Match Day Thread World Cup Watch

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
moreinjuredthanowen said:
one thing i have realised is that any team who concede a goal only need to stand back and not restart the game until ref VARs the goal to ensure theres nothing at all in the build up to get it chalked off.

someone is going to try this one in a tight game where the one goal is crucial.

I would.

Any hope of getting a goal disallowed.. why would you kick off when you have the ref in a bind.
Click to expand...

Wont happen. The ref will just restart the game. If they still want to stand and protest so be it, other team
will just go and score.
 
saintKloppsky said:
I'm fully aware that any objection to new things opens one to snide comments about being a "dinosaur", and I ignore such things. Experience shows you that not everything new is automatically an improvement, and a little discernment is required. I reserve the right to be critical of new technology without the accusation of Luddism. A lot of innovations are worthwhile, many are either counter-productive or just plain unnecessary.
VAR will come in, I have little doubt over that, and we'll all get used to it, but like Thatcherism, bondage trousers and AutoTune it ain't necessarily better.
Although I admit to misgivings, I am in the process of evaluating it, rather than uncritically accepting that all innovation is, by definition, progress.
So far I see differences, rather than improvement.
There's too much subjectivity in football for this system to cure injustices, when those "injustices" depend too often on whose side you take.
I'm sure it's lovely for those who want to see the sport turned into a video game.
Click to expand...

Not all change is good to somebody. I live without a Smartphone. But you weren't making such a sensible post previously, you were intimating a simple complaint that everything will change and the game will be completely different.

Don't complain about a snide dinosaur comment then make one about turning the sport into a video game.

You see some controversy over some VAR decisions as different; I see more corrected decisions as progress. The injustices were "too often" more often before. Now they're less often. That is progress. There is still some progress to be made. You're not the only one evaluating. But innovation needs beta tests and sometimes that means taking it out of the lab and releasing it to users.

It'll never be perfect but that's not a good enough reason to freeze the status quo. The offside rule was changed due to demand. People were sick of the old rule. VAR was changed because people like you and I were sick of seeing instant replays and wondering why the referee wasn't allowed to. It was ludicrous, never mind Luddite.

It's interesting you complain about autotune. It's a common complaint of people who are unaware of double tracking, which was autotune before autotune. Everybody did it. Your record collection is full of it. Kurt Cobain refused to do it, until Butch Vig told him John Lennon did it, then suddenly all Cobain's pretensions of credibility went out the window. It thickens a vocal and made it more in tune. There's also comping, a practise of recording a number of performances in the studio, then selecting the best example of each line. And this is before we get onto all those other black boxes in the effects rack over there. So autotune is different but it's doing the same job. It's just quicker, so saves studio time, which as far as the band paying for it out of their advance is concerned - think of them as the team being awarded a penalty - is progress.
 
Muppetfinder General said:
Not all change is good to somebody. I live without a Smartphone. But you weren't making such a sensible post previously, you were intimating a simple gripe that everything will change and the game will be completely different.

Don't complain about a snide dinosaur comment then make one about turning the sport into a video game.

You see some controversy over some VAR decisions as different; I see more corrected decisions as progress. The injustices were "too often" more often before. Now they're less often. That is progress. There is still some progress to be made. You're not the only one evaluating. But innovation needs beta tests and sometimes that means taking it out of the lab and releasing it to users.

It'll never be perfect but that's not a good enough reason to freeze the status quo. The offside rule was changed due to demand. People were sick of the old rule. VAR was changed because people like you and I were sick of seeing instant replays and wondering why the referee wasn't allowed to. It was ludicrous, never mind Luddite.

