change if you see it more than once.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and it can also be wrong if you only view the incident once. There has been plenty instances that refs have reversed incorrect decisions based on changing their perspective with more information available to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so you admitting then it does benefit the refs then? and your whole argument is pi$h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
Well, I’ve explained why there is.
It changes the perception of the incident.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what was your perception of the two Chelsea penalties this week....?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought the first one was a penalty and the second one wasn't. First one I thought it was a dive in real time but with better angles on the replay it looked a penalty to me.
Second one I thought penalty in real time but with better angles, I thought whilst there was contact, it was not a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How hard does he have to kick him in order for it to become a foul then...?
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
Well, I’ve explained why there is.
It changes the perception of the incident.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what was your perception of the two Chelsea penalties this week....?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought the first one was a penalty and the second one wasn't. First one I thought it was a dive in real time but with better angles on the replay it looked a penalty to me.
Second one I thought penalty in real time but with better angles, I thought whilst there was contact, it was not a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How hard does he have to kick him in order for it to become a foul then...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's subjective isn't it?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never once said players are 'entitled' to throw themselves to the floor. I only said why they do it. When fouled, players don't receive the decision if they don't go down. Therefore they go down when they feel they have been fouled, even if they can stay up. It's then up to the officials to make the decision on whether the contact was enough to be a foul.
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
Well, I’ve explained why there is.
It changes the perception of the incident.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what was your perception of the two Chelsea penalties this week....?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought the first one was a penalty and the second one wasn't. First one I thought it was a dive in real time but with better angles on the replay it looked a penalty to me.
Second one I thought penalty in real time but with better angles, I thought whilst there was contact, it was not a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How hard does he have to kick him in order for it to become a foul then...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO it has to be enough force to affect the players actions. Again thats subjective to individual cases.
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never once said players are 'entitled' to throw themselves to the floor. I only said why they do it. When fouled, players don't receive the decision if they don't go down. Therefore they go down when they feel they have been fouled, even if they can stay up. It's then up to the officials to make the decision on whether the contact was enough to be a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jota one for example around a month ago, possibly against Newcastle? There was contact but he was perfectly able to stay up and score but threw himself to the floor. For me he was not put at such a disadvantage that it stop him continuing on and scoring and therefore for me it was not a penalty.
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never once said players are 'entitled' to throw themselves to the floor. I only said why they do it. When fouled, players don't receive the decision if they don't go down. Therefore they go down when they feel they have been fouled, even if they can stay up. It's then up to the officials to make the decision on whether the contact was enough to be a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've said that a player can decide they have been fouled and fall over.
Which, of course, is nonsense.
In this scenario, the Chelsea player can decide he's been fouled and fall over, according to you.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never once said players are 'entitled' to throw themselves to the floor. I only said why they do it. When fouled, players don't receive the decision if they don't go down. Therefore they go down when they feel they have been fouled, even if they can stay up. It's then up to the officials to make the decision on whether the contact was enough to be a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've said that a player can decide they have been fouled and fall over.
Which, of course, is nonsense.
In this scenario, the Chelsea player can decide he's been fouled and fall over, according to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn't. You said I said that.
I said players go down when they think they've been fouled as they don't get the decision otherwise.
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never once said players are 'entitled' to throw themselves to the floor. I only said why they do it. When fouled, players don't receive the decision if they don't go down. Therefore they go down when they feel they have been fouled, even if they can stay up. It's then up to the officials to make the decision on whether the contact was enough to be a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've said that a player can decide they have been fouled and fall over.
Which, of course, is nonsense.
In this scenario, the Chelsea player can decide he's been fouled and fall over, according to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn't. You said I said that.
I said players go down when they think they've been fouled as they don't get the decision otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You did. You were saying it's fine for a player to go down to show that they have been fouled.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never once said players are 'entitled' to throw themselves to the floor. I only said why they do it. When fouled, players don't receive the decision if they don't go down. Therefore they go down when they feel they have been fouled, even if they can stay up. It's then up to the officials to make the decision on whether the contact was enough to be a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've said that a player can decide they have been fouled and fall over.
