|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 18, 2018 21:13:43 GMT
It's absolute horsewank.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jun 18, 2018 21:18:36 GMT
I've got absolutely no faith in its proper application, because the people applying it are the same sort of people as those on the pundits' sofa who talk about the right to go down. I can think of the England game a few weeks back and the Liverpool West Brom game in the cup as examples of VAR being used badly. There's just been a perfect example in the Belgium game. The blatant dive by the Belgian player has just been completely ignored, even with TV replays showing just how awful a dive it was. That isn’t VAR’s fault though is it, that’s the ref choosing not to use it. He wouldn’t have given it anyway. What it has done is lead to a number of correct penalties being given that the ref would otherwise not have done, so that’s already a positive impact, surely? If it's always going to be dependent on the interpretation of whichever circus clown is in charge that week, what's the point? There will still be plenty of mistakes and there will still be a complete lack of consistency because football, unlike sports that successfully employ technology, doesn't apply the rules in a binary, black and white fashion. It's always been subjective, and always will be. VAR just adds delays and mayhem.
|
|
|
Post by Beloved Monkfish on Jun 18, 2018 21:22:14 GMT
That isn’t VAR’s fault though is it, that’s the ref choosing not to use it. He wouldn’t have given it anyway. What it has done is lead to a number of correct penalties being given that the ref would otherwise not have done, so that’s already a positive impact, surely? If it's always going to be dependent on the interpretation of whichever circus clown is in charge that week, what's the point? There will still be plenty of mistakes and there will still be a complete lack of consistency because football, unlike sports that successfully employ technology, doesn't apply the rules in a binary, black and white fashion. It's always been subjective, and always will be. VAR just adds delays and mayhem. Kind of agree with this. It also has the potential to ruin the 'mental'. Both times Kane scored tonight, for a good 20 seconds I was thinking 'will VAR rule it out?'
|
|
|
Post by FbrgVaStkFan on Jun 18, 2018 21:22:43 GMT
Sure, but it's inevitable, just like the other sports that have been ruined by video reviews--except horse racing I suppose. It’s enhanced cricket because it’s been done right. It’s worked in tennis by in large too. Once football gets it right it will work. Sure, but I'd argue the fluidity of those "start/stop" type sports may be less affected because of their "start/stop" nature. The only way I think it may ever work is if it becomes instantaneous and emotionless...an AI referee perhaps? That, along with a new generation of fans who don't remember NOT having it being part of the game, so they won't know any different.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 18, 2018 21:39:38 GMT
They were the better team for most of the game, they were a better team in general and we almost never beat the top sides when we play them. I see no reason to believe we’d have beaten them in that game, Hand of God or not. Disgusting cheating yes, but don’t think we were ‘robbed’, as we hardly started playing until he put the wingers on. By the same token I see no reason to believe they'd have definitely beaten us if that goal had been disallowed. I didn't think there was that much between the teams and we were all over them at the end. I never said we were robbed, we'll never know how the game would've panned out. All I've said is you've no right to be so certain. I don’t really know what that means to be honest. They won the World Cup. We won one of our group games. I struggle to see a scenario where we’d have scored more than them. The momentum was with them until we put Barnes and Waddle on and scored with 10 minutes to go. It was a late desperate push that was ultimately unsuccessful. We caused them few serious problems.
|
|
|
Post by ParaPsych on Jun 18, 2018 21:42:48 GMT
By the same token I see no reason to believe they'd have definitely beaten us if that goal had been disallowed. I didn't think there was that much between the teams and we were all over them at the end. I never said we were robbed, we'll never know how the game would've panned out. All I've said is you've no right to be so certain. I don’t really know what that means to be honest. They won the World Cup. We won one of our group games. I struggle to see a scenario where we’d have scored more than them. The momentum was with them until we put Barnes and Waddle on and scored with 10 minutes to go. It was a late desperate push that was ultimately unsuccessful. We caused them few serious problems. To be fair the best team doesn't always win a game. So who knows what might have happened still holds true. We might even have won a penalty shootout!
