It hasn't made the game worse for me and I'm a spectator. What did make the game worse for me was seeing a perfectly legal England goal in 2010 being disallowed against Germany. Today that goal would have counted.Because it has made the game worse. It’s made the game infinitely worse from a spectator’s point of view. And if you look at those decisions yesterday and think the final result is more fair because some guy in a gamer chair paused, slowed and rewinded the replay long enough to spot a toenail offside that gave the attacking player no advantage whatsover, and to convince himself that there was intent when a ball was blasted at an arm from one yard out, you are living in a technocratic parallel universe that should be (but evidently, sadly, isn’t) incompatible with spectator sports.
Ofcourse if people are being told to feck off I don't really care or read his post.He did argue it reasonably, in the rest of his post. You ignored the same point by me and now you’re ignoring it from him in favour of getting all precious about his tone.
Which was fixed years ago by technology that has nothing to do with VAR and has never led to any controversy.It hasn't made the game worse for me and I'm a spectator. What did make the game worse for me was seeing a perfectly legal England goal in 2010 being disallowed against Germany. Today that goal would have counted.
Using VAR will always lead to this though. It means decisions will now always be scrutinised right down to very small, inconsequential actions. I think it was inevitable that VAR would lead to a less enjoyable game, and was never in favour of it for this reason. It’s also killed the most enjoyable part of football, which is the goal celebration.Because there is now a lot more focus on the technicalities of football rules.
And football fans are biased, they are frustrated when their team's goal doesn't stand.
And another reason because of how long certain decisions take.
The Maradona and Henry incidents were what VAR was sold to be the answer to. The retconning involved now in pretending fans for years were furious about marginal offsides that were undetectable to the naked eye, is almost impressive. Brexit denial levels of impressive.I wouldn't choose the euphoria of celebrating Maradona's or Henry's handball over making sure the correct decision is reached much more often. I'd rather have contentious decisions than egregious errors. It makes for a better sport, and if the entertainment suffers for some so be it.
In any case I believe with around ten more years of improving the tech (like making automated offside detection standard across all leagues and competitions) and refining the rules (handballs, maybe offside definition), people will get used to it.
What’s your excuse for ignoring the exact same point when I made it? And continuing to ignore his after he apologised? Are you interested in discussing this at all? Or just here to take offence?Ofcourse if people are being told to feck off I don't really care or read his post.
The Maradonna and Henry incidents are all part of football’s rich history. A parallel universe where those games were constantly delayed and interrupted so nerds could draw lines on screens (and referee’s decisions were still creating controversy) is a lot less interesting to me than the reality. And I say this as a supporter of the Ireland football team.I wouldn't choose the euphoria of celebrating Maradona's or Henry's handball over making sure the correct decision is reached much more often. I'd rather have contentious decisions than egregious errors. It makes for a better sport, and if the entertainment suffers for some so be it.
In any case I believe with around ten more years of improving the tech (like making automated offside detection standard across all leagues and competitions) and refining the rules (handballs, maybe offside definition), people will get used to it.
This is supposedly fixed because they're using the same impact technology they use to detect handballs in this tournament. So it's no longer a person trying to pinpoint the moment the ball was played, and fair enough I guess. Still, I'd like see a larger margin of error introduced so the attacking player gets an advantage.The problem with the toenail offside is that you cannot accurately get a picture of when the ball was played forward. It’s so often between frames.
I think it’s better in cricket when there is “umpires call”. So if ir was given on field and it’s super close the decision stands but not the other way around.
Why not implement something like this?
Still, the fact that for years they were calling millimetre offsides based on their best guesstimation on when exactly the ball was played is probably the most tragicomic thing about VAR. The fact that this problem never seemed to occur to anyone involved goes to show how dumb these people are. It makes everything else wrong with VAR make more sense.This is supposedly fixed because they're using the same impact technology they use to detect handballs in this tournament. So it's no longer a person trying to pinpoint the moment the ball was played, and fair enough I guess. Still, I'd like see a larger margin of error introduced so the attacking player gets an advantage.
This is absolutely unhinged to me, and I honestly don't think we can debate this if this is where you are coming from. I guess I can be happy that current football organisations agree more with me than with you (for now).The Maradonna and Henry incidents are all part of football’s rich history. A parallel universe where those games were constantly delayed and interrupted so nerds could draw lines on screens (and referee’s decisions were still creating controversy) is a lot less interesting to me than the reality. And I say this as a supporter of the Ireland football team.