Which, of course, is nonsense.
In this scenario, the Chelsea player can decide he's been fouled and fall over, according to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn't. You said I said that.
I said players go down when they think they've been fouled as they don't get the decision otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You did. You were saying it's fine for a player to go down to show that they have been fouled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I said players go down when they feel they've been fouled as they don't get the decision otherwise.
You then did what you do and told me what I meant, players are entitled to go down and make the decision for the referee.
I never said that, you said I said that.
In an ideal world, officials give fouls without players going down but we know that doesn't happen. Therefore whilst I don't like it, I would rather players go down when fouled than stay up and not get it. Of course there are times when players try to take advantage of this album that's why we have officials, to do their job and decide whether they believe a foul has occurred.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never once said players are 'entitled' to throw themselves to the floor. I only said why they do it. When fouled, players don't receive the decision if they don't go down. Therefore they go down when they feel they have been fouled, even if they can stay up. It's then up to the officials to make the decision on whether the contact was enough to be a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've said that a player can decide they have been fouled and fall over.
Which, of course, is nonsense.
In this scenario, the Chelsea player can decide he's been fouled and fall over, according to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
he can , but its not the chelsea player that awards the foul, its the ref. a player falling over can emphasise that a foul takes place, to make it more obvious to the ref.
When I have more time, I'll find the comments and we can all laugh at how you're trying to re-write history.
Appreciate you've convinced yourself, but you're 100% wrong.
You're also spouting the same old nonsense about going down.
I've repeatedly explained to you... as soon as a player decides to fall over, the referee is then led to believe that the extent of the contact is greater than it was, which means they have an inaccurate perception of what happened.
That's cheating.
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
I've repeatedly explained to you... as soon as a player decides to fall over, the referee is then led to believe that the extent of the contact is greater than it was, which means they have an inaccurate perception of what happened.
==========
But if the player doesn't go down the ref already has an inaccurate perception of what happened because they almost never give the foul if the player doesn't go down.
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
Sign in if you want to comment
Scrap VAR
Page 9 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
posted on 2/2/24
Sigh.
I didn’t say it was an improper use.
I’m using it as an example to prove the flaw in VAR that was discussed earlier in this article.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, you’ll refer to the stats around how many correct VAR decisions there have been, which conveniently distracts from the objections that people have to VAR
------------------------------------------------------------
"conveniently" like arguing for hospitals using stats of how many lives they have saved, conveniently forgetting how many people have died in hospitals.
Hopsitals are useful tools for helping save lives. Yes some people also die in hospitals. Yes, a small majority die BECAUSE they were in hospital and wouldn't have died if they didn't go to hospital but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of having the hospital.
BUT WAIT TIMES IN HOSPITALS ARE RIDICULOUS. DO AWAY WITH THEM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is this mess?
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
It certainly can change perception in some incidents, even though it's only supposed to be used for facts. Although I'd argue watching on the pitch from one angle, sometimes at a distance, sometimes with players in the way, changes perception much more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not right.
Watching on the pitch just limits your view of what happened, it doesn’t change the perception of it because you only see it once.
It’s a huge flaw in the system, and one that seemingly can’t be fixed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
absolulte tosh!!
if a plyer obscures a refs view partially , to the extent that he doesnt see part of what was a foul how is that blocked view not changing his perspective of the event?
a ref cant call for something he didnt see, if he didnt see the foul how is that not changing his perspective of the incident?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus wept.
Your perception of an incident can only change if you see it more than once.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and it can also be wrong if you only view the incident once. There has been plenty instances that refs have reversed incorrect decisions based on changing their perspective with more information available to them.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 10 hours, 36 minutes ago
And tonight demonstrated why using it for point of contact is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
even so, cos it was used in that way doesnt mean that applies to every application of it.