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jun 18, 2018 21:59:44 GMT
Never tasted it, you not a fan then?
|
|
|
Post by bolders on Jun 18, 2018 22:08:49 GMT
just wait till its rolled out in the prem and the top six get shit loads of reviews and the lesser teams get shit on even more so
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 18, 2018 22:12:48 GMT
That isn’t VAR’s fault though is it, that’s the ref choosing not to use it. He wouldn’t have given it anyway. What it has done is lead to a number of correct penalties being given that the ref would otherwise not have done, so that’s already a positive impact, surely? If it's always going to be dependent on the interpretation of whichever circus clown is in charge that week, what's the point? There will still be plenty of mistakes and there will still be a complete lack of consistency because football, unlike sports that successfully employ technology, doesn't apply the rules in a binary, black and white fashion. It's always been subjective, and always will be. VAR just adds delays and mayhem. In the World Cup though, both the delay and mayhem have been minimal and the decision it’s been consulted on have been right. Yes, you can argue there should be more consistency than there’s been but that was true of refereeing before it too. I see it as an incremental improvement on what had gone before, an extra pair of eyes for the ref.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Jun 18, 2018 22:18:14 GMT
If it's always going to be dependent on the interpretation of whichever circus clown is in charge that week, what's the point? There will still be plenty of mistakes and there will still be a complete lack of consistency because football, unlike sports that successfully employ technology, doesn't apply the rules in a binary, black and white fashion. It's always been subjective, and always will be. VAR just adds delays and mayhem. In the World Cup though, both the delay and mayhem have been minimal and the decision it’s been consulted on have been right. Yes, you can argue there should be more consistency than there’s been but that was true of refereeing before it too. I see it as an incremental improvement on what had gone before, an extra pair of eyes for the ref. It's open to manipulation to engineer results of games. That was apparent tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jun 18, 2018 22:22:39 GMT
I repeat because it was one of my wiser posts which was sadly lost and drowned on here by people who like the sound of their own voice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VAR work fine where the decision is handed over to a machine to decide, for example a line call in tennis, a snick at cricket or a goal line clearance in football, everyone accepts it without fail and you move on. But where all you do is hand over some video to another group of decision makers you simply court further controversy.
|
|
|
Post by Ygor on Jun 18, 2018 22:27:37 GMT
I love the World Cup and I think VAR is a step in the right direction but after watching the England game tonight, and reviewing the history of the World Cup (which I have watched since 1966!), and considering the antics of FIFA itself over the years, I have reached the conclusion that football, at least at international level may well be corrupt. Consider: 1. What possible explanation can there be for the referee AND the VAR missing Harry Kane being wrestled to the ground in the box on at least 2 occasions? For me there is only one explanation - they CHOSE not to see it. That isn't the systems fault. It's human error at best and corruption at worst. 2. The "Hand of God"; Lampard's goal that never was; and countless other miscarriages of justice over the years, not just England matches. All seen by millions but apparently not by the man who mattered. 3. The proven corrupt antics of FIFA in the past and the very suspect way in which some World Cups have been awarded. 4. The 1978 World Cup and allegations since (not without some substance) that Argentina "fixed" the tournament. All under FIFA's watch. 5. The football governing bodies love controversy being brought to the game. They, and some of you (rightly or wrongly) get off on having something to debate or moan about. Some people actually prefer such controversy to fairness. And so the said footballing bodies seemingly get dragged kicking and screaming to succumb to using technology to help the referees to make the right decision. Well, kicking and screaming until they realised that VAR could be used in such a way that their beloved controversy could still prevail. I bet they just hate goal line technology because that works well and there can be no argument and therefore no controversy. You can probably guess that I prefer fairness. I think I've merely scratched the surface on the topic really but there is for now, a ray of hope. Tonight, England played well, stuck to their task to the bitter end and were justly rewarded with the late goal, despite playing against the Tunisia team, the referee and the VAR, the latter 2 of which clearly should have gone to Specsavers. Could we finally have broken the spell? Might we win a penalty shoot out? I can cope with England losing if they play crap but I have to admit, if we had drawn or lost tonight, I would have felt pretty done. Justice was done in the end!
