Sorry to bang on about this, but you've introduced the word "reliability" where it doesn't exist! It actually says:-
"The operation of semi-automated offside technology does not change the accuracy of the decision making but enhances the speed, efficiency and consistency of the process."
By the instructions that they had been given, I think the officials probably made the right decision.
I think what you describe would be preferable to what we have now, but I am anti tech in football generally; it is a human game, and I can accept errors from officials. When the same officials repeatedly make very obviously terrible decisions, then it's clear that official is not up to the job, in the same way that a goalie who lets in a series of weak shots is not up to the job.
Sometimes you get crap decisions in the same way that you get crap shots or crap tactics. It's part of football.
Sorry to bang on about this, but you've introduced the word "reliability" where it doesn't exist! It actually says:-
"The operation of semi-automated offside technology does not change the accuracy of the decision making but enhances the speed, efficiency and consistency of the process."
Apologies, baby brain. ‘Consistency’ being in there means that manual VAR wasn’t consistently applied, and it can’t have been, with humans drawing lines themselves on poorer quality images and slower frame rate replays.
Yeah, and if we could It'd be nice to go back to the days when decisions could never be proven one way or another, so people could argue pointlessly about them forever if they wanted.
The problem is that now we have multiple cameras and technology capable of definitively proving whether the officials have made a mistake. Ignoring it and accepting errors isn't really sustainable.
The real problem is that they need to massively speed VAR up. Maybe that's a solution - if VAR can't confidently overturn an on-field decision within (say) 5 seconds they should shut up and keep out of it. Now that would have given us Torp's goal alright
If you have to bring it down to studying millimetres between imaginary lines on the ground, then the things that you are looking for don't matter. No advantage has been gained. Football is worse for doing this..
Exactly. In Rugby, their question to the TMO will be something like 'is that an obvious fwd pass?' and they'll check for a few seconds, give a Y or N and crack on. Football cannot apply laws competently with authority and it's pathetic. We've got refs checking ball placement at corners at the CBS! Literally proving they're influenced by a crowd. It's beyond a joke at this point.
Exactly. In Rugby, their question to the TMO will be something like 'is that an obvious fwd pass?' and they'll check for a few seconds, give a Y or N and crack on. Football cannot apply laws competently with authority and it's pathetic. We've got refs checking ball placement at corners at the CBS! Literally proving they're influenced by a crowd. It's beyond a joke at this point.