It is what creates myths stories, dirty football, you need bad to experience good.The Maradonna and Henry incidents are all part of football’s rich history. A parallel universe where those games were constantly delayed and interrupted so nerds could draw lines on screens (and referee’s decisions were still creating controversy) is a lot less interesting to me than the reality. And I say this as a supporter of the Ireland football team.
That has nothing to do with VAR, though. And I haven’t seen a single person ever complain about goal line tech.It hasn't made the game worse for me and I'm a spectator. What did make the game worse for me was seeing a perfectly legal England goal in 2010 being disallowed against Germany. Today that goal would have counted.
Offside is offside, a line must be drawn somewhere. We can argue about error margins and thickness of the line, that's fair. But why overcorrect and argue for abolishing VAR instead of calling for improvements?
And handball is handball. Don't blame VAR, blame the rules.
The conflating is all they have. They have to pretend that goalline technology was controversial, had bedding in problems, was unpopular. Same as a toenail offsides was runing the game.That has nothing to do with VAR, though. And I haven’t seen a single person ever complain about goal line tech.
It is just crazy that this was the same ref in both games...Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It seems so at times. I had the same conversation last night after the game, and the other two guys were adamant that the assistant would have never raised his flag in 1000 similar situations had VAR never existed. Hardly the case, as you mentioned, and the fabled "benefit of the doubt" goes right out the window if you believe that, in that split second, you saw a part of the body behind the last defender.Do people even remember offside officiating before VAR? Some are complaining about being called for a few millimeters offside, but there was a truckload of offside calls every weekend where the attacker wasn't even offside in the slightest. Was this better?
Henry handball vs Ireland?That has nothing to do with VAR, though. And I haven’t seen a single person ever complain about goal line tech.
"Need bad to experience good" is a bizarre argument. People are now literally arguing they're fine with bad decisions to spare some VAR intervention.It is what creates myths stories, dirty football, you need bad to experience good.
VAR gets rid of all these type of players we loved for being unhinged idiots with passion in their play like Materazzi, Gattuso, Keane, etc.
I bolder a sentence about the Lampard goal.Henry handball vs Ireland?
I am fine with the odd poor decision to avoid VAR intervention, and have always been so since before it was introduced. I never saw the need for it to begin with, because I always envisioned that it would take more away from the game than it added."Need bad to experience good" is a bizarre argument. People are now literally arguing they're fine with bad decisions to spare some VAR intervention.
It's not fixed, because even with Semi automatic where the use a sensor in the ball to pinpoint the exact moment the ball is played, it's still married to the closest frame from the cameras and the frame rate is still 50 FPS.This is supposedly fixed because they're using the same impact technology they use to detect handballs in this tournament. So it's no longer a person trying to pinpoint the moment the ball was played, and fair enough I guess. Still, I'd like see a larger margin of error introduced so the attacking player gets an advantage.
What did it take away from you? Having to celebrate 1 time instead of 2? That's such an enormous dealbreaker to you?I am fine with the odd poor decision to avoid VAR intervention, and have always been so since before it was introduced. I never saw the need for it to begin with, because I always envisioned that it would take more away from the game than it added.
The latest Premier League statistics show before VAR was introduced, 82 per cent of refereeing decisions were correct. Now, since VAR was introduced, 96 per cent of decisions are correct.[/QUOTEhttps://www.skysports.com/football/...t-so-what-is-future-of-technology-in-football
That 96% is total bollocks. Referees marking their own homework twice and giving each other a little tug while they are at it.What did it take away from you? Having to celebrate 1 time instead of 2? That's such an enormous dealbreaker to you?
Yeah, I get all that. That's why I said I want to see a larger margin of error to favour the attacker. Just add x number of centimeters to the line, and as long as the attacker isn't beyond that, no offside. I think that would be a decent enough compromise.It's not fixed, because even with Semi automatic where the use a sensor in the ball to pinpoint the exact moment the ball is played, it's still married to the closest frame from the cameras and the frame rate is still 50 FPS.
Let me explain a little further, Harry Maguire a player most will agree is one of the slower top level players has a recorded top speed of 30KMH. Now if harry is running at 30 KMH, he feet with Likely be individually moving at about 60KMH during each stride.
