Off Topic IS VIDEO ASSISTANT REFEREE WORKING?

[jenners04]

When I said nonexistent I meant in the form that we know it ...... obviously. Anywhere in the world where there are two kids and a stone on the ground, they're going to be playing football. The game itself will never cease to exist.

Competitive football (which is what I was talking about) has always needed fans in order to firstly keep the game alive and secondly grow the game. Ironically, with all the sponsorship money and tv money, the gate receipts aren't as important as they once were. A study was done on it recently and it was found that some clubs (Everton was one cited) could get by without any fans turning up at all, so heavily is their reliance on tv money.

yet the greedy ****s wont lower the gate fees to get the fans in!!

go back to the old system of queuing for tickets, then see how committed everyone is (see empty seats all time from supposed season ticket holders!!) , also gives everyone a fair chance to actually see the club they love and follow as be dif fans every weak probably!!

 

[johnsonsbaby]

yet the greedy ****s wont lower the gate fees to get the fans in!!

go back to the old system of queuing for tickets, then see how committed everyone is (see empty seats all time from supposed season ticket holders!!) , also gives everyone a fair chance to actually see the club they love and follow as be dif fans every weak probably!!

Just from our point of view, our ground is full every week. We don't actually have as many ST holders as some clubs so there are more tickets on general sale. First come, first served I suppose. My niece has recently started going to the home games and she manages to get a ticket most if not every game.

But I agree with you about greedy owners. Our owners seem quite decent but even they tried to hike up the prices until the fan protest.

 

[LuisDiazgamechanger]

Premier League chief says VAR will cause controversy next season
The Premier League accepts there will be controversies over the use of VAR next season.
The competition will start using video technology from the beginning of the 2019-20 campaign next month having delayed its introduction for a year.
There have been problems with the system in other competitions and the people behind its use in the English top flight recognise there will be challenges.

 

[Tobes]

yet the greedy ****s wont lower the gate fees to get the fans in!!

go back to the old system of queuing for tickets, then see how committed everyone is (see empty seats all time from supposed season ticket holders!!) , also gives everyone a fair chance to actually see the club they love and follow as be dif fans every weak probably!!

We sell out every week, and have a waiting list for season tickets. We’ve kept ticket prices on hold for years now.

So I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[jenners04]

We sell out every week, and have a waiting list for season tickets. We’ve kept ticket prices on hold for years now.

So I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

you paranoid cock that was a general comment to all clubs.

considering they don't need the gate receipt money they could make it cheaper and more attainable for most to attend games, also by queuing gives everyone a far chance to go as not everyone will want to queue every week for match tickets.

 

[Tobes]

you paranoid cock that was a general comment to all clubs.

considering they don't need the gate receipt money they could make it cheaper and more attainable for most to attend games, also by queuing gives everyone a far chance to go as not everyone will want to queue every week for match tickets.

You highlighted a quote that specifically cited Everton.

People ‘queue’ on line for tickets, the idea of thousands turning up to games ticketless and queuing at box offices is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[jenners04]

You highlighted a quote that specifically cited Everton.

People ‘queue’ on line for tickets, the idea of thousands turning up to games ticketless and queuing at box offices is absolutely ridiculous.

**** me you have an agenda when you come on here don't you!

i'm done boring!!

 

[Tobes]

**** me you have an agenda when you come on here don't you!

i'm done boring!!

What?

What you were proposing was plainly ludicrous in terms of turning up ticketless. Sorry for pointing that out.

 

[Libby]

you paranoid cock that was a general comment to all clubs.

considering they don't need the gate receipt money they could make it cheaper and more attainable for most to attend games, also by queuing gives everyone a far chance to go as not everyone will want to queue every week for match tickets.

Means exiled fans would never get a ticket though.

 

[johnsonsbaby]

you paranoid cock that was a general comment to all clubs.

considering they don't need the gate receipt money they could make it cheaper and more attainable for most to attend games, also by queuing gives everyone a far chance to go as not everyone will want to queue every week for match tickets.