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Jun 18, 2018 22:34:34 GMT
If it's always going to be dependent on the interpretation of whichever circus clown is in charge that week, what's the point? There will still be plenty of mistakes and there will still be a complete lack of consistency because football, unlike sports that successfully employ technology, doesn't apply the rules in a binary, black and white fashion. It's always been subjective, and always will be. VAR just adds delays and mayhem. In the World Cup though, both the delay and mayhem have been minimal and the decision it’s been consulted on have been right. Yes, you can argue there should be more consistency than there’s been but that was true of refereeing before it too. I see it as an incremental improvement on what had gone before, an extra pair of eyes for the ref. The delay being minimal seems to be the problem, at least tonight. Clattenburg just said that because the powers that be are conscious of the criticisms over the time it takes to make the correct decisions, there just isn’t time to review all the camera angles. I may have the numbers wrong, but he was basically saying they had 23 seconds tonight to review 25 camera angles (for the first Kane penalty shout). Whatever the reasons, they got it massively wrong tonight, they got it wrong for the Switzerland goal, and (admittedly a strong personal opinion) they got it wrong for the French penalty. At best it’s not inspiring confidence, and doesn’t convince me that it will provide anything like the fairness it was sold to us on when it’s introduced in the Premier League. It’s not ready to be rolled out in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Jun 18, 2018 22:52:31 GMT
I don’t really know what that means to be honest. They won the World Cup. We won one of our group games. I struggle to see a scenario where we’d have scored more than them. The momentum was with them until we put Barnes and Waddle on and scored with 10 minutes to go. It was a late desperate push that was ultimately unsuccessful. We caused them few serious problems. To be fair the best team doesn't always win a game. So who knows what might have happened still holds true. We might even have won a penalty shootout! Who knows? Toxic knows that's who! He can tell the future, the past and the "what might have been"!
|
|
|
Post by ParaPsych on Jun 18, 2018 22:54:44 GMT
To be fair the best team doesn't always win a game. So who knows what might have happened still holds true. We might even have won a penalty shootout! Who knows? Toxic knows that's who! He can tell the future, the past and the "what might have been"! Well to be honest I don't think we should spend much time ruminating over it given that we won the world cup with a goal that didn't even cross the line.
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Jun 18, 2018 22:57:30 GMT
Who knows? Toxic knows that's who! He can tell the future, the past and the "what might have been"! Well to be honest I don't think we should spend much time ruminating over it given that we won the world cup with a goal that didn't even cross the line. Ah, but even if it had been disallowed we definitely still would have won because we scored another one. Or something. This is known as "The Toxic Hypothesis", and we can prove it because, well, we just *know*, right?
|
|
|
Post by ParaPsych on Jun 18, 2018 23:01:28 GMT
Well to be honest I don't think we should spend much time ruminating over it given that we won the world cup with a goal that didn't even cross the line. Ah, but even if it had been disallowed we definitely still would have won because we scored another one. Or something. This is known as "The Toxic Hypothesis", and we can prove it because, well, we just *know*, right? No if that goal is disallowed the entire history of the universe would be different and we simply don't know what would have happened. It would be in its own separate universe in the multiverse.
|
|
|
Post by generationex on Jun 18, 2018 23:09:47 GMT
Am I right in thinking the Kane ‘penalty’ was flagged by VAR but still missed by the ref?
If so what’s the point?
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jun 18, 2018 23:14:05 GMT
If it's always going to be dependent on the interpretation of whichever circus clown is in charge that week, what's the point? There will still be plenty of mistakes and there will still be a complete lack of consistency because football, unlike sports that successfully employ technology, doesn't apply the rules in a binary, black and white fashion. It's always been subjective, and always will be. VAR just adds delays and mayhem. In the World Cup though, both the delay and mayhem have been minimal and the decision it’s been consulted on have been right. Yes, you can argue there should be more consistency than there’s been but that was true of refereeing before it too. I see it as an incremental improvement on what had gone before, an extra pair of eyes for the ref. Have they always been right? The referee tonight apparently had another look at the Kane penalty incident (or the goal-line clearance) and either decided it wasn't an offence or totally missed. Fair enough, though. I just don't think that the benefits thus far have really been worth the faffing about, even if it's been better than the more farcical usage in the League Cup this year.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 19, 2018 5:51:40 GMT
To be fair the best team doesn't always win a game. So who knows what might have happened still holds true. We might even have won a penalty shootout! Who knows? Toxic knows that's who! He can tell the future, the past and the "what might have been"! Oh do bore off.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jun 19, 2018 7:09:32 GMT
They were the better team for most of the game, they were a better team in general and we almost never beat the top sides when we play them. I see no reason to believe we’d have beaten them in that game, Hand of God or not. Disgusting cheating yes, but don’t think we were ‘robbed’, as we hardly started playing until he put the wingers on. By the same token I see no reason to believe they'd have definitely beaten us if that goal had been disallowed. I didn't think there was that much between the teams and we were all over them at the end. I never said we were robbed, we'll never know how the game would've panned out. All I've said is you've no right to be so certain. I'm certain. In the first half we hardly got out of our own half and like everyone else seemed to have one clear intention... hack Maradona. And like everyone else it didn't work. The handball was a convenient crutch we could lean on to make us feel better. In reality we were never going win it.