60KMH is about 16 MPS. Or in CM 1600 CM per second. So with a frame rate of 50 per second, 1600÷50=32CM. So between the frames Harry Maguires foot while running could move 32CM thats 1 Foot in old money. And that's only one player there are normally 2 players involved in offsides so taking into account that both players could potentially be moving in opposite direction. You margin of error is potentially 64cm or 2 feet. And thats with one of the slower players.
Toenail offside? No chance the technology is anywhere near accurate enough to confirm that. Not a cat in hells chance. Offside is offside? Apart from the fact it's just a guess but rather than a human having a guess its the technology.
Why must it need to have 100% undeniable accuracy for it to be worth using? 99.9% is close enough for it to be considered worthwhile wouldn't you say?It's not fixed, because even with Semi automatic where the use a sensor in the ball to pinpoint the exact moment the ball is played, it's still married to the closest frame from the cameras and the frame rate is still 50 FPS.
Let me explain a little further, Harry Maguire a player most will agree is one of the slower top level players has a recorded top speed of 30KMH. Now if harry is running at 30 KMH, he feet with Likely be individually moving at about 60KMH during each stride.
60KMH is about 16 MPS. Or in CM 1600 CM per second. So with a frame rate of 50 per second, 1600÷50=32CM. So between the frames Harry Maguires foot while running could move 32CM thats 1 Foot in old money. And that's only one player there are normally 2 players involved in offsides so taking into account that both players could potentially be moving in opposite direction. You margin of error is potentially 64cm or 2 feet. And thats with one of the slower players.
Toenail offside? No chance the technology is anywhere near accurate enough to confirm that. Not a cat in hells chance. Offside is offside? Apart from the fact it's just a guess but rather than a human having a guess its the technology.
Because we are calling toenails offside, the PL has margin of error of 10CM I believe it's not anywhere near big enough.Why must it need to have 100% undeniable accuracy for it to be worth using? 99.9% is close enough for it to be considered worthwhile wouldn't you say?
The PL system even has a tolerance built in to allow for that, giving the advantage to the attacker and I assume this new system has something similar but to an even greater degree of accuracy.
Let me ask you this. Who is going to get more offside calls right; a linesman with one shot at it in real time or VAR? If you care so much about accuracy then surely close to 100% is better than whatever a linesman is capable of.
I know. I can handle the mm offsides as ridiculous as it is. But it’s the minute or so where teams think they’ve scored that is awful. Not worth it for it to be suddenly taken away because of a toenail. It’s killing the enjoyment of the game.That feeling yesterday of cheering like a mad man in the pub when Andersen scored, to the disappointment when it was overturned because one of his toes was offside, is exactly why I hate VAR.
Soul crushing killjoy.
I would rather go back to the Maradona and Henry handballs than either of the decisions made last night. The Maradona one was oh well them's the breaks. If that's handball and offside then we might as well just scrap the game now. They are destroying the great game just to show how good AI is now.I wouldn't choose the euphoria of celebrating Maradona's or Henry's handball over making sure the correct decision is reached much more often. I'd rather have contentious decisions than egregious errors. It makes for a better sport, and if the entertainment suffers for some so be it.
In any case I believe with around ten more years of improving the tech (like making automated offside detection standard across all leagues and competitions) and refining the rules (handballs, maybe offside definition), people will get used to it.
Yeah, it’s completely fundamental for me. Statistical improvements in the number of correct decisions isn’t of interest to me.What did it take away from you? Having to celebrate 1 time instead of 2? That's such an enormous dealbreaker to you?
I think you’re looking back with rose tinted glasses a little. If you looked back to a bad decision (pre VAR) at Utd you’d easily have 100 enraged people for every “them’s the breaks” post.I would rather go back to the Maradona and Henry handballs than either of the decisions made last night. The Maradona one was oh well them's the breaks. If that's handball and offside then we might as well just scrap the game now. They are destroying the great game just to show how good AI is now.
Do you watch rugby or cricket? They both seem to have adapted really well to delayed decisions. This is not meant as some kind of gotcha, sports are all subtly different and perhaps some lend themselves to VAR and others don’t. Point being, I think a) VAR itself will improve, and b) we will get used to it.Yeah, it’s completely fundamental for me. Statistical improvements in the number of correct decisions isn’t of interest to me.
Goals will never be the same again with VAR.
