• Current Donation Goals

Michael Tucker

Tottenham Hotspur 1 Chelsea 0

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The_Ghost said:

For me it’s enough to just use technology to ensure whether the ball passed the goal line or not. Everything else is using technology subjectively. 

No way Ghost. Not at all.

Share this post


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

For me it’s enough to just use technology to ensure whether the ball passed the goal line or not. Everything else is using technology subjectively. 

27 seasons of Sky proves that 3 men in a studio can't get the most obvious decision right on a regular basis.  I'm really not sure what the point of the "VAR experiment" is.

Share this post


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

Really? You're seriously suggesting that this conspiracy will enable only us to suffer bad decisions and that all others won't suffer at all?

Ye Gods!

Well no , other teams will suffer but we as per usual will suffer more than most , simply because the media landscape has been sculpted so nobody cares if it's us , we've had four go against us in two weeks , last night the pundits said " we're supposed to give the attacking side the benefit of the doubt " , we were the attacking side in the other three occasions . There's a campaign of sorts Pete without a shadow of doubt.

Share this post


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

Shame Joe Cole was in the studio.  If there is one Chelsea player who is going to avoid discussing technical details of the offside rule, it would be JC.  (How does he get the gig anyway?)

I didn't think having the only pundits as an obvious Spurs fan in Robbie Keane, and an obvious Chelsea fan in Joe Cole, with no neutral really worked. Still at least we were represented for a change and it wasn't all ex Liverpool players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
27 minutes ago, PeteRobbo said:

Really? You're seriously suggesting that this conspiracy will enable only us to suffer bad decisions and that all others won't suffer at all?

Ye Gods!

Norwich at home last season. Look what happened. 

32 minutes ago, PeteRobbo said:

What I meant was that technology is available to use and if it's applied properly then it's a no-brainer to use it. There were always far too many instances of incorrect decisions given at crucial moments before VAR came into being.

If the camera angle was wrong as you say then that is an human error and not attributable to the technology itself. I would also prefer it if football employed technology in the same way as cricket and tennis do, allowing for a set number of challenges by each team during the game and allowing the public to see what technology shows rather than confining that view to VAR officials only.

Cricket and tennis is black and white. Was the ball going to hit the stumps, was the batsman out of his crease. Tennis even easier - was the ball in or out.

VAR in football for fouls or potential fouls are going to be subjective. How many times on a football program do you see 2 "experts" give different opinions on whether something was or was not a foul. all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lump Of Celery said:

I didn't think having the only pundits as an obvious Spurs fan in Robbie Keane, and an obvious Chelsea fan in Joe Cole, with no neutral really worked. Still at least we were represented for a change and it wasn't all ex Liverpool players.

Not sure if that was an intentional joke or accidental.

Very funny all the same!!

 

(My slowly developing thought process:  eh what?    What a silly mistake!  or did he mean that?  Oh of course he did.  Nice one.)

Edited by Droy was my hero

Share this post


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

By the way what happened to "VAR is only there for when the referee gets it obviously wrong".  Or was that WC only?

That was what I thought. However after a bit of searching around this morning I came across a suggestion that it is only 'subjective' decisions (the usual 'in the opinion of the referee' decisions like 'was it a foul?') that can be considered in that way (that would cover missed incidents too). Offsides are considered to be 'objective' decisions, the same as the ball crossing the line. That is to say someone is either offside or they aren't. It may be that the conclusion of VAR was actually that things were so close that they had to give the benefit of the doubt in favour of the attacker.

The problem is that we don't actually know exactly how the VAR decision was reached and also that VAR may be being assumed to be able to make an objective decision in every case with no option to defer back to the original decision.

This is really the age old problem with the offside laws. Rules really intended to prevent 'goal hanging' and crowding the keeper end up being used by defending teams to play opponents offside and have to be interpreted to millimetre precision. I don't think there is any solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grunson   
1 hour ago, Stim said:

I didn't even know they could use VAR to review offside decisions.

I think they are allowed to review anything that would have a bearing on the decisions whether to award penalties or goals. It isn't clear if they only check offsides if they are flagged. It also isn't clear how far back in time they can go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, grunson said:

That is to say someone is either offside or they aren't. It may be that the conclusion of VAR was actually that things were so close that they had to give the benefit of the doubt in favour of the attacker.

Hang on, VAR is supposed to eliminate benefit of the doubt.  In practice it has already eliminated it from non-VAR reffing.  Are we now saying that "doubt" is something being added to the mix by VAR.

The funny thing is that every newspaper has shown one picture or another, and not a single one of them challenges the VAR call.  Whatever VAR is really about is certainly is NOT about getting the right decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blue Rod   
4 hours ago, xCELERYx said:

Technical skill on the ball is more what I meant by what I said. While Kante has certainly improved in this area since joining, I wouldn't say he's polished enough in terms of being a reliable facilitator in the final third. Which is something his new role require more of. His touch can be heavy, passing not always crisp, etc. While he's certainly technical in other aspects, these are generally in relation to qualities suited further away from goal and in deeper midfield areas. 

One thing I'll never fault Kante for is a lack of endeavour on the pitch. Even when he doesn't play well, he works hard and still looks to make an impact. His attitude and body language never sours, something a few others should be taking note of. 

In get your point. So many people are being promoted as technical players who offer very little in the way of techniques. Jorginho can't dribble, can't run with the ball, can't shoot, can't keep the ball, and yet he is regarded as a technical player. Even his passing is nothing more than decent.

I just wish we got rid of this useless terminology. Because it suggests that there are players on the pitch who do not known what to do with the ball.  It they are such players, they should be removed immediately. Furthermore we should  avoid a situation where a player with such limited ability as Jorginho ends up as the centre of our midfield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now