|
|
|
Post by homer32 on Jun 19, 2018 7:43:47 GMT
I love the World Cup and I think VAR is a step in the right direction but after watching the England game tonight, and reviewing the history of the World Cup (which I have watched since 1966!), and considering the antics of FIFA itself over the years, I have reached the conclusion that football, at least at international level may well be corrupt. Consider: 1. What possible explanation can there be for the referee AND the VAR missing Harry Kane being wrestled to the ground in the box on at least 2 occasions? For me there is only one explanation - they CHOSE not to see it. That isn't the systems fault. It's human error at best and corruption at worst. 2. The "Hand of God"; Lampard's goal that never was; and countless other miscarriages of justice over the years, not just England matches. All seen by millions but apparently not by the man who mattered. 3. The proven corrupt antics of FIFA in the past and the very suspect way in which some World Cups have been awarded. 4. The 1978 World Cup and allegations since (not without some substance) that Argentina "fixed" the tournament. All under FIFA's watch. 5. The football governing bodies love controversy being brought to the game. They, and some of you (rightly or wrongly) get off on having something to debate or moan about. Some people actually prefer such controversy to fairness. And so the said footballing bodies seemingly get dragged kicking and screaming to succumb to using technology to help the referees to make the right decision. Well, kicking and screaming until they realised that VAR could be used in such a way that their beloved controversy could still prevail. I bet they just hate goal line technology because that works well and there can be no argument and therefore no controversy. You can probably guess that I prefer fairness. I think I've merely scratched the surface on the topic really but there is for now, a ray of hope. Tonight, England played well, stuck to their task to the bitter end and were justly rewarded with the late goal, despite playing against the Tunisia team, the referee and the VAR, the latter 2 of which clearly should have gone to Specsavers. Could we finally have broken the spell? Might we win a penalty shoot out? I can cope with England losing if they play crap but I have to admit, if we had drawn or lost tonight, I would have felt pretty done. Justice was done in the end! FIFA and Russia want us out of the World Cup as fast as possible.We can expect more decisions to go against us as I believe the refs and the VAR officials have been instructed to rule against us.England are hated by FIFA and Russia and politics will always play a big part in sport.
|
|
|
Post by doitforfrank on Jun 19, 2018 7:57:58 GMT
I love the World Cup and I think VAR is a step in the right direction but after watching the England game tonight, and reviewing the history of the World Cup (which I have watched since 1966!), and considering the antics of FIFA itself over the years, I have reached the conclusion that football, at least at international level may well be corrupt. Consider: 1. What possible explanation can there be for the referee AND the VAR missing Harry Kane being wrestled to the ground in the box on at least 2 occasions? For me there is only one explanation - they CHOSE not to see it. That isn't the systems fault. It's human error at best and corruption at worst. 2. The "Hand of God"; Lampard's goal that never was; and countless other miscarriages of justice over the years, not just England matches. All seen by millions but apparently not by the man who mattered. 3. The proven corrupt antics of FIFA in the past and the very suspect way in which some World Cups have been awarded. 4. The 1978 World Cup and allegations since (not without some substance) that Argentina "fixed" the tournament. All under FIFA's watch. 5. The football governing bodies love controversy being brought to the game. They, and some of you (rightly or wrongly) get off on having something to debate or moan about. Some people actually prefer such controversy to fairness. And so the said footballing bodies seemingly get dragged kicking and screaming to succumb to using technology to help the referees to make the right decision. Well, kicking and screaming until they realised that VAR could be used in such a way that their beloved controversy could still prevail. I bet they just hate goal line technology because that works well and there can be no argument and therefore no controversy. You can probably guess that I prefer fairness. I think I've merely scratched the surface on the topic really but there is for now, a ray of hope. Tonight, England played well, stuck to their task to the bitter end and were justly rewarded with the late goal, despite playing against the Tunisia team, the referee and the VAR, the latter 2 of which clearly should have gone to Specsavers. Could we finally have broken the spell? Might we win a penalty shoot out? I can cope with England losing if they play crap but I have to admit, if we had drawn or lost tonight, I would have felt pretty done. Justice was done in the end! FIFA and Russia want us out of the World Cup as fast as possible.We can expect more decisions to go against us as I believe the refs and the VAR officials have been instructed to rule against us.England are hated by FIFA and Russia and politics will always play a big part in sport. Just based on politics we are as likely to win this World Cup as we are to ever win the Eurovision song contest again. 8 (YES EIGHT) officials managed to all not see the glaring penalties that the whole world could see.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 19, 2018 8:04:34 GMT
