|
Post by mosher on Sept 6, 2022 9:01:48 GMT 1
|
|
deepc
Tom Cowan Terrier
Posts: 644
|
Post by deepc on Sept 6, 2022 10:10:23 GMT 1
I’m just bored of the whole circus. Example, West Ham. Moyes ‘should have been a goal, scandalous’ Tuchel ‘we were lucky but it was the correct decision’ Let’s say Chelsea had been denied a last minute equaliser, just swap the comments around. It’s the same with players and refs, constantly playing this stupid game of bullshit bingo. Stop lying. We’ve got eyes and ears you absolute bell ends. Everyone can see it. The quicker everyone snaps out of this ridiculous charade the quicker it can be changed, if everyone just sings from the same hymn sheet and call VAR for what it is then it can be changed from every contentious decision to what it should be, in the bin. Nailed it there. What does VAR bring to the game ? Delays The opportunity for pedant refs to examine at slow motion incidents so that they can disallow goals. Bearing in mind that if you look hard enough at any incident in a contact sport you will find a reason to penalise. Accuracy on matters of fact. The forward's toe nail was offside before he hit a 30 yard screamer into the goal. Really ?Is that what we want ? Except of course the technology is not up to the job on offsides. When the picture is frozen ,the best they can come up with is a blurred image of the ball close to to the players head or foot as it is played . So in fact it is an educated guess. They tell us that the lines are drawn accurately so the toe nail was offside. It is bollox and they know it is, and we know it is ,and yet we persist. The feeling of watching something on the pitch that can be altered by the whim of someone sat in a warehouse at Heathrow. And if you know that the hapless Aussie is involved you know that you are only moments away from controversy. What does VAR take away from the game ? The feeling of euphoria when a goal has been scored is what we, the customers, attend football matches .This has been taken away for many. The flow of game. It was supposed to rid the game of the howler from the officials. Instead it has morphed into micro management of of a game ,in which the interpretation of the laws are changed from week to week dependant on last weeks cock ups. If it had stuck with removing the howler I could see some merit ,but what we have now is a dogs dinner fit only for the bin. As to Sundays debacle against Blackpool it comes down to a case of shit happens for me. There is no way a referee was going to go against technology in a situation like that. The vibrating watch has taken the responsibility to check ball over the line away from them. One less thing to worry about as far as he is concerned. Progress Eh And don't let me get started on the five subs rule , two of which always seem to be brought on after 85 mins depending on the score. GRRRR
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Sept 6, 2022 11:08:59 GMT 1
Even the toe nail offside rulings are simply a guess. Theres no definitive accuracy there because its not possible to define the exact micro-second the ball left the foot of the passing player. It will inevitably be a moment in time between frames of the film, and the difference between one frame and the next frame can make a lot of difference when applied to the position of the receiving player.
Its just a guess.
It should be applied for howlers and nothing but howlers. All replays shown in REAL TIME, not super slow mo. No lines on the pitch.. just eyesight and judgement. And the VAR official given 15 seconds to decide if its a howler. If he needs any longer than that, it isn't a howler so go with the onfield decision, whether it turns out to be right or not once you've spend 10 minutes analysing it.
Either use it like that or scrap it... preferably scrap it. End of the day football is worse because of VAR.
|
|
|
Post by townarentbest on Sept 6, 2022 12:35:39 GMT 1
Even the toe nail offside rulings are simply a guess. Theres no definitive accuracy there because its not possible to define the exact micro-second the ball left the foot of the passing player. It will inevitably be a moment in time between frames of the film, and the difference between one frame and the next frame can make a lot of difference when applied to the position of the receiving player. I've found this one nerdily interesting in the past, as I couldn't understand why they used that nonsensical skinny line, given the margin of error. The offside cameras use a 50hz frame rate. A forward can be moving forwards at say 30kmh briefly (I saw a stat that some players have been clocked at 34-35kmh). A defender can be pushing out at in the opposite direction at up to 30kmh (briefly). 30kmh = roughly 8metres/second. at 50hz, at 30kmh a player would cover 1/50sec * 8m/s = 16cm per frame. Then, between one frames and the next, a defender COULD have moved 16cm further out and an attacker could have moved 16 cm further upfield. So - whilst the on/offside VAR decision has to choose a specific frames (and there is NO AI or machine learning interpolation with movement from surrounding frames, its a static snap-shot), with a defender pushing out at top speed, and an attacker moving upfield at top speed, there could actually in worst case be a 32cm margin of error in terms of what the frame looks like compared to the actual relative positioning of players, at the moment the ball is played. To cater for that 32cm margin of error, then the lines used must be at least 16cm thick (where any cross-over means that no decision is made). I think they use 5cm lines as of this season ( www.sportbible.com/football/football-news-how-the-premier-league-could-use-eredivisie-system-to-solve-var-20201129 ) giving a total 10cm margin of error, which is NOT ENOUGH. I don't know about others, but a 32cm (1foot PLUS) margin of error, is sufficient that I'd simply say, don't bother...rely on humans, they mostly get it right anyway to that level of accuracy anyway, a lino will use that human intelligence of interpreting what he sees and judging, rather than relying on a single frozen snapshot...OR...thicken the attacking and defending on/offside lines up to 20cm each, so there's a 40cm margin of error, so any offside given by the computer is DEFINITELY offside (but again, why not just rely on the humans).