It's interesting you complain about autotune. It's a common complaint of people who are unaware of double tracking, which was autotune before autotune. Everybody did it. Your record collection is full of it. Kurt Cobain refused to do it, until Butch Vig told him John Lennon did it, then suddenly all Cobain's pretensions of credibility went out the window. It thickens a vocal and made it more in tune. There's also comping, a practise of recording a number of performances in the studio, then selecting the best example of each line. And this is before we get onto all those other black boxes in the effects rack over there. So autotune is different but it's doing the same job. It's just quicker, so saves studio time, which as far as the bands paying for it out of their advance are concerned, is progress.
Click to expand...
Well, I can resort to ad hominem tactics as well, when required.
I am aware of double or multi- tracking techniques to fatten vocals, but you didn't know that, so thank you for the information.
AutoTune was developed to mask the fact that lots of singers can't actually sing in tune, quantising to make a marketable product of rhythm sections that can't keep rhythm. Instead we have the homogenising effect we hear in most chart music today. A prime example of a laudable aim going horribly wrong (though that, too, is a matter of opinion).
Music by robots, as far removed from the intimacy and energy of live, unprocessed performance as seems possible.
Like VAR, it's not the tech that is questionable, but the appropriateness of its use, whether or not the essence of the endeavour is enhanced or just altered.
I repeat, not everything new is necessarily an improvement, but whether or not it is is down to our old friend subjectivity.
You like the change, I have serious doubts. Unless one of us changes our minds over time then we'll continue to disagree, which is how it should be.
 
Muppetfinder General said:
Not all change is good to somebody. I live without a Smartphone. But you weren't making such a sensible post previously, you were intimating a simple complaint that everything will change and the game will be completely different.

Don't complain about a snide dinosaur comment then make one about turning the sport into a video game.

You see some controversy over some VAR decisions as different; I see more corrected decisions as progress. The injustices were "too often" more often before. Now they're less often. That is progress. There is still some progress to be made. You're not the only one evaluating. But innovation needs beta tests and sometimes that means taking it out of the lab and releasing it to users.

It'll never be perfect but that's not a good enough reason to freeze the status quo. The offside rule was changed due to demand. People were sick of the old rule. VAR was changed because people like you and I were sick of seeing instant replays and wondering why the referee wasn't allowed to. It was ludicrous, never mind Luddite.

It's interesting you complain about autotune. It's a common complaint of people who are unaware of double tracking, which was autotune before autotune. Everybody did it. Your record collection is full of it. Kurt Cobain refused to do it, until Butch Vig told him John Lennon did it, then suddenly all Cobain's pretensions of credibility went out the window. It thickens a vocal and made it more in tune. There's also comping, a practise of recording a number of performances in the studio, then selecting the best example of each line. And this is before we get onto all those other black boxes in the effects rack over there. So autotune is different but it's doing the same job. It's just quicker, so saves studio time, which as far as the band paying for it out of their advance is concerned - think of them as the team being awarded a penalty - is progress.
Click to expand...
It's only progress if you see it as progress. For those who enjoy the game as it is [or the music as it was], it isn't progress.

As far as VAR is concerned it's meant to improve the game - which is one definition of progress - but what if it 'improved' it so much it eliminated all refereeing errors. Would that be progress? Only to a certain audience, not to all.
 
so Peru get a reward for their decent showings and Aussies are going home.

the France Denmark game is a nothing one as a result with both sides happy with draw?