Slow motions is neccessary cos sometimes it can give a clearer picture of what happens in instances too quick to pick up with the eye. As almost everyone has said it should be used in collaboration with other views and speeds of play.
the problem isnt the slow motions its the person being a decision on it being in slo mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never claimed it applies to every application.
But the vast, vast majority of uses when dealing with a penalty incident will involve slow motion or stills.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
again nonesense ... we see a tiny margin and minority of incidents reviewed by VAR. they take place during the game. what we see being discussed is one incident and check of hundreds that have taken place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously I’m talking about the incidents that are reviewed by VAR, you dullard.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
It certainly can change perception in some incidents, even though it's only supposed to be used for facts. Although I'd argue watching on the pitch from one angle, sometimes at a distance, sometimes with players in the way, changes perception much more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not right.
Watching on the pitch just limits your view of what happened, it doesn’t change the perception of it because you only see it once.
It’s a huge flaw in the system, and one that seemingly can’t be fixed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
absolulte tosh!!
if a plyer obscures a refs view partially , to the extent that he doesnt see part of what was a foul how is that blocked view not changing his perspective of the event?
a ref cant call for something he didnt see, if he didnt see the foul how is that not changing his perspective of the incident?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus wept.
Your perception of an incident can only change if you see it more than once.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and it can also be wrong if you only view the incident once. There has been plenty instances that refs have reversed incorrect decisions based on changing their perspective with more information available to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said otherwise.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, you’ll refer to the stats around how many correct VAR decisions there have been, which conveniently distracts from the objections that people have to VAR
------------------------------------------------------------
"conveniently" like arguing for hospitals using stats of how many lives they have saved, conveniently forgetting how many people have died in hospitals.
Hopsitals are useful tools for helping save lives. Yes some people also die in hospitals. Yes, a small majority die BECAUSE they were in hospital and wouldn't have died if they didn't go to hospital but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of having the hospital.
BUT WAIT TIMES IN HOSPITALS ARE RIDICULOUS. DO AWAY WITH THEM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is this mess?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the logic behind your argument against VAR.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
It certainly can change perception in some incidents, even though it's only supposed to be used for facts. Although I'd argue watching on the pitch from one angle, sometimes at a distance, sometimes with players in the way, changes perception much more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not right.
Watching on the pitch just limits your view of what happened, it doesn’t change the perception of it because you only see it once.
It’s a huge flaw in the system, and one that seemingly can’t be fixed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
absolulte tosh!!
if a plyer obscures a refs view partially , to the extent that he doesnt see part of what was a foul how is that blocked view not changing his perspective of the event?
a ref cant call for something he didnt see, if he didnt see the foul how is that not changing his perspective of the incident?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus wept.
Your perception of an incident can only change if you see it more than once.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and it can also be wrong if you only view the incident once. There has been plenty instances that refs have reversed incorrect decisions based on changing their perspective with more information available to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so you admitting then it does benefit the refs then? and your whole argument is pi$h.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, you’ll refer to the stats around how many correct VAR decisions there have been, which conveniently distracts from the objections that people have to VAR
------------------------------------------------------------
"conveniently" like arguing for hospitals using stats of how many lives they have saved, conveniently forgetting how many people have died in hospitals.
Hopsitals are useful tools for helping save lives. Yes some people also die in hospitals. Yes, a small majority die BECAUSE they were in hospital and wouldn't have died if they didn't go to hospital but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of having the hospital.
BUT WAIT TIMES IN HOSPITALS ARE RIDICULOUS. DO AWAY WITH THEM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is this mess?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the logic behind your argument against VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
Well, I’ve explained why there is.
It changes the perception of the incident.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what was your perception of the two Chelsea penalties this week....?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought the first one was a penalty and the second one wasn't. First one I thought it was a dive in real time but with better angles on the replay it looked a penalty to me.