|
|
|
Post by 28901 on Sept 6, 2022 12:56:34 GMT 1
I’m just bored of the whole circus. Example, West Ham. Moyes ‘should have been a goal, scandalous’ Tuchel ‘we were lucky but it was the correct decision’ Let’s say Chelsea had been denied a last minute equaliser, just swap the comments around. It’s the same with players and refs, constantly playing this stupid game of bullshit bingo. Stop lying. We’ve got eyes and ears you absolute bell ends. Everyone can see it. The quicker everyone snaps out of this ridiculous charade the quicker it can be changed, if everyone just sings from the same hymn sheet and call VAR for what it is then it can be changed from every contentious decision to what it should be, in the bin. Nailed it there. What does VAR bring to the game ? Delays The opportunity for pedant refs to examine at slow motion incidents so that they can disallow goals. Bearing in mind that if you look hard enough at any incident in a contact sport you will find a reason to penalise. Accuracy on matters of fact. The forward's toe nail was offside before he hit a 30 yard screamer into the goal. Really ?Is that what we want ? Except of course the technology is not up to the job on offsides. When the picture is frozen ,the best they can come up with is a blurred image of the ball close to to the players head or foot as it is played . So in fact it is an educated guess. They tell us that the lines are drawn accurately so the toe nail was offside. It is bollox and they know it is, and we know it is ,and yet we persist. The feeling of watching something on the pitch that can be altered by the whim of someone sat in a warehouse at Heathrow. And if you know that the hapless Aussie is involved you know that you are only moments away from controversy. What does VAR take away from the game ? The feeling of euphoria when a goal has been scored is what we, the customers, attend football matches .This has been taken away for many. The flow of game. It was supposed to rid the game of the howler from the officials. Instead it has morphed into micro management of of a game ,in which the interpretation of the laws are changed from week to week dependant on last weeks cock ups. If it had stuck with removing the howler I could see some merit ,but what we have now is a dogs dinner fit only for the bin. As to Sundays debacle against Blackpool it comes down to a case of shit happens for me. There is no way a referee was going to go against technology in a situation like that. The vibrating watch has taken the responsibility to check ball over the line away from them. One less thing to worry about as far as he is concerned. Progress Eh And don't let me get started on the five subs rule , two of which always seem to be brought on after 85 mins depending on the score. GRRRR Excellent post. When VAR enters the EFL I am out for good. Everyone knows its shit but someone is making a lot o money so it stays. As for Town, I genuinely think the ref would have given it on Sunday if the technology didn't exist. That's how stupid it is.
|
|
|
Post by blanquiazules on Sept 6, 2022 12:57:56 GMT 1
Speaking of bullshit, the language used by Hawkeye in their apology this morning is similar ‘extreme edge case scenario’. Well it’s happened twice in 2 seasons now so they ought to be telling refs it can and will happen when there are bodies on the goal line so not to wholly rely on it and make your own decision. It was painfully obvious that Sunday’s ref daren’t award a goal as he was so reliant on the tech and scared of what the consequences could be for him if he over-ruled it.
If the tech hadn’t been there you can be certain the officials would have given the goal.
|
|
|
Post by townarentbest on Sept 6, 2022 13:00:03 GMT 1
Excellent post. When VAR enters the EFL I am out for good. Everyone knows its shit but someone is making a lot o money so it stays. As for Town, I genuinely think the ref would have given it on Sunday if the technology didn't exist. That's how stupid it is. You think a ref would give a goal he didn't see, off the back of the scoring team telling him it was a goal?! Hopefully that wouldn't be the case!
|
|
|
Post by themanfromatlantis on Sept 6, 2022 13:09:43 GMT 1
I thought VAR was a good thing, if it had been deployed and managed in a totally objective fashion, by people not affiliated to PGMOL.