It works at Wimbledon. Set your tent up overnight and a nice steward comes and wakes you up at 6 am to get your number in the queue

 

[Superfirmino]

VAR does work, we saw his successful it was during the Nations League and it got every decision 100% spot on. Football needs Video Referees as we 've seen how successful rugby is. Rugby has been using it for years.

 

[Libby]

VAR does work, we saw his successful it was during the Nations League and it got every decision 100% spot on. Football needs Video Referees as we 've seen how successful rugby is. Rugby has been using it for years.

It's completely incomparable to rugby so is a bit silly to attempt to. I would also argue that it hasn't been a success, instead it's been absolutely awful by slowing the game down, sucking all of the emotion out of it and still not really solving anything.

It will completely ruin the game as a live spectacle and will only get worse and be used more and more, while simpletons hide behind a 90+ % rate and claim a success, completely ignoring other factors.


RIP live football

 

[Superfirmino]

It's completely incomparable to rugby so is a bit silly to attempt to. I would also argue that it hasn't been a success, instead it's been absolutely awful by slowing the game down, sucking all of the emotion out of it and still not really solving anything.

It will completely ruin the game as a live spectacle and will only get worse and be used more and more, while simpletons hide behind a 90+ % rate and claim a success, completely ignoring other factors.


RIP live football

In Rugby the video ref spots decisions that the naked eye cannot capture. It rewinds minute to minute events. Referees do need assistance due to the game becoming so fast. Referees are only human and need help, and with a video ref will make less mistakes.

It works perfectly well for rugby where they can see things the naked eye cannot. 99.99% the video ref decision are correct. Yes it needs tweaking because it's a bit on the slow side but it has been deemed successful.

 

[Zanjinho]

VAR does work, we saw his successful it was during the Nations League and it got every decision 100% spot on. Football needs Video Referees as we 've seen how successful rugby is. Rugby has been using it for years.

Read the thread mate. Most accept that VAR see's the correct decisions implemented (most of the time), the debate is more about the impact it as on the game; particularly the massive delays whilst they make a black or white decision!

 

[Libby]

In Rugby the video ref spots decisions that the naked eye cannot capture. It rewinds minute to minute events. Referees do need assistance due to the game becoming so fast. Referees are only human and need help, and with a video ref will make less mistakes.

It works perfectly well for rugby where they can see things the naked eye cannot. 99.99% the video ref decision are correct. Yes it needs tweaking because it's a bit on the slow side but it has been deemed successful.

Again, you can't compare football to rugby. Generally in rugby it's being used in black and white decisions, an absolute. A lot of decisions in football are subjective and the game is a lot more flowing with less natural breaks in play.

It will be used more and more as refs will be scared to ever make a big decision and it won't stop cheating, infact it will encourage it as players will know if they get 'contact' then when a ref watches it in super slow mo, frame by frame, that there's a decent chance they will get a penalty it. Non contact sport in the box incoming.

I would also completely disagree that it's been deemed successful, it's been absolutely farcical at points and there's been plenty of occasions where the wrong decision has still been reached.

I've never said it won't get more decisions right btw, just that it will completely change (ruin) the game and I don't think it's worth all the other **** that comes with it. Might just about be bearable on the box but it's awful at the match sucking all the atmosphere out. You can't even really celebrate goals anymore.

 

[Superfirmino]

Again, you can't compare football to rugby. Generally in rugby it's being used in black and white decisions, an absolute. A lot of decisions in football are subjective and the game is a lot more flowing with less natural breaks in play.

It will be used more and more as refs will be scared to ever make a big decision and it won't stop cheating, infact it will encourage it as players will know if they get 'contact' then when a ref watches it in super slow mo, frame by frame, that there's a decent chance they will get a penalty it. Non contact sport in the box incoming.

I would also completely disagree that it's been deemed successful, it's been absolutely farcical at points and there's been plenty of occasions where the wrong decision has still been reached.

I've never said it won't get more decisions right btw, just that it will completely change (ruin) the game and I don't think it's worth all the other **** that comes with it. Might just about be bearable on the box but it's awful at the match sucking all the atmosphere out. You can't even really celebrate goals anymore.

