-
Is the investment deal still on?
Portugal vs Croatia
- Thread starter GreenJake
- Start date
Was anybody actually told about this 'technology?' First I've heard of it.
The sooner we scrap all versions of VAR and go back to ref's and linesmen's decisions (good and bad) the better.
I often (always) criticise the referees at Argyle games, but I can accept they are doing their best. They are part of the game I fell in love with as a kid.
This nonsense is killing it!
The sooner we scrap all versions of VAR and go back to ref's and linesmen's decisions (good and bad) the better.
I often (always) criticise the referees at Argyle games, but I can accept they are doing their best. They are part of the game I fell in love with as a kid.
This nonsense is killing it!
What I don't get is if Snicko provided the evidence that there was a touch, why even bother sending the referee over to the monitor to watch multiple replays of it? Refs are not usually sent to the monitor for offside decisions and it didn't look like the Snicko data was being shown to the ref when he was at the monitor anyway.
I saw something about it when they unveiled the ball (ffs) a few months back.
Offside - 100% the correct technical decision... However, do we want football being decided by sensors, computers, AI etc etc? Most people agree with goal line technology though, its should be really binary whether the ball crosses the line or not. 'Snicko' has detected the ball was flicked on, however slight of a touch, which makes it offside.
I think the problem with VAR, is that it was meant to fix 'clear and obvious' errors from the ref/linesman. I don't think its being used for that at all, and in any case what amounts to 'clear and obvious' for one person won't for another. All it does it add yet another layer of subjectivity....
I think the problem with VAR, is that it was meant to fix 'clear and obvious' errors from the ref/linesman. I don't think its being used for that at all, and in any case what amounts to 'clear and obvious' for one person won't for another. All it does it add yet another layer of subjectivity....
I watched the highlights without knowing the result, I got to 5 minutes and forced myself to know the result. Most entertaining game so fat imo. VAR continues to ruin football, maybe for offsides they should do something similar to crickets "umpires call", and call it referees/linesmans call.
That's a great shout. Where there's any small margin of error, the ref's decision carries the vote
Surely it was only the correct technical decision if it could be proved there was actually some contact with the attackers head.
Yet we saw no proof, no-one did.
The goal was disallowed by a dubious graphic from a system apparently in existence that was only mentioned in passing when they did the world cup official ball release.
It was a technical decision made by a technology that 99% of the audience was hitherto unaware of... so how can we trust the technical decision was correct?
We have to trust the VAR technology or it's rendered worthless. Yet trust of any technology only comes through education, openess and transparency about the system... and we've had none of that
Last edited:
You did see 'evidence' - its just that you didn't trust this amounted to proof, as it wasn't well publicised and hasn't got a history of usage and proven track record.Surely it was only the correct technical decision if it could be proved there was actually some contact with the attackers head.
Yet we saw no proof, no-one did.
The goal was disallowed by a dubious graphic from a system apparently in existence that was only mentioned in passing when they did the world cup official ball release.
It was a technical decision made by a technology that 99% of the audience was hitherto unaware of... so how can we trust the technical decision was correct?
We have to trust the VAR technology or it's rendered worthless. Yet trust of any technology only comes through education, openess and transparency about the system... and we've had none of that
It certainly is odd that this is the first time we've publicly seen this technology being used this World Cup. It would be good to know how much its been trialled, previous results and accuracy.
Goal Line technology was new once, but we do generally trust that nowadays.
Personally I hate VAR, it spoils the whole flow of the game and is still down to a human to interpret. Trustworthy, binary technology like Goal Line, I can get behind.
I'm sort of in agreement there.
But no, I didn't see 'evidence', that's the point, none of us did. We all trust our eyes because we all know how eyes work and have a lifetime of experience of them... and we all saw nothing.
Being told a microscopic contact occurred thanks to a chip next to no-one knew about is far far harder to trust. We don't have the same trust this chip as we do in our eyes because we don't know how it works and have zero experience of it.
Seeing is believing
Trusting a microchip and the correct transmission, recieving, decoding and then interpreting of the data it did or didn't capture... is not believing.
But no, I didn't see 'evidence', that's the point, none of us did. We all trust our eyes because we all know how eyes work and have a lifetime of experience of them... and we all saw nothing.
Being told a microscopic contact occurred thanks to a chip next to no-one knew about is far far harder to trust. We don't have the same trust this chip as we do in our eyes because we don't know how it works and have zero experience of it.
Seeing is believing
Trusting a microchip and the correct transmission, recieving, decoding and then interpreting of the data it did or didn't capture... is not believing.