As it’s transpired, they’re using it to add to the melodrama.
I wonder if anyone has been able, or been bothered enough, to look at all the offsides that were referred to VAR vs what the linesman did at the time. Surely that would give you the analysis of whether the margin of error for humans is acceptable & then you demote VAR for other stuff. From what I’ve seen, the linesmen are probably the most competent of the 3 match day officials, and they seem to get a lot of the marginal offsides correct. Which when you consider the actual rule, is pretty impressive.
Will that sort of analysis happen formally? Will it feck… VAR is now part of the show for the TV companies…
Football is being fecked over by far too many vested interests.
Wall to wall football nowadays, only one purpose, TV & betting markets…
|
|
|
Post by blanquiazules on Sept 6, 2022 13:31:52 GMT 1
Excellent post. When VAR enters the EFL I am out for good. Everyone knows its shit but someone is making a lot o money so it stays. As for Town, I genuinely think the ref would have given it on Sunday if the technology didn't exist. That's how stupid it is. You think a ref would give a goal he didn't see, off the back of the scoring team telling him it was a goal?! Hopefully that wouldn't be the case! Loads of decisions are made when the officials don’t have a perfect view but you just have a strong feel based on experience which way to give something. It’s why experienced refs are better than new ones - not because they know the rules any more or have better eyesight. Everything about that situation on Sunday shouted goal - the reactions of both sets of players, the goalkeeper’s position in the net and the trajectory of the ball. But everything the ref did see was over-ruled in his mind by the supposed knowledge that he had an infallible tool that would make the decision for him.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Sept 6, 2022 13:54:22 GMT 1
Eventually a top player at one of the top clubs will be seriously injured and ruled out for a very long time because of VAR... then something might change.
Thinking about the way even if a striker looks obviously offside, the Lino will not put his flag up and play will continue to see if a goal is scored.. just in case VAR shows it was actually on side. Sooner or later the striker is going to get seriously injured in that passage of play as the keeper or defender make last ditch attempts to stop a goal.
If that happens to a Salah or Haaland then something would be done about it.
|
|
|
Post by townarentbest on Sept 6, 2022 13:59:20 GMT 1
Everything about that situation on Sunday shouted goal - the reactions of both sets of players, the goalkeeper’s position in the net and the trajectory of the ball. But everything the ref did see was over-ruled in his mind by the supposed knowledge that he had an infallible tool that would make the decision for him. I get where you're coming from, but I'm not totally convinced. From where I watch at the far end of the stadium, there was zero chance in knowing if a goal has been scored or not - even with Yuta wheeling away celebrating, the goal wasn't supported in the stand around me like an actual goal would be, if anything, it seemed like the initial header was closer to a goal than the follow up which just looked like us just kicking the ball into a keepers midriff for him to push it away. There was some doubt picked up collectively by the crowd...and the referee would have had that same doubt. BUT - as you say, any doubt he had would be cemented by the, "well the watch hasn't told me it was a goal" negative reinforcement. Goal line technology is here to stay. So how about solutions, I have one, which I think (if you're right) would have given us a goal on Sunday, but would also give those goals that the tech picks up that the ref has seen but isn't sure about. Its actually pretty simple. The referees and the lino's on the pitch do the job to the best of their abilities in realtime, WITHOUT the benefit of a buzz on their wrist. Off-field, the 4th official has the connection to the system... If a goal is awarded by the onfield referees, whether the 4th official gets a buzz or not, the goal is awarded. We go with the referee, who has been sure enough in his mind, to award a goal. The 4th official doesn't ever tell him if he was right or wrong (according to the tech). If a goal is buzzed to the 4th official, but the onfield officials didn't pick this up, the 4th official tells the referee to stop play, and award the goal, but ONLY at the next stoppage OR when the ball crosses the halfway line (to avoid problem of scoring a goal at the other end before a decision about an earlier goal has been made - we EASILY could have conceded with half our players running off to celebrate!). If in this second scenario, where a goal has been scored (but not noticed by the ref), a likelihood is that the next stoppage might well be a certain goal anyway (easy to imaging Yuta's 'not saved' shot then being buried more convincingly) - goal is scored, nobody cares that the ref missed the initial goal. And in this second scenario, there's enough gap between the goal going in, and the message getting to the ref, that he doesnt become a slave to that signal to make his decision for him, and gets on with refereeing and deciding goals are goals or not to the best of his and his assistant ref's ability, rather than only making a decision if the technology tells him to make a decision. A similar approach could be to just buzz to the referee with a 10 second or so delay...but the difficulty here is that a stoppage in play could already have happened, and it doesnt seem right to play out a couple of throw-ins and a free kick AND THEN go, "by the way, you scored a bit back, its a goal".