Rugby is not based on 'black and white decisions ', far from it. That's why the naked eye cannot actually determine tries on some occasions. They need the video referee. The same thing regarding offsides. Some are too close to call, I've seen some that looked offside but on the second look weren't offside. The same applies vice versa.

The only reason VAR has been farcical is because it's slow, but that does not take away from it's success rate. The last number of VAR decisions I've seen were correct decisions. What do we want instead, continued guesswork because it's 'more entertaining' ? We want consistency in decisions and you'll get consistency with video refs.

 

[Libby]

Rugby is not based on 'black and white decisions ', far from it. That's why the naked eye cannot actually determine tries on some occasions. They need the video referee. The same thing regarding offsides. Some are too close to call, I've seen some that looked offside but on the second look weren't offside. The same applies vice versa.

The only reason VAR has been farcical is because it's slow, but that does not take away from it's success rate. The last number of VAR decisions I've seen were correct decisions. What do we want instead, continued guesswork because it's 'more entertaining' ? We want consistency in decisions and you'll get consistency with video refs.

'Rugby is not based on 'black and white decisions ', far from it.'

I didn't say based on I said that decisions referred for review in rugby are normally yes/no decisions, where did the ball land? Did player drop it before scoring try etc. Bit like goal line tech, it's an absolute. Compared to a lot of penalties, handballs and some offsides etc. which are all subjective and down to the perception of the individual.

'The only reason VAR has been farcical is because it's slow'

Nonsense, as I've mentioned it's sucked the emotion and atmosphere out of games meaning you can't celebrate goals anymore. We've also had squiggly lines as well as completely wrong decisions so it's not just the time at all.


'We want consistency in decisions and you'll get consistency with video refs'


Jesus wept, would you like to buy some magic beans?

 

[Superfirmino]

'Rugby is not based on 'black and white decisions ', far from it.'

I didn't say based on I said that decisions referred for review in rugby are normally yes/no decisions, where did the ball land? Did player drop it before scoring try etc. Bit like goal line tech, it's an absolute. Compared to a lot of penalties, handballs and some offsides etc. which are all subjective and down to the perception of the individual.

'The only reason VAR has been farcical is because it's slow'

Nonsense, as I've mentioned it's sucked the emotion and atmosphere out of games meaning you can't celebrate goals anymore. We've also had squiggly lines as well as completely wrong decisions so it's not just the time at all.


'We want consistency in decisions and you'll get consistency with video refs'


Jesus wept, would you like to buy some magic beans?

So what's your solution? Guess-work and Alex Ferguson handing out brown envelopes and vaseline to officials?

 

[Muppetfinder General]

Compared to a lot of penalties, handballs and some offsides etc. which are all subjective and down to the perception of the individual.

You're comparing black and white decisions in rugby against what you say are subjective decisions in football, then claiming some kind of objective logic from it. Whether a hand is on a ball in a try - still sometimes a subjective decision if the camera angles aren't entirely clear - can't be compared to the rule for a handball in football. That's a false equivalence. Handball isn't handball just because it hits an arm, there are variants, which is the fault of the rule leaving it subjective, not the fault of the decision maker. And offside is offside. You can't get more B&W. If there's ever any doubt, it's the same doubt about whether a hand was on a ball in a try: down to camera visibility.

Bit like goal line tech, it's an absolute.

Yeah but remember the emotion and atmosphere when Lampard's goal against Germany didn't count? Goal line tech really sucked all that away.

it's sucked the emotion and atmosphere out of games meaning you can't celebrate goals anymore. We've also had squiggly lines as well as completely wrong decisions so it's not just the time at all.

Can't celebrate goals? Bollocks. You can't celebrate goals that weren't actually goals but when VAR decided it was a goal or even a pen, there was a **** of a lot of celebrating going on. The emotion and atmosphere got ramped right up. Some said the Yank women shouldn't have celebrated after goal 5 or 6 against Thailand because it was rude! Football, P.G. Wodehouse style. I don't know what squiggly lines you're on about but why don't you just assign them to your beloved emotion and atmosphere?

Jesus wept, would you like to buy some magic beans?

