• Current Donation Goals

Archived

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

Michael Tucker

Tottenham Hotspur 1 Chelsea 0

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Offside wasn't black and white last night was it? He was off and was given on. 

Rugby is very different. Far more restarts, lineouts, scrums etc. 

I don't want VAR full stop, irrespective of last night's shambles, but you are missing Mark's point....it didn't go our way, and it will continue not to. Not only did it not go our way, it was incorrectly ruled against us. They used technology to overturn a correct decision to our detriment. 

Doesn't mean offside wasn't black and white and couldn't have adjudicated correctly last night. I say again it was the incompetent implementation of the technology and the entire system of reviewing that produced the contretemps, not the technology, which has the potential to be completely fit for its purpose, I.e. providing an opportunity to review something and enable a more informed view.

Share this post


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

Offside is also black and white and technology is also used in Rugby very successfully.

Quite simply, the availability of technology to enable the capability to review a situation, (whatever its type), once again from possibly different viewpoints adds to an ability to adjudicate on it.

Furthermore, had it been roles reversed last night, with us seeking the same penalty as Kane was, and had technology ruled in our favour, then Mark et al would have all been in favour of it.

Eh?

Of course I'd be all for it , same as Harry Kane was last night , it doesn't make the decision correct though , does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Eh?

Of course I'd be all for it , same as Harry Kane was last night , it doesn't make the decision correct though , does it?

I've explained why the fact that the decision last night was not resolved incontrovertibly. It's down to the implementation not the concept of using technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
1 minute ago, PeteRobbo said:

I've explained why the fact that the decision last night was not resolved incontrovertibly. It's down to the implementation not the concept of using technology.

It doesn't matter though does it. Whether it is the technology or the implementation, VAR was used and they f*cked it up. 

VAR is supposed to reduce errors not add to them 

Share this post


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

It doesn't matter though does it. Whether it is the technology or the implementation, VAR was used and they f*cked it up. 

THE USE OF VAR is supposed to reduce errors not add to them 

There, I've fixed that for you and I can agree with that statement now. Yes, the use of technology is intended to reduce errors and not add to them. However, it's clear that, as last night demonstrated, a flawed implementation of technology may well not be successful in reducing errors, but that doesn't mean at all that the proposal to use technology with a view to reducing errors is an inadvisable or unwelcome idea.

Share this post


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

There, I've fixed that for you and I can agree with that statement now. Yes, the use of technology is intended to reduce errors and not add to them. However, it's clear that, as last night demonstrated, a flawed implementation of technology may well not be successful in reducing errors, but that doesn't mean at all that the proposal to use technology with a view to reducing errors is an inadvisable or unwelcome idea.

If you can eliminate human error then go for it , the flaw is that the humans making the judgement got it wrong and that's the entire problem with the way the system has been fudged into existence.

Droy said this was a recipe for disaster and he was right , it's turning into a referees get out clause for uselessness.

 

Share this post


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

I've explained why the fact that the decision last night was not resolved incontrovertibly. It's down to the implementation not the concept of using technology.

Come back to us when you have a technological way of replacing the 3 men in a box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

If you can eliminate human error then go for it , the flaw is that the humans making the judgement got it wrong and that's the entire problem with the way the system has been fudged into existence.

Droy said this was a recipe for disaster and he was right , it's turning into a referees get out clause for uselessness.

 

Agreed, but it's because of the flawed implementation and not because of the concept of using technology per se. I say agin, make it a challenge system available to both teams and have the replays shown to the watching public as they are viewed. That would be much better I think. 

Also I'm  not sure that Droy is being fair when he says that "it's turning into a referees get out clause for uselessness". If a referee makes a mistake in real time that's perfectly possible and admissible in my book. It's a fast game and he can't see everything on his own. That's why the technology should be there "to help him", not to provide "a get out clause for uselessness". That's simply unfair. Honest mistakes are bound to happen the sport and should be ameliorated by using whatever means are to hand.

Share this post


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

Agreed, but it's because of the flawed implementation and not because of the concept of using technology per se. I say agin, make it a challenge system available to both teams and have the replays shown to the watching public as they are viewed. That would be much better I think. 

Also I'm  not sure that Droy is being fair when he says that "it's turning into a referees get out clause for uselessness". If a referee makes a mistake in real time that's perfectly possible and admissible in my book. It's a fast game and he can't see everything on his own. That's why the technology should be there "to help him", not to provide "a get out clause for uselessness". That's simply unfair. Honest mistakes are bound to happen the sport and should be ameliorated by using whatever means are to hand.

In fairness to Droy the phrase was mine based on what he'd said earlier in the discussion , I was wrong to use quotation marks .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paulw66 said:

It doesn't matter though does it. Whether it is the technology or the implementation, VAR was used and they f*cked it up. 

VAR is supposed to reduce errors not add to them 

VAR is only supposed to be used when there's a clear error. There was nothing clear about Kane being offside last night and the referee initially gave a freekick for offside, not a penalty. I don't see how anyone could chose to overturn that based on the available video evidence.

Share this post


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