|
|
|
Post by worthington on Sept 6, 2022 15:18:24 GMT 1
The silliest aspect of VAR is referees going to the monitor and watching a replay in slow motion. If the error was clear and obvious it must be clear and obvious in real time, so that is the speed the ref should look at it again, if at all. Football is not played in slow motion. Except at the John Smith's Stadium
|
|
|
Post by Porrohman on Sept 6, 2022 15:25:48 GMT 1
Everything about that situation on Sunday shouted goal - the reactions of both sets of players, the goalkeeper’s position in the net and the trajectory of the ball. But everything the ref did see was over-ruled in his mind by the supposed knowledge that he had an infallible tool that would make the decision for him. I get where you're coming from, but I'm not totally convinced. From where I watch at the far end of the stadium, there was zero chance in knowing if a goal has been scored or not - even with Yuta wheeling away celebrating, the goal wasn't supported in the stand around me like an actual goal would be, if anything, it seemed like the initial header was closer to a goal than the follow up which just looked like us just kicking the ball into a keepers midriff for him to push it away. There was some doubt picked up collectively by the crowd...and the referee would have had that same doubt. BUT - as you say, any doubt he had would be cemented by the, "well the watch hasn't told me it was a goal" negative reinforcement. Goal line technology is here to stay. So how about solutions, I have one, which I think (if you're right) would have given us a goal on Sunday, but would also give those goals that the tech picks up that the ref has seen but isn't sure about. Its actually pretty simple. The referees and the lino's on the pitch do the job to the best of their abilities in realtime, WITHOUT the benefit of a buzz on their wrist. Off-field, the 4th official has the connection to the system... If a goal is awarded by the onfield referees, whether the 4th official gets a buzz or not, the goal is awarded. We go with the referee, who has been sure enough in his mind, to award a goal. The 4th official doesn't ever tell him if he was right or wrong (according to the tech). If a goal is buzzed to the 4th official, but the onfield officials didn't pick this up, the 4th official tells the referee to stop play, and award the goal, but ONLY at the next stoppage OR when the ball crosses the halfway line (to avoid problem of scoring a goal at the other end before a decision about an earlier goal has been made - we EASILY could have conceded with half our players running off to celebrate!). If in this second scenario, where a goal has been scored (but not noticed by the ref), a likelihood is that the next stoppage might well be a certain goal anyway (easy to imaging Yuta's 'not saved' shot then being buried more convincingly) - goal is scored, nobody cares that the ref missed the initial goal. And in this second scenario, there's enough gap between the goal going in, and the message getting to the ref, that he doesnt become a slave to that signal to make his decision for him, and gets on with refereeing and deciding goals are goals or not to the best of his and his assistant ref's ability, rather than only making a decision if the technology tells him to make a decision. A similar approach could be to just buzz to the referee with a 10 second or so delay...but the difficulty here is that a stoppage in play could already have happened, and it doesnt seem right to play out a couple of throw-ins and a free kick AND THEN go, "by the way, you scored a bit back, its a goal". If you were at the far end you're over 100 yards from the incident. The ref was in the box. Everyone around me went up for the goal, I'm about halfway between the centre circle and the North stand goal.
|
|
crux
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 4,058
|
Post by crux on Sept 6, 2022 16:59:40 GMT 1
Eventually a top player at one of the top clubs will be seriously injured and ruled out for a very long time because of VAR... then something might change. Thinking about the way even if a striker looks obviously offside, the Lino will not put his flag up and play will continue to see if a goal is scored.. just in case VAR shows it was actually on side. Sooner or later the striker is going to get seriously injured in that passage of play as the keeper or defender make last ditch attempts to stop a goal. If that happens to a Salah or Haaland then something would be done about it. This season they've been told to put the flag up if the player is central, but still leave it down if they're out wide. Better than before, but still stupid if they're obviously offside.
|
|
|
Post by themanfromatlantis on Sept 6, 2022 16:59:57 GMT 1
Spot the difference quiz, between...
