• Current Donation Goals

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Michael Tucker

Chelsea 0 Arsenal 0

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, PeteRobbo said:

I really don't see how.

Because the commentators and pundits are more swung by bias than even the refs.
Look at the three decisions VAR showed the ref got wrong but failed to change - the commentator and pundits all agreed with the wrong decisions.  They went with the "wouldn't normally be given, so a bit unfair to start looking at objective evidence" line.  If they can ignore the evidence of VAR knowingly, they gotta be using bias.

Still more power to the TV, what's not to like for them?  They'll be sticking in adverts during the decisions pretty soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

Because the commentators and pundits are more swung by bias than even the refs.
Look at the three decisions VAR showed the ref got wrong but failed to change - the commentator and pundits all agreed with the wrong decisions.  They went with the "wouldn't normally be given, so a bit unfair to start looking at objective evidence" line.  If they can ignore the evidence of VAR knowingly, they gotta be using bias.

Still more power to the TV, what's not to like for them?  They'll be sticking in adverts during the decisions pretty soon.

Really don't understand the way you're looking at the use of technology here. I couldn't care less what the pundits think and they're not going to determine the decisions anyway. What is relevant is that if technology is used correctly, to replay contestable decisions to make them as clear as possible, then it must be better than working without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PeteRobbo said:

Really don't understand the way you're looking at the use of technology here. I couldn't care less what the pundits think and they're not going to determine the decisions anyway. What is relevant is that if technology is used correctly, to replay contestable decisions to make them as clear as possible, then it must be better than working without it.

So he got 3 out of 4 wrong then.  Simple.  And changed nothing.  And everyone congratulated themselves again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PeteRobbo said:

Really don't understand the way you're looking at the use of technology here. I couldn't care less what the pundits think and they're not going to determine the decisions anyway. What is relevant is that if technology is used correctly, to replay contestable decisions to make them as clear as possible, then it must be better than working without it.

So he got 3 out of 4 wrong then.  Simple.  And changed nothing.  And everyone congratulated themselves again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

So he got 3 out of 4 wrong then.  Simple.  And changed nothing.  And everyone congratulated themselves again!

All you're saying means that technology must be applied correctly. The best way would be to make the replays available to all to view and have another official use them to determine the decision, as per cricket or tennis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Droy was my hero said:

 Those of us that can divide by 90 will know that 4 goals in 9 and a half games for an AM is pretty good.

Posted a good few pages ago now and so a tad divorced from its context, but worth quoting and making visible again; the idea that the statistics xCELERYx posted could be considered a criticism of Pedro's or Willian's output is utterly laughable. They clearly demonstrate the opposite, especially for Pedro. Is anyone willing to suggest an AM should be scoring at a rate of more than every two or three, worst case scenario, four games? Completely daft, an indefensible position to take.

8 hours ago, Martin1905 said:

We have failed to beat one of the worst Arsenal sides in premier league history 4 times now, we couldn't even beat their second team last night.

I have an amendment to this; we failed to really try to beat one of the worst Arsenal sides in PL history, and for the third time this season.

In isolation, I don't have a massive problem with it. Keeping it tight in a semi-final is hardly heresy. Nor necessarily doing so in a 'big' PL game. But it's not in isolation; we are timid (I think I saw that word in this thread earlier) every time we walk out onto the pitch. It is not a mistake (even if it is a flaw). It is by design. I have every confidence we would be doing it, even if with better outcomes, if Conte had an unlimited budget and had signed every single player in the squad from a personal wish list. And as far as I'm concerned, it's okay if it works. Question is whether or not it works well enough.

I see it as a simple statement of fact rather than negativity that we are going to struggle in games for the rest of the season; we spend relatively little of each 90 minutes actively trying to win games and have far more games than a small squad can tolerate. That doesn't mean we won't eek out results often enough, and my gut instinct is that we will and will be playing CL football next season fairly comfortably. After all, Spurs have the same issue with games/squad numbers, Arsenal are sh*te and Liverpool just chucked £75m down the drain while losing their key man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, PeteRobbo said:

All you're saying means that technology must be applied correctly. The best way would be to make the replays available to all to view and have another official use them to determine the decision, as per cricket or tennis.

Personally I'm not fussed if they get a few wrong.
I am fussed if they get 3 out of 4 wrong despite clear pictures.
I am fussed if they are more embarrassed about overturning the first call than correcting the decision - because that just adds another layer of bias onto it all and makes the whole palaver pointless.

And I am fussed because we are in  for a few seasons of Sky & BT congratulating the refs (read TV) for getting things so right, even when they get 3 out of 4 wrong.  It is going to be a very tedious process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sea foot   

I'm not sure that VAR got the penalty decisions wrong. Both calls were too tight to turn over. As I see it, VAR is there to turn over the blatant wrong ref calls and in this case they were right to leave it as it was called. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sea foot said:

I'm not sure that VAR got the penalty decisions wrong. Both calls were too tight to turn over. As I see it, VAR is there to turn over the blatant wrong ref calls and in this case they were right to leave it as it was called. 

Yes, I avoided this point.  It is part of horror of TV that huge principles get overlooked and everyone pretends to reasonableness.
So next time and Arsenal CB flicks his finger at our CF's eye, if it is checked on  VAR the 5th(?) official can just say it's ok, you can't be expected to have seen that, so we can let it go (like the Azpi push in fact or the stamp on Alonso's ankle).

It is a recipe for more biased reffing than ever.  In the past a ref might give the 50/50s all to one side, and get caught when the TV shows that actually it was a clear 100% decision he got wrong.  Now that he can just correct the horror calls, he can start giving the 40/60s to one side too because he knows he'll be rescued if he has really screwed up.

 

The confusion here is with the cricket rule that says if it is still not clear after the VAR the decision should be umpire's call.  But in none of these 3 cases was there any doubt.  You shouldn't be using VAR to justify wrong decisions - that is just crazy and shows how poorly the thing has been thought out and rushed through..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Droy was my hero said:

Personally I'm not fussed if they get a few wrong.
I am fussed if they get 3 out of 4 wrong despite clear pictures.
I am fussed if they are more embarrassed about overturning the first call than correcting the decision - because that just adds another layer of bias onto it all and makes the whole palaver pointless.

And I am fussed because we are in  for a few seasons of Sky & BT congratulating the refs (read TV) for getting things so right, even when they get 3 out of 4 wrong.  It is going to be a very tedious process.

They can't use VAR to check all incidents and possibly give yellow cards, it's not in the IFAB protocol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.