Hopefully tonight there is better fare when I actually get to see them
 
Nigeria
  • 23Uzoho
  • 6Balogun
  • 5Troost-Ekong
  • 22Omeruo
  • 11Moses
  • 4Ndidi
  • 10Mikel
  • 8Etebo
  • 2Idowu
  • 7Musa
  • 14Iheanacho
Substitutes
  • 1Ezenwa
  • 3Echiéjilé
  • 9Ighalo
  • 12Shehu
  • 13Simy
  • 15Obi
  • 16Akpeyi
  • 17Onazi
  • 18Iwobi
  • 19Ogu
  • 20Awaziem
  • 21Ebuehi
Argentina
  • 12Armani
  • 2Mercado
  • 17Otamendi
  • 16Rojo
  • 3Tagliafico
  • 14Mascherano
  • 7Banega
  • 15Pérez
  • 10Messi
  • 11Di María
  • 9Higuaín
Substitutes
  • 1Guzmán
  • 4Ansaldi
  • 5Biglia
  • 6Fazio
  • 8Acuña
  • 13Meza
  • 18Salvio
  • 19Agüero
  • 20Lo Celso
  • 21Dybala
  • 22Pavón
  • 23Caballero
Referee:
Antonio Miguel Mateu Lahoz
Iceland
  • 1Halldórsson
  • 2Saevarsson
  • 6R Sigurdsson
  • 5Ingason
  • 18Magnússon
  • 20Hallfredsson
  • 17Gunnarsson
  • 7Berg Gudmundsson
  • 10G Sigurdsson
  • 8Bjarnason
  • 11Finnbogason
Substitutes
  • 3Fridjónsson
  • 4Gudmundsson
  • 9Sigurdarson
  • 12Schram
  • 13Rúnarsson
  • 14Árnason
  • 15Eyjólfsson
  • 16OI Skúlason
  • 19Gíslason
  • 21Traustason
  • 22Bödvarsson
  • 23AF Skúlason
Croatia
  • 12L Kalinic
  • 13Jedvaj
  • 5Corluka
  • 15Caleta-Car
  • 22Pivaric
  • 19Badelj
  • 10Modric
  • 20Pjaca
  • 8Kovacic
  • 4Perisic
  • 9Kramaric
Substitutes
  • 1Livakovic
  • 2Vrsaljko
  • 3Strinic
  • 6Lovren
  • 7Rakitic
  • 11Brozovic
  • 14Bradaric
  • 17Mandzukic
  • 18Rebic
  • 21Vida
  • 23Subasic
Referee:
Cüneyt Çakir
 
saintKloppsky said:
I'm fully aware that any objection to new things opens one to snide comments about being a "dinosaur", and I ignore such things. Experience shows you that not everything new is automatically an improvement, and a little discernment is required. I reserve the right to be critical of new technology without the accusation of Luddism. A lot of innovations are worthwhile, many are either counter-productive or just plain unnecessary.
VAR will come in, I have little doubt over that, and we'll all get used to it, but like Thatcherism, bondage trousers and AutoTune it ain't necessarily better.
Although I admit to misgivings, I am in the process of evaluating it, rather than uncritically accepting that all innovation is, by definition, progress.
So far I see differences, rather than improvement.
There's too much subjectivity in football for this system to cure injustices, when those "injustices" depend too often on whose side you take.
I'm sure it's lovely for those who want to see the sport turned into a video game.
Click to expand...
I think the question is not whether VAR is an improvement but whether they (football authorities) are implementing it properly.

I have followed football almost as long as you (but not quite) ;). Yes it does affect the flow of the game and the waiting for a decision is irritating but I have no doubt in my mind that it is needed. Football is not like basketball tennis or volleyball where many points are scored and rarely does one specific incident leads to a major outcome. In football, we’ve had players scoring a crucial goal with their hands (ala Henry) and depriving a whole country of their rightful WC place.

After all the injustices, I would prefer a goal to be a “true” goal not some wrongful decision by the ref or assistants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Klopp's Mannschaft
carlthejackal said:
I think the question is not whether VAR is an improvement but whether they (football authorities) are implementing it properly.

I have followed football almost as long as you (but not quite) ;). Yes it does affect the flow of the game and the waiting for a decision is irritating but I have no doubt in my mind that it is needed. Football is not like basketball tennis or volleyball where many points are scored and rarely does one specific incident leads to a major outcome. In football, we’ve had players scoring a crucial goal with their hands (ala Henry) and depriving a whole country of their rightful WC place.

After all the injustices, I would prefer a goal to be a “true” goal not some wrongful decision by the ref or assistants.
Click to expand...
I'd rather wait 2minutes whilst some nobs in a basement look over instant replays to get the correct decision rather than lose a game because the ref made mistakes.

That's as simple as VAR is for me.

Just needs some ironing out with the likes of who calls for VAR, when and what for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back