• Current Donation Goals

Michael Tucker

Tottenham Hotspur 1 Chelsea 0

Recommended Posts

Ham   

Having watched Sly Sports covering exactly what occurred during the 93 second VAR delay today it's clear they missed one crucial step in the process.

"Which camera angle should we use?

"I don't know. Which one favours Chelsea?"

"The second one"

"User the other one".

Share this post


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

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.

Lots wrong here.

1.  My quote - I would have said "it is designed as a referees coverup for further bias".
I agree that refs are allowed to make mistakes.  I see nothing wrong in that. The genuine issue with English reffing is systematic bias, not unbiased random errors.

In other words - 10 big mistakes in 10 games - 6 against us, 4 for us - that is fine by me.  Random as the kids say.
But 4 big mistakes in 10 games, all 4 against us for a dishonest if misunderstood reason, that is far far worse.

I certainly wouldn't have said "uselessness".  Bias is the issue, not incompetence.  And there is plenty of use for bias.

 

2. "should be ameliorated by using whatever means are to hand."
But why?  Football is a random game.  Shots hit the woodwork, players trip, Team A makes an error at 0-0, Team B makes an error when 4-0 up.  And refs make mistakes.
What is the problem?  Generally we like random in football.  

There seem to me to be 2 driving reasons:

a)  TV has this idea that if TV controlled more of what goes on that would be a good thing.  I doubt they have thought it through but certainly 90% of the positive voices are from TV, and 90% of the smaller group of negative voices from written media or coaches.

b) A huge misunderstanding about what is wrong with football,
The real bad things in football are:

  • Consistent bias by referees against specific teams either in decisions, or more likely failure to deal with brutal play
  • Serious foul play (dangerous play) - which is a huge issue not for insured professional  players, but for the many amateur kids often unsupervised playing in the parks but watching the game on TV

Neither of these things are addressed by VAR.  Yet a proper control by the FA of PMGOL would address the first.  And proper retrospective action by the FA on all foul and violent conduct would deal with the other.  REal problems.  Simple solutions.  Not done.

The Fake bad things in football are:

  • A ref made a bad decision - it's not fair  (who cares if it is random)
  • "We have a duty to make all decisions correct"  (bollox we do, we have a duty to have a punishment system that discourages foul play - that is it).
  • "diving"   (not a serious issue, and not one which VAR attempts to deal with properly - the simple solution is retrospective banning).
Edited by Droy was my hero

Share this post


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

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.

I don't see how one can use the "clear and obvious error line" when it comes to offside. It must be a off or onside call.......otherwise we will get into a territory whereby someone says, well he was only half a yard offside, so we let it go, or he was only marginally onside so we stuck with the original call of no goal. 

Share this post


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

Having watched Sly Sports covering exactly what occurred during the 93 second VAR delay today it's clear they missed one crucial step in the process.

"Which camera angle should we use?

"I don't know. Which one favours Chelsea?"

"The second one"

"User the other one".

Thing is, when it happened, I was sitting there thinking, "why are they using this angle, the camera isn't in line, there must be another one"...........you can't tell me the VAR officials have limited camera access. 

Share this post


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

I don't see how one can use the "clear and obvious error line" when it comes to offside. It must be a off or onside call.......otherwise we will get into a territory whereby someone says, well he was only half a yard offside, so we let it go, or he was only marginally onside so we stuck with the original call of no goal. 

Once you go from lino/ref using their best judgement, then lots of cans of worms get opened.  Like how big is a clear and obvious error?  Or clear and obvious to whom?

(Mind the words "clear and obvious error" tells you it is all about protecting referees reputations, not about better or less biased decision making).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
Just now, Droy was my hero said:

Once you go from lino/ref using their best judgement, then lots of cans of worms get opened.  Like how big is a clear and obvious error?  Or clear and obvious to whom?

(Mind the words "clear and obvious error" tells you it is all about protecting referees reputations, not about better or less biased decision making).

Yup........the phrase is so open to interpretation. Sorry to keep harping on, but Willian getting wiped out last year, and everyone in the ground, most of all the offending defender couldnt believe what happened 

They saw no "clear and obvious error" 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pn6dZKp338 

Share this post


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

Yup........the phrase is so open to interpretation. Sorry to keep harping on, but Willian getting wiped out last year, and everyone in the ground, most of all the offending defender couldnt believe what happened 

They saw no "clear and obvious error" 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pn6dZKp338 

My guess is that ref thought sure a deffo pen, but lets wait and see what the VAR team say.  Then got silence.

Share this post


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

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 .

Fair enough. Apologies to him then.

Share this post


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

Thing is, when it happened, I was sitting there thinking, "why are they using this angle, the camera isn't in line, there must be another one"...........you can't tell me the VAR officials have limited camera access. 

Well I don't know the truth of that Paul.

Share this post


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

I don't see how one can use the "clear and obvious error line" when it comes to offside. It must be a off or onside call.......otherwise we will get into a territory whereby someone says, well he was only half a yard offside, so we let it go, or he was only marginally onside so we stuck with the original call of no goal. 

It appears that the technology isn't yet ready to be 100% clear on offsides so I would leave the tight decisions to the referee/assistants. Similar to umpire's call in cricket.

You need a lot more cameras or tracking devices on the players' legs, bodies, feet and heads if you're going to get the offside line accurate to the cm.

Share this post


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