True. But there is nothing wrong with the technology. A computer or screen didn't decide Vini Junior was outside the box or that Robbo was interfering with play
Match Day Thread Old match threads
- Thread starter HugoEkitikeN01
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
True. But there is nothing wrong with the technology. A computer or screen didn't decide Vini Junior was outside the box or that Robbo was interfering with play
I think JB's point is that the system comprises of both the technology and the people using it, and as such it is a failure.
Imo it was always doomed, because it was talked up as being able to eradicate mistakes and injustices, and that just couldn't happen, and never will - even if it becomes more automated. A machine can detect contact but it can't judge if that contact is sufficient to make a player go down.
I said from the start that I was against VAR because it would never be able to live up to its sales pitch, and was just going to slow everything down and take the immediacy out of the game.
I'd still vote for scrapping it, given the opportunity.
No problem it's just the way you are, doesn't mean I'm not going to say it. That's just the way I am.
I understand he meant both. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with the actual technology. Grouping then together just allows the 'humans' to hide
I agree the entire thing is broken at present, but it's only the human aspext that needs to change
We both agree that it's the human aspect that is the problem.
As with all technology, if just one component fails, the whole thing fails. If you remove the part that's failing in the VAR system, the human, then you have no system, so no matter how state of the art a system is, it's useless if it can't be worked properly. You have to 'group them together' because the technology relies on the person using it in order for it to be any use at all.
I think we're essentially saying the same thing, we're just looking at it differently.
VAR could probably be made to work if all of the PGMOL were rounded up and shoved off Beachy Head, with Oliver being the first over the edge. I certainly think we have nothing to lose in trying this. Or maybe we should have some Incan sacrifice rituals performed on a pyramid outside Stockley Park. It's worth a go. 
My view is that VAR cannot "work" as often see incidents differently on this board and we support the same team in fact in some cases there is no definitive right answer imoVAR could probably be made to work if all of the PGMOL were rounded up and shoved off Beachy Head, with Oliver being the first over the edge. I certainly think we have nothing to lose in trying this. Or maybe we should have some Incan sacrifice rituals performed on a pyramid outside Stockley Park. It's worth a go.
Yes, but if you'll forgive the facetious nature of my post that you quoted, tbf, that's because we all see the game subjectively. I accept that many refereeing decisions are by nature subjective, but consistency is the key. But if you're saying things can not work because of subjective differences, then even every park referee is ****ed, never mind VAR.
Look, what it all boils down to in this one instance is this - the lino made a call from an angle where he had no way of judging the goalie's line of sight. Oliver agreed it was right because Robbo was 'close' to him, though he made no effort to judge the keeper's view, nor whether Robbo was actually impeding the goalie's dive (he wasn't). He just took the easy option and rubber-stamped the on-field subjective call because the player was 'close' to the goalie. Well, if that's the standard (endorsed, of course, by Howard Webb now and the PGMOL [as they always do in Oliver calls]) then there is absolutely no purpose of VAR at all except in 'objective' calls, but, given the call against Brentford for a pen by Virgil, and Bobby's 'Armpit' goal some seasons ago, even those are subjective in that it relies upon the VAR operator judging when the cross - in this instance from Robbo - is actually played, and when the contact by Virgil close to the line specifically happened, not when the attacker's foot still carried onto after the initial touch.
I would get rid of VAR purely on the basis of it taking the joy out of scoring goals. How many times do we see subdued / delayed celebrations from the fear of a VAR review that can take an age. It's awful.
We both agree that it's the human aspect that is the problem.
As with all technology, if just one component fails, the whole thing fails. If you remove the part that's failing in the VAR system, the human, then you have no system, so no matter how state of the art a system is, it's useless if it can't be worked properly. You have to 'group them together' because the technology relies on the person using it in order for it to be any use at all.
I think we're essentially saying the same thing, we're just looking at it differently.
I've not read the entire conversation (shock, horror
) but I think there are two conversations; some want rid of VAR, others (maybe just me) would like to see competent individuals operating the perfectly adequate technology available.VAR can work, and it is extremely easy to fix. But, imo, they're trying to hard to make it perfect and infallible - an impossible task that makes the entire process time consuming and worse.
What ever happened to 'clear and obvious error'...?
- The Man City penalty wasn't a clear and obvious error by the on field ref, so leave it be.
- The handball by Vini was a clear and obvious error, so intervene
(Two perfectly good good examples of human incompetence there too btw)
never wanted it never will in present form .
Only way it would be acceptable would be to do a very quick view for blatant offsides and i mean properly blatant
Oh, and calling the ref over to review a decision needs to stop. They only call them to look at the screen if they feel a mistake as been made. The referee almost always goes with VAR; why wouldn't he? The VAR team clearly think he's made a mistake, hence calling him to take a look. What's the point?
To me this is nothing more than as humiliation process. Its like being at school and everyone gathering round to chant "you ****ed up, you ****ed up" at the ref. Just changed the decision FFS (if it's clear and obvious)
To me this is nothing more than as humiliation process. Its like being at school and everyone gathering round to chant "you ****ed up, you ****ed up" at the ref. Just changed the decision FFS (if it's clear and obvious)
i've seen more than one where the ref clearly thought the decision was right but still ended up reversing his decision though one was funny as it was so obvious the ref wanted to stick with original decision .
I remember Marriner when it first came in being asked to go to the screen to review a penalty decision against us at Fulham (or maybe Brighton). He reviewed it and stuck to his original decision of a corner. Can't remember another one, and that's what I find disappointing, and was at the centre of that Bothyrod question to Gallagher that I referred to on Monday: there is an inference that you cannot ask the ref to review a decision unless you are 100% clear that the on-field officials ahve got it wrong, and if they stick to their decision it means that you on VAR are an idiot who is just holding up the game. That's not how it works in rugby.
seen a couple who have stuck by their decision but it is incredibly rare .
The clear and obvious stuff is just bollox or else it wouldn't take sooooooooo long
When they claim that's how they work, yes, it's bollox.
However, that's how it SHOULD work. They're just not doing it