I'd like to buy you some logic. I don't know what these "completely wrong decisions" were you've determined, via the magic of slo-mo replays the referees could also see. There may have made a subjective decision you disagreed with but that doesn't make you magically right. There will always be some subjective decisions the ref has to make, just as they had to do before - say it quietly in awe: with emotion and atmosphere - and pundits will continue to bitch and whine about VAR decisions exactly as they did about ref decisions pre-VAR for your emotional entertainment. But there will never be another Thierry Henry stopping Ireland going to the World Cup, an emotion the Irish would've happily shoved somewhere that'd make you emotional. We'll also never have to live with a Peter Shilton and Terry Butcher being unable to let go of the Hand of God. That's magic.

 

[Libby]

Compared to a lot of penalties, handballs and some offsides etc. which are all subjective and down to the perception of the individual.

You're comparing black and white decisions in rugby against what you say are subjective decisions in football, then claiming some kind of objective logic from it. Whether a hand is on a ball in a try - still sometimes a subjective decision if the camera angles aren't entirely clear - can't be compared to the rule for a handball in football. That's a false equivalence. Handball isn't handball just because it hits an arm, there are variants, which is the fault of the rule leaving it subjective, not the fault of the decision maker. And offside is offside. You can't get more B&W. If there's ever any doubt, it's the same doubt about whether a hand was on a ball in a try: down to camera visibility.

Bit like goal line tech, it's an absolute.

Yeah but remember the emotion and atmosphere when Lampard's goal against Germany didn't count? Goal line tech really sucked all that away.

it's sucked the emotion and atmosphere out of games meaning you can't celebrate goals anymore. We've also had squiggly lines as well as completely wrong decisions so it's not just the time at all.

Can't celebrate goals? Bollocks. You can't celebrate goals that weren't actually goals but when VAR decided it was a goal or even a pen, there was a **** of a lot of celebrating going on. The emotion and atmosphere got ramped right up. Some said the Yank women shouldn't have celebrated after goal 5 or 6 against Thailand because it was rude! Football, P.G. Wodehouse style. I don't know what squiggly lines you're on about but why don't you just assign them to your beloved emotion and atmosphere?

Jesus wept, would you like to buy some magic beans?

I'd like to buy you some logic. I don't know what these "completely wrong decisions" were you've determined, via the magic of slo-mo replays the referees could also see. There may have made a subjective decision you disagreed with but that doesn't make you magically right. There will always be some subjective decisions the ref has to make, just as they had to do before - say it quietly in awe: with emotion and atmosphere - and pundits will continue to bitch and whine about VAR decisions exactly as they did about ref decisions pre-VAR for your emotional entertainment. But there will never be another Thierry Henry stopping Ireland going to the World Cup, an emotion the Irish would've happily shoved somewhere that'd make you emotional. We'll also never have to live with a Peter Shilton and Terry Butcher being unable to let go of the Hand of God. That's magic.

First point, yes it's down to the laws, so you agree it's not really viable with the laws of football then?

Not sure your point regarding Lamps 'goal'. I was all for GLT, no subjectivity and an instant decision that doesn't impact on the flow of the game.

You say bollocks, how many var matches have you attended? They review every goal so you have to sit around for 90 seconds plus staring at 22 men doing nothing while 5 officials micro manage the incident. By the time it's been awarded it's not the same, it kills all the emotion.

Squiggly line was me providing an example of var being farcical that wasn't related to the time taken - referring to this:

You must log in or register to see images

I've no problem with my logic, and I'm glad you mentioned Thierry Henry, as the var advocates will tell us this is the essential reason for implementing it.

The thing is though, how many types of those incidents do you see a year? A handful maybe. The issue is it's not going to be limited to that, it will be used more and more to micro-manage decisions which often doesn't give a true picture.

I've said nothing about arguing about decisions being part of my emotional entertainment, I'm talking about the atmosphere inside grounds and the general spectacle of watching a live match which will be changed beyond recognition.

But seeing as you agree that there'll still be arguments, then it follows that it doesn't really solve anything while damaging the game, so what's the point?