Voice_of_Reason
Well-Known Member
Such borderline decisions that can judge a player offside by half an inch is ridiculous.
Completely with you. Don't scrap it. Just ditch the microscope, slide rule stuff.Such borderline decisions that can judge a player offside by half an inch is ridiculous.
Yeah should be daylight between the two lines at least.Or at the very least, give the advantage of uncertainty to the attacker. Football is about celebrating goals, not robbing people of that.
Didn't spot that.In the lead up to the chance that led to the McGuire corner, was Dalot off side? He looked well off.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Think he’s played on in the middleDidn't spot that.
I disagree.The overhaul is very straightforward - haul it all into the Thames and be done with it.
Just look at the Premier League thread on this forum - just endless moaning about why VAR was used for this, but not for that. Once the toys are out of the box, you will always have people whinging that it needs to be used for everything, else it’s not fair - and so it’s turned out to be. It’s time to put the toys away.
They’re used to it - they trust the techWatched the BBC highlights last night and surprised none of the pundits really questioned it. Apparently not on the live coverage either ? At very best it was highly marginal
How is that cOnSiStENT though? What happens when one ref wants to draw a line where another one wouldn’t bother?If it needs a line drawn to see if someone is offside, then simply don't draw the line and go with the referee's decision.
But the Lino may give a different decision if that’s the caseCricket works well when the marginal decisions given not out by the umpire are never over-ruled but left as umpire's call to reflect a margin of error. Yesterday was a true umpire's call as it wasn't given on-field
The huge question mark is when it leaves his footThe more I look at it the more he's onside, the ball hadn't been released and the line over the players foot, something wrong there, how can someone not even there on a laptop decide that, feel totally cheated
In what universe should this ever be a “huge question” in a game as gloriously bonkers as the one we saw yesterday?The huge question mark is when it leaves his foot
Think that's the point, if you can't tell by naked eye it's not clear & obvious.How is that cOnSiStENT though? What happens when one ref wants to draw a line where another one wouldn’t bother?
But if that’s the rule maybe the link flags but I agree totallyThink that's the point, if you can't tell by naked eye it's not clear & obvious.
If you think that all referees are going to agree on what they’re able to decide with their naked eye then I have some extremely bad news for you about human errorThink that's the point, if you can't tell by naked eye it's not clear & obvious.
But common sense tells you, you can look at an image and see that two objects are close to each other and would need a much longer and closer look to see which is ahead of which.How is that cOnSiStENT though? What happens when one ref wants to draw a line where another one wouldn’t bother?
Exactly.Think that's the point, if you can't tell by naked eye it's not clear & obvious.
They should pull out the microscope and look at the fact most referees are duped time and time again by diving cheating players, getting away scot-free, why can't VAR intervene during an incident and get the ref to yellow card the cheats after the event, its poisoning the game and is corrupt, players cannot gamble so why are they allowed to cheat !!Completely with you. Don't scrap it. Just ditch the microscope, slide rule stuff.
They should have taken one look at that yesterday and said that's too close to call and there is no obvious error.
Use it for stuff like ......
was the tackle made inside or outside the penalty area, for pens (again, if too close to call, go with the ref's on-field decision)
If a player was clearly in his own half for a through ball when a goal is scored and an offside decision has been given.
For stuff that's missed. I.e. an off the ball elbow or punch etc.
To check if the keeper has one foot still on the line for penalties. Again, if it's not instantly clear that his foot isn't on the line, go with the on-field.
I think it needs refining re bad tackles too. They so very often look much worse in slo-mo
Basically, just use a common sense approach. None of this "pull out the microscope" nonsense.
Of course managers would sometimes complain, but it would be fairer. As has been said, the technology isn't good enough to make these microscopic decisions.
Use it for the above and then along with goal line technology, it will be a much better spectacle to watch.
I get what you are saying, but let me put this to you. Did anyone, anyone at all, upon seeing that yesterday, believe that was obviously offside? Fans, managers, pundits?If you think that all referees are going to agree on what they’re able to decide with their naked eye then I have some extremely bad news for you about human error
But none of these decisions are actually “pretty obvious”, or “common sense”, or “very simple really”, are they? They’re complex and incredibly fast decisions being made in real time by humans, that are impossible to decide without someone disagreeing and getting upset. Even with slomo, replays, 3D mapping, whatever you want to use - reasonable people will disagree when it’s actual people making the decisions.But common sense tells you, you can look at an image and see that two objects are close to each other and would need a much longer and closer look to see which is ahead of which.
It's very simple really. Give them 10, 15, 20 seconds to look at it, max .
Instantly yesterday, you could see that needed a line to see if he was offside or not. If you need the line, don't draw the line.
Pretty obvious when you need to draw a line or not isn't it.
If it looks really close, stick with the referee's decision.
we can at least expect the person operating the system to draw the lines properlyBut none of these decisions are actually “pretty obvious”, or “common sense”, or “very simple really”, are they? They’re complex and incredibly fast decisions being made in real time by humans, that are impossible to decide without someone disagreeing and getting upset. Even with slomo, replays, 3D mapping, whatever you want to use - reasonable people will disagree when it’s actual people making the decisions.
You claim that technology can actually take away all the uncertainty and the nuance - you’re really just asking someone else to make the same human, flawed decision in front of their computer instead of on the pitch. You’re just outsourcing people’s inevitable anger at decisions to people further and further away from the game itself, slowing the game down more and more, changing the rules bit by bit. Are you happy with the results?
That decision yesterday was pretty obvious.But none of these decisions are actually “pretty obvious”, or “common sense”, or “very simple really”, are they? They’re complex and incredibly fast decisions being made in real time by humans, that are impossible to decide without someone disagreeing and getting upset. Even with slomo, replays, 3D mapping, whatever you want to use - reasonable people will disagree when it’s actual people making the decisions.
You claim that technology can actually take away all the uncertainty and the nuance - you’re really just asking someone else to make the same human, flawed decision in front of their computer instead of on the pitch. You’re just outsourcing people’s inevitable anger at decisions to people further and further away from the game itself, slowing the game down more and more, changing the rules bit by bit. Are you happy with the results?
I actually have an even more foolproof idea for avoiding VAR mistakes…we can at least expect the person operating the system to draw the lines properly
Oooh, don't keep us on tenterhooksI actually have an even more foolproof idea for avoiding VAR mistakes…
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?