DRS in cricket. VAR in football Video Ref in Rugby
Money, the discipline of the players and coaches, or both?
|
|
|
Post by townarentbest on Sept 6, 2022 17:16:34 GMT 1
Spot the difference quiz, between... DRS in cricket. VAR in football Video Ref in Rugby Money, the discipline of the players and coaches, or both? Is it because, in order of randomness, predictability and flow, it goes... snooker > cricket > tennis > rugby > football. All those other sports have regular 'resets' and are based around moves or plays and natural and frequent stoppages to a greater extent, the more left you go on that scale. Its easier to referee a strict rule based game such as for example chess, than an opinion based sport such as artistic gymnastics. Football is much more freeform and not naturally suited to in play 'post-play review'. Tennis and cricket HawkEye for example, have the advantage that they have lots of clean data to interpolate the ball movement and create a trajectory and cast that forward to relatively quickly and accurately predict where a ball is going to be at a given moment in time within millimetres. You don't get that clean-ness in a football match, someone wants to touch the ball every second, supporters want the game to flow & continue.
|
|
|
Post by themanfromatlantis on Sept 6, 2022 17:25:00 GMT 1
Absolutely it's a different game, but VAR stops the play and is supposed to look at multiple angles isn't it? I also get that it's not naturally suited to in-play reviews, but the premise was that it was for clear & obvious errors. It's being used as a tool by the PL & PGMOL to continue the controversy.
The big difference is the money involved, why would the bastards that run, sorry, control our game, want to see their number 1 position threatened by fair play & sportsmanship?
This is the forum of a Championship club where VAR isn't even in play, yet it's always on the first page of this board in one form or another. I can't imagine what the VAR threads are like on PL boards, it keeps the game top of the tree for the FA & the Premier League...
I'm surprised they have the gall to talk about fair play, the game is bent as a nine bob note, driven from the top down...
|
|
goodbet
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,464
|
Post by goodbet on Sept 6, 2022 19:02:31 GMT 1
Spot the difference quiz, between... DRS in cricket. VAR in football Video Ref in Rugby Money, the discipline of the players and coaches, or both? Is it because, in order of randomness, predictability and flow, it goes... snooker > cricket > tennis > rugby > football. All those other sports have regular 'resets' and are based around moves or plays and natural and frequent stoppages to a greater extent, the more left you go on that scale. Its easier to referee a strict rule based game such as for example chess, than an opinion based sport such as artistic gymnastics. Football is much more freeform and not naturally suited to in play 'post-play review'. Tennis and cricket HawkEye for example, have the advantage that they have lots of clean data to interpolate the ball movement and create a trajectory and cast that forward to relatively quickly and accurately predict where a ball is going to be at a given moment in time within millimetres. You don't get that clean-ness in a football match, someone wants to touch the ball every second, supporters want the game to flow & continue. It is just the bloody FA. Will not copy what Rugby dose because they like secret squirrels and will not open up any information. If they change then VAR has a chance, so no chance of that.
|
|
|
Post by Junior & Onuora on Sept 6, 2022 19:16:00 GMT 1
Spot the difference quiz, between... DRS in cricket. VAR in football Video Ref in Rugby Money, the discipline of the players and coaches, or both? I'm guessing it's because the rugby league video ref is miked up, and in real time we can all hear him say: "That angle isn't the best, can I have an alternative angle? OK. And can I have a third angle. Brilliant, and now back to the first angle. Roll it back and forward from that point. Based on X, I'm going to award the try" Using all the technology and without any of the cloak and daggers. A perfect example of how it should be done. VAR is a farce.
|
|
|
Post by rockwall on Sept 6, 2022 19:17:22 GMT 1
Even the toe nail offside rulings are simply a guess. Theres no definitive accuracy there because its not possible to define the exact micro-second the ball left the foot of the passing player. It will inevitably be a moment in time between frames of the film, and the difference between one frame and the next frame can make a lot of difference when applied to the position of the receiving player. Its just a guess. It should be applied for howlers and nothing but howlers. All replays shown in REAL TIME, not super slow mo. No lines on the pitch.. just eyesight and judgement. And the VAR official given 15 seconds to decide if its a howler. If he needs any longer than that, it isn't a howler so go with the onfield decision, whether it turns out to be right or not once you've spend 10 minutes analysing it. Either use it like that or scrap it... preferably scrap it. End of the day football is worse because of VAR. I still personally think a review rule would be best. Same as cricket. Take away this pressure of going to VAR for anything away from the ref and only go if the captain asks. Get it wrong lose a review. 2 a game for each team.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Sept 6, 2022 20:20:05 GMT 1
Yeah, not a bad shout at all.
|
|
|
Post by themanfromatlantis on Sept 6, 2022 20:48:03 GMT 1
The review option would be ideal - it's the team that are requesting the review, not the officials. Gets them off the hook to some degree, until the muppets in Stockley Park get it wrong of course.
