Otis
Well-Known Member
Now THAT, IS a clear and obvious error.
Now THAT, IS a clear and obvious error.This kinda sums it up.posted via a Leeds fan.....
This makes me feel sick, in real time it's on, someone thats on his laptop 150 miles away cancels it off, ref, lino, 4th official all gave it, feel like not bothering with an ST next year if that's the way it's going
That's what I said, allowing some geek 200 miles away on a computer to cancel it, ref, lino, 4th official saw nothing wrong, against Wolves it took ages why so quick with thisHow do they decide how long they look into things? Sometimes they spent half a second checking, sometimes 5 minutes. Sometimes they will look back in the lead up for anything they can find to disallow it, sometimes they don't.
Why didn't the ref get to have a look back again?
I reckon Onana waving his hands about would have played on their mind a bit as well.
That's what I said, allowing some geek 200 miles away on a computer to cancel it, ref, lino, 4th official saw nothing wrong, against Wolves it took ages why so quick with this
He was massively off and I called it in the thread .. lino not flagging incase its a goal and they can review , obviously a corner is a different phase and deemed not fit to go back to look .. the way we use VAR Is flawedIn the lead up to the chance that led to the McGuire corner, was Dalot off side? He looked well off.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
I think that's how they always do it (moment of striking the ball rather than when it's left the foot). That normally favours the attacker because they are the ones running faster towards goal, but in this case it favoured the United defender.They used a frame that wasn't when it actually left O'Hares foot.
Same in NHL ice hockey. To overrule a call on the ice the video review has to show conclusive evidence.Cricket works well when the marginal decisions given not out by the umpire are never over-ruled but left as umpire's call to reflect a margin of error. Yesterday was a true umpire's call as it wasn't given on-field
Same in NHL ice hockey. To overrule a call on the ice the video review has to show conclusive evidence.
Watched the BBC highlights last night and surprised none of the pundits really questioned it. Apparently not on the live coverage either ? At very best it was highly marginal
Cricket has umpires call because there are decisions that are too close to decide with the limitations of the technology so they don't overrule the decision on the field.Exactly the opposite is true in cricket - the umpire leaves it totally to technology
Cricket has umpires call because there are decisions that are too close to decide with the limitations of the technology so they don't overrule the decision on the field.
If its used for goals over the line, bad fouls or ridiculous offsides then yes use var, o radio 2 earlier it was discussed calling it VaR lightI want to hear the audio and see the line drawing process.
But ultimately these are the same arguments we’d be having with not VAR and have been having all season (Southampton handballs anyone?), except it seems the VAR calls piss the average fan off far more as they’re supposed to be more accurate but they get just as much wrong.
Bin the whole thing off and go back to the on field refs with at most a fourth official watching for anything blatantly obvious or where the ref wants to view a replay.
Actually the only people claiming that are the ones saying that we can give fact based accurate offsides with no degree of uncertaintyBut none of these decisions are actually “pretty obvious”, or “common sense”, or “very simple really”, are they? They’re complex and incredibly fast decisions being made in real time by humans, that are impossible to decide without someone disagreeing and getting upset. Even with slomo, replays, 3D mapping, whatever you want to use - reasonable people will disagree when it’s actual people making the decisions.
You claim that technology can actually take away all the uncertainty and the nuance - you’re really just asking someone else to make the same human, flawed decision in front of their computer instead of on the pitch. You’re just outsourcing people’s inevitable anger at decisions to people further and further away from the game itself, slowing the game down more and more, changing the rules bit by bit. Are you happy with the results?
I think I agree with this but unfortunately it’s not going anywhere now, especially with the amount of money involved in the game.Don’t think there’s any place for var , go back to the ref and linesman doing their jobs
Doesn’t really suit their narrative though… Keane was wallowing in how far ‘his’ club had fallen.
Imagine the coverage and fixation on VAR had it been Saturday’s game or Man U scored the goal?
Trying not to be tin foil hat man btw, it was convenient timing to bring out the measuring sticks and magnifying glasses.
Release the audio and show us how that decision came to be made.
It’s hard not to believe it’s corrupt at this point but we’d not have got the penalty if that was the case.A few years down the line we will find it is all linked to the millions staked on online betting.
corrupt as fuck
Thanks the pic that’s compellingProbably because sometimes they try so hard to rule things out and others they don't.
They normally give a soft signal don’t theyName the last time an umpire gave a run out or stumping without referring to the third umpire
To be fair though, a lot of posts on here are dedicated to unjust decisions from the refs.There’s a genuinely a market gap for a league like the Championship to make proper football their brand. Sensible rules, no tech, FFP, whatever. The international/PL game is drifting so far from what anyone involved in the game in a real sense wants.
They normally give a soft signal don’t they
To be fair though, a lot of posts on here are dedicated to unjust decisions from the refs.
It’s seen as part of the game though. You call the ref shit and move on. It’s the illusion of infallibility that’s the issue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?