I don’t really know what that means to be honest. They won the World Cup. We won one of our group games. I struggle to see a scenario where we’d have scored more than them. The momentum was with them until we put Barnes and Waddle on and scored with 10 minutes to go. It was a late desperate push that was ultimately unsuccessful. We caused them few serious problems. To be fair the best team doesn't always win a game. So who knows what might have happened still holds true. We might even have won a penalty shootout!Now you are heading into a different dimension
|
|
|
Post by broadwayroundabout on Jun 19, 2018 8:19:21 GMT
England are to FIFA/ World Cup to what Stoke are to the FA/Premier league
|
|
|
Post by Stretfordpotterer on Jun 19, 2018 13:58:51 GMT
In the World Cup VAR is used only to review goals, penalties, straight red cards and mistaken identity. This is very ambiguous because does it mean that incidents are automatically reviewed without a call from the ref. I said in a previous thread that assistant refs have been instructed to not flag for very marginal offside incidents and allow the game to flow and if a goal results then the VAR would disallow it if it was definitely offside. This would indicate that goals are always subject to VAR scrutiny. However the blatant penalty Arg vs Iceland would indicate that VAR is only used when called for by the ref. Very unfair and just adding to the general confusion of VAR. I personally don’t like it because controversial decisions are all part of the game and create great discussion. Cheating can be stopped by review panel after the game in a similar way that bans are issued for missed violent conduct. The ref doesn't call for VAR, or at leats he hasn't in any game i've seen yet, he is informed if it looks like an error by the VAR team, if they refer it back to im for a pen then it is almost certainly a cock up. The one argentina should have had, i can only assume they had exceeded the time limit before having reached a conclusion or seen the relevant angle. They only have about 20 seconds i think. Also, they appear only to be referring decisions that the ref has seen and then either given or not given, when the build up suggested that they would use it to cut out on wrestling, ie Kane yesterday which hasn't happened at all, if the ref doesn't clearly state he's giving it or wave it away then it looks like they consider that not to be a clear and obvious error, because he hasn;t seen it to make an error. All in all however, i think it has worked suprisingly well. I was expecting a shambles but don't believe it has been. Some niggles to iron out sure but it has resulted in MORE correct decisions. does that justify it's introduction in a league system where bad decisions are rarely the end of the world? possibly not, but in a world cup, one refereeing error and you're out, i think it's great. Peru pen, good decision, got a penalty they would have been denied. Sweden likewise, clear pen, game winning pen. France, debatable decision, debatable referrel, debatable change of decision. If it's debatable surely it's best the ref has a second look?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 14:05:17 GMT
Fuck it off
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jun 19, 2018 14:47:32 GMT
In the World Cup VAR is used only to review goals, penalties, straight red cards and mistaken identity. This is very ambiguous because does it mean that incidents are automatically reviewed without a call from the ref. I said in a previous thread that assistant refs have been instructed to not flag for very marginal offside incidents and allow the game to flow and if a goal results then the VAR would disallow it if it was definitely offside. This would indicate that goals are always subject to VAR scrutiny. However the blatant penalty Arg vs Iceland would indicate that VAR is only used when called for by the ref. Very unfair and just adding to the general confusion of VAR. I personally don’t like it because controversial decisions are all part of the game and create great discussion. Cheating can be stopped by review panel after the game in a similar way that bans are issued for missed violent conduct. The ref doesn't call for VAR, or at leats he hasn't in any game i've seen yet, he is informed if it looks like an error by the VAR team, if they refer it back to im for a pen then it is almost certainly a cock up. The one argentina should have had, i can only assume they had exceeded the time limit before having reached a conclusion or seen the relevant angle. They only have about 20 seconds i think. Also, they appear only to be referring decisions that the ref has seen and then either given or not given, when the build up suggested that they would use it to cut out on wrestling, ie Kane yesterday which hasn't happened at all, if the ref doesn't clearly state he's giving it or wave it away then it looks like they consider that not to be a clear and obvious error, because he hasn;t seen it to make an error. All in all however, i think it has worked suprisingly well. I was expecting a shambles but don't believe it has been. Some niggles to iron out sure