• Current Donation Goals

Michael Tucker

Tottenham Hotspur 1 Chelsea 0

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Holymoly said:

The offside thing is a bit of a red herring. Discuss it regarding the use of VAR but it was not the deciding issue of the game. There was plenty of time for us to turn things around but the folly of persisting with false 9 was what truly stuffed us. Even with a proper striker we find it hard enough to score goals but without Hazard walking throughthe defense for us we were never going to find the net.

Not sure Higuain is the answer either...

Yep!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours 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. 

First bolded bit - it is literally the technology that isn’t good enough. You need multiple angles and an hawk-eye camera if you’re going to decide these things.If you don’t have it, don’t use VAR.

Second bolded bit - they do show the same footage on tv as the VAR crew is reviewing. 

 

Share this post


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

First bolded bit - it is literally the technology that isn’t good enough. You need multiple angles and an hawk-eye camera if you’re going to decide these things.If you don’t have it, don’t use VAR.

Second bolded bit - they do show the same footage on tv as the VAR crew is reviewing. 

 

you needed any single angle of the incident a shown on Sky, VAR or any newspaper to get the Kane offside decision right. That and actually viewing the thing to make a decision, not just confirm a bias.  It's a human thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The_Ghost said:

First bolded bit - 1) it is literally the technology that isn’t good enough. You need multiple angles and an hawk-eye camera if you’re going to decide these things.If you don’t have it, don’t use VAR.

Second bolded bit - 2) they do show the same footage on tv as the VAR crew is reviewing. 

 

1) We're in violent agreement here. What I meant was that it's not the technology in terms of its potential, it's the limited application of it that appears to have been chosen as adequate and I agree that as it is it isn't adequate.

2) Do they show it at the same time as it's being reviewed to the watching public? I.e. on TV and in the stadium? As is the case for Tennis and Cricket?

Share this post


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

1) We're in violent agreement here. What I meant was that it's not the technology in terms of its potential, it's the limited application of it that appears to have been chosen as adequate and I agree that as it is it isn't adequate.

2) Do they show it at the same time as it's being reviewed to the watching public? I.e. on TV and in the stadium? As is the case for Tennis and Cricket?

1) Right, my bad. Misunderstood! 

2) I strongly believe that’s the case. Certainly was like that during the WC and it seemed like it was the same procedure yesterday. Not sure about the stadium - never been to a game that used VAR. Maybe someone that has can clarify? 

Share this post


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

1) We're in violent agreement here. What I meant was that it's not the technology in terms of its potential, it's the limited application of it that appears to have been chosen as adequate and I agree that as it is it isn't adequate.

Surely the TV remote rewind and play is good enough to correct > 50% of ref errors.  How can anyone argue VAR tech as used is not good enough yet?

17 minutes ago, PeteRobbo said:

2) Do they show it at the same time as it's being reviewed to the watching public? I.e. on TV and in the stadium? As is the case for Tennis and Cricket?

Yes.  For Sky and the LC.  Stadium not sure.  Rock and rolling too.  But not the umpire to umpire chat.

 

Edited by Droy was my hero

Share this post


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

1) Right, my bad. Misunderstood! 

Well understandably since I wasn't clear enough I think. 

Anyway, it remains to be seen if and when anything might be done to rectify this mistaken decision.

Not unlike something else that's seemingly been dominating the news for what seems like for ever these days!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kev61   
2 hours ago, Ham said:

Whilst I get the gyst of your message it was LITERALLY the deciding issue. 

 "The deciding issue" Ham was the lack of a centre forward and a cental midfield that lacks impetus.Technology was a mere bagatelle imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kev61 said:

 "The deciding issue" Ham was the lack of a centre forward and a cental midfield that lacks impetus.Technology was a mere bagatelle imo.

Yeh I'm with you Kev. We had no ammunition up front which caused us to field Hazard in an unsuitable role and that stymied us big time. Imagine if Hazard was played in his best position off a striker with CHO also as an AM. That would give the oppo plenty to think about for sure and a half-decent striker should certainly get a hat-full of chances I would think.

Had we also had RLC in midfield then so much the better on top of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   
12 minutes ago, kev61 said:

 "The deciding issue" Ham was the lack of a centre forward and a cental midfield that lacks impetus.Technology was a mere bagatelle imo.

I was agreeing in principle, generally, although we played brilliantly, whilst pointing out that the record books will say otherwise.  1-0 due to a VAR penalty. 

 

 

Share this post


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