Problem is they don't want it to become a B&W thing, far too boring, less controversy for them. The teams would probably find a way to cheat if they were limited to reviews anyway.
After this season you would think they've now gathered enough data from the various leagues to do something about VAR though.
I thought this was going to clear a few things up when they brought it in, but I'm coming round to the way of thinking that they purposely administer it badly, so it becomes pointless for the supporters.
|
|
|
Post by overtonterrierspirit on Sept 6, 2022 21:47:25 GMT 1
Even the toe nail offside rulings are simply a guess. Theres no definitive accuracy there because its not possible to define the exact micro-second the ball left the foot of the passing player. It will inevitably be a moment in time between frames of the film, and the difference between one frame and the next frame can make a lot of difference when applied to the position of the receiving player. Its just a guess. It should be applied for howlers and nothing but howlers. All replays shown in REAL TIME, not super slow mo. No lines on the pitch.. just eyesight and judgement. And the VAR official given 15 seconds to decide if its a howler. If he needs any longer than that, it isn't a howler so go with the onfield decision, whether it turns out to be right or not once you've spend 10 minutes analysing it. Either use it like that or scrap it... preferably scrap it. End of the day football is worse because of VAR. I still personally think a review rule would be best. Same as cricket. Take away this pressure of going to VAR for anything away from the ref and only go if the captain asks. Get it wrong lose a review. 2 a game for each team. Great shout. Different sport of course but it works like a dream in cricket. It’s become an enjoyable feature for a Test Match crowd.
|
|
|
Post by 28901 on Sept 6, 2022 22:47:29 GMT 1
I still personally think a review rule would be best. Same as cricket. Take away this pressure of going to VAR for anything away from the ref and only go if the captain asks. Get it wrong lose a review. 2 a game for each team. Great shout. Different sport of course but it works like a dream in cricket. It’s become an enjoyable feature for a Test Match crowd. I agree its actually quite exciting. It just doesn't work in football. Its too 'in the moment'.
|
|
|
Post by joeyjoneslocker on Aug 10, 2023 8:43:55 GMT 1
If this was how it was run, for everyone to hear, then I don’t think it would get as much hate.
|
|
|
Post by Mastercracker on Aug 10, 2023 8:47:37 GMT 1
If this was how it was run, for everyone to hear, then I don’t think it would get as much hate. Exactly how it should pan out, both on TV and over the tannoy in the ground. Along with Refs having to speak to the media rather than be protected and live in a bunker. They are highly paid professionals.
|
|
|
Post by detox on Aug 10, 2023 10:38:39 GMT 1
That goal line decision for Sweden v USA in womens world cup proves the value of the technology...when you think of the men's goal v Germany many years ago which was what, 2 yards over the line...not given. In fact, anything that takes decisions away from useless refs must be a good thing?
|
|
goodbet
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,464
|
Post by goodbet on Aug 10, 2023 11:06:20 GMT 1
That goal line decision for Sweden v USA in womens world cup proves the value of the technology...when you think of the men's goal v Germany many years ago which was what, 2 yards over the line...not given. In fact, anything that takes decisions away from useless refs must be a good thing? you made a good point, but VAR just transfers the decision to other referees who operate in secrecy and are even less accountable.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 23,613
|
Post by Tinpot on Aug 10, 2023 12:12:51 GMT 1
That goal line decision for Sweden v USA in womens world cup proves the value of the technology...when you think of the men's goal v Germany many years ago which was what, 2 yards over the line...not given. In fact, anything that takes decisions away from useless refs must be a good thing? you made a good point, but VAR just transfers the decision to other referees who operate in secrecy and are even less accountable. Hence more opprobrium aimed at Jon Moss, whilst Paul Tierney barely gets mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Million Dollar Babies on Aug 10, 2023 12:24:50 GMT 1
If this was how it was run, for everyone to hear, then I don’t think it would get as much hate. Exactly how it should pan out, both on TV and over the tannoy in the ground. Along with Refs having to speak to the media rather than be protected and live in a bunker. They are highly paid professionals. That was far too drama free for Howard Webb and Sky Sports. They need to fuck up on purpose to keep the interest and discussion going
|
|