Second one I thought penalty in real time but with better angles, I thought whilst there was contact, it was not a foul.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, you’ll refer to the stats around how many correct VAR decisions there have been, which conveniently distracts from the objections that people have to VAR
------------------------------------------------------------
"conveniently" like arguing for hospitals using stats of how many lives they have saved, conveniently forgetting how many people have died in hospitals.
Hopsitals are useful tools for helping save lives. Yes some people also die in hospitals. Yes, a small majority die BECAUSE they were in hospital and wouldn't have died if they didn't go to hospital but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of having the hospital.
BUT WAIT TIMES IN HOSPITALS ARE RIDICULOUS. DO AWAY WITH THEM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is this mess?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the logic behind your argument against VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really not. It's idiotic.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
It certainly can change perception in some incidents, even though it's only supposed to be used for facts. Although I'd argue watching on the pitch from one angle, sometimes at a distance, sometimes with players in the way, changes perception much more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not right.
Watching on the pitch just limits your view of what happened, it doesn’t change the perception of it because you only see it once.
It’s a huge flaw in the system, and one that seemingly can’t be fixed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
absolulte tosh!!
if a plyer obscures a refs view partially , to the extent that he doesnt see part of what was a foul how is that blocked view not changing his perspective of the event?
a ref cant call for something he didnt see, if he didnt see the foul how is that not changing his perspective of the incident?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus wept.
Your perception of an incident can only change if you see it more than once.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and it can also be wrong if you only view the incident once. There has been plenty instances that refs have reversed incorrect decisions based on changing their perspective with more information available to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so you admitting then it does benefit the refs then? and your whole argument is pi$h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 2/2/24
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
Well, I’ve explained why there is.
It changes the perception of the incident.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what was your perception of the two Chelsea penalties this week....?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought the first one was a penalty and the second one wasn't. First one I thought it was a dive in real time but with better angles on the replay it looked a penalty to me.
Second one I thought penalty in real time but with better angles, I thought whilst there was contact, it was not a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How hard does he have to kick him in order for it to become a foul then...?
posted on 2/2/24
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
Well, I’ve explained why there is.
It changes the perception of the incident.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what was your perception of the two Chelsea penalties this week....?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought the first one was a penalty and the second one wasn't. First one I thought it was a dive in real time but with better angles on the replay it looked a penalty to me.
Second one I thought penalty in real time but with better angles, I thought whilst there was contact, it was not a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How hard does he have to kick him in order for it to become a foul then...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's subjective isn't it?
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never once said players are 'entitled' to throw themselves to the floor. I only said why they do it. When fouled, players don't receive the decision if they don't go down. Therefore they go down when they feel they have been fouled, even if they can stay up. It's then up to the officials to make the decision on whether the contact was enough to be a foul.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
Well, I’ve explained why there is.
It changes the perception of the incident.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what was your perception of the two Chelsea penalties this week....?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought the first one was a penalty and the second one wasn't. First one I thought it was a dive in real time but with better angles on the replay it looked a penalty to me.
Second one I thought penalty in real time but with better angles, I thought whilst there was contact, it was not a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How hard does he have to kick him in order for it to become a foul then...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO it has to be enough force to affect the players actions. Again thats subjective to individual cases.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never once said players are 'entitled' to throw themselves to the floor. I only said why they do it. When fouled, players don't receive the decision if they don't go down. Therefore they go down when they feel they have been fouled, even if they can stay up. It's then up to the officials to make the decision on whether the contact was enough to be a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jota one for example around a month ago, possibly against Newcastle? There was contact but he was perfectly able to stay up and score but threw himself to the floor. For me he was not put at such a disadvantage that it stop him continuing on and scoring and therefore for me it was not a penalty.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never once said players are 'entitled' to throw themselves to the floor. I only said why they do it. When fouled, players don't receive the decision if they don't go down. Therefore they go down when they feel they have been fouled, even if they can stay up. It's then up to the officials to make the decision on whether the contact was enough to be a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've said that a player can decide they have been fouled and fall over.
Which, of course, is nonsense.
