Instead of your usual 90 mins of watching 11 men do **** all?
edit: ok, they pick the ball out of the net a few times.
Match Day Thread General matchday thread.
- Thread starter Libby
- 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
-
edit: ok, they pick the ball out of the net a few times.
I tend to go for a piss or to get a beer when all that **** goes on.
Soft is soft
Bent af is bent af
Soft is darwizzy jumping in between ball and opposition player and getting a oen
bent af is odegarrd slapping the ball down with his hand in the box and var says no pen
or doku fly kicking your player la chest in the box and not getting a pen
Both last examples funnily enough were great helps to city’s 4th bent af title win
Last edited:
We might see one or two players run once or twice tbf. Until we concede at least.
mainly watch Everton so my bar for game of the season is low.
Was an old school game, Everton scrapped and put in loads of effort. Liverpool scrapped when needed and their quality when levels dropped for us stood out.
Shows how far we are behind.
Fundamentally flawed argument. Humans write the rules as it's a human sport. But keep humans away from implementing them as that is going to lead to inaccuracy and error. I'm currently testing AI marking software for English A-level coursework exam papers. That really is very subjective. Far more so than the rules of football. But the AI is simply trained to make sound judgment. And the error rates from it doing marking are significantly (massively) lower than asking a trained human examiner to do the same thing. And this is published data. A team of hundred examiners gives X amount of variation of what the agreed score is, and these scores are then measured against what the chief examiner's score would be. The AI then has a go. Repeat this for hundreds of scripts. The AI assesses instantly and with massively lower variation and error than the humans can, and that's with a human spending up to an hour anaylsing the script. This is happening right now. AI is more accurate and reliable at subjective judgement than humans are. That's not a debate.
So the 'subjective' argument holds no weight. AI already consistently makes more accurate decisions, in a far quicker time than humans ever will. You just have to train the AI to do it. Companies are already doing it with straightforward things like written text. Video analysis will be here soon. We just need a governing body of football willing to get it right.
If for every single subjective decision on the pitch, you got an instant response and a detailed paragraph explaining why that was the decision made, that would do away with any of the nonsense we have right now with PGMOL and referees always in the spotlight for being ****.
See reply above. Subjectivity is not an argument to knock AI with. Never has been.
You're overthinking it, pretty much everyone on here disagrees with you, posting overlong reasons as to why you are right isn't going to change that.
I couldn't care less if people agree with me. Random internet forum posters' opinions on AI has no impact or correlation with what AI is actually capable of.
Stop giving opinions on a football forum that is about discussing opinions about football?
We can debate whether tech should be incorporated. You can’t debate what it’s capable of though, that’s just fact.
I just don’t see justifiable reasons for not wanting good AI tech in the game if it removes delays for viewers in and out the stadium, and gets less decisions wrong.
That's a lot of waffle to ignore the fact that decision making is opinion based and therefore people are still going to disagree with many decisions. You think just because it's instant and an explanation is thrown up that people will go "oh okay, fair enough"? They won't.
You say inaccuracy and error as if these are things which can be measured infallibly and are either right or wrong. There's very few consensus penalties and red cards and people are split on the majority.
Your argument basically seems to be cos it's instant people won't care if they're wronged and won't feel hard done by which is fantasy world.
Know what else is instant btw? A ref blowing his whistle without some nonce 70 miles away watching it again dozens of times while stroking themselves to a picture of Mark Clattenberg.
You seem to think that whoever programs this AI won't include their biases too. Deluded.
I also work with AI on a day to day basis btw.
But ultimately, why would you choose instant and more wrong, over instant and less wrong?
Just pick something else to be wrong about and move on.