In this scenario, the Chelsea player can decide he's been fouled and fall over, according to you.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never once said players are 'entitled' to throw themselves to the floor. I only said why they do it. When fouled, players don't receive the decision if they don't go down. Therefore they go down when they feel they have been fouled, even if they can stay up. It's then up to the officials to make the decision on whether the contact was enough to be a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've said that a player can decide they have been fouled and fall over.
Which, of course, is nonsense.
In this scenario, the Chelsea player can decide he's been fouled and fall over, according to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn't. You said I said that.
I said players go down when they think they've been fouled as they don't get the decision otherwise.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never once said players are 'entitled' to throw themselves to the floor. I only said why they do it. When fouled, players don't receive the decision if they don't go down. Therefore they go down when they feel they have been fouled, even if they can stay up. It's then up to the officials to make the decision on whether the contact was enough to be a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've said that a player can decide they have been fouled and fall over.
Which, of course, is nonsense.
In this scenario, the Chelsea player can decide he's been fouled and fall over, according to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn't. You said I said that.
I said players go down when they think they've been fouled as they don't get the decision otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You did. You were saying it's fine for a player to go down to show that they have been fouled.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never once said players are 'entitled' to throw themselves to the floor. I only said why they do it. When fouled, players don't receive the decision if they don't go down. Therefore they go down when they feel they have been fouled, even if they can stay up. It's then up to the officials to make the decision on whether the contact was enough to be a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've said that a player can decide they have been fouled and fall over.
Which, of course, is nonsense.
In this scenario, the Chelsea player can decide he's been fouled and fall over, according to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn't. You said I said that.
I said players go down when they think they've been fouled as they don't get the decision otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You did. You were saying it's fine for a player to go down to show that they have been fouled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I said players go down when they feel they've been fouled as they don't get the decision otherwise.
You then did what you do and told me what I meant, players are entitled to go down and make the decision for the referee.
I never said that, you said I said that.
In an ideal world, officials give fouls without players going down but we know that doesn't happen. Therefore whilst I don't like it, I would rather players go down when fouled than stay up and not get it. Of course there are times when players try to take advantage of this album that's why we have officials, to do their job and decide whether they believe a foul has occurred.
posted on 2/2/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I'd be asking TOOR why the player is not entitled to throw himself on the floor, as he argued Salah was a few years ago.
That might open a separate can of worms though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never once said players are 'entitled' to throw themselves to the floor. I only said why they do it. When fouled, players don't receive the decision if they don't go down. Therefore they go down when they feel they have been fouled, even if they can stay up. It's then up to the officials to make the decision on whether the contact was enough to be a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've said that a player can decide they have been fouled and fall over.
Which, of course, is nonsense.
In this scenario, the Chelsea player can decide he's been fouled and fall over, according to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
he can , but its not the chelsea player that awards the foul, its the ref. a player falling over can emphasise that a foul takes place, to make it more obvious to the ref.
posted on 2/2/24
When I have more time, I'll find the comments and we can all laugh at how you're trying to re-write history.
Appreciate you've convinced yourself, but you're 100% wrong.
You're also spouting the same old nonsense about going down.
I've repeatedly explained to you... as soon as a player decides to fall over, the referee is then led to believe that the extent of the contact is greater than it was, which means they have an inaccurate perception of what happened.
That's cheating.
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
posted on 2/2/24
I've repeatedly explained to you... as soon as a player decides to fall over, the referee is then led to believe that the extent of the contact is greater than it was, which means they have an inaccurate perception of what happened.
==========
But if the player doesn't go down the ref already has an inaccurate perception of what happened because they almost never give the foul if the player doesn't go down.
posted on 2/2/24
You say that players don't get the decision if they don't go down. How do they know? They'll never know, because they threw themselves to the floor. So your point makes no sense at all.
======
They know because they've been pros for years and have learnt from experience that going down works better than stayed on your feet when fouled. This could be the most simplistic and naive argument you've ever out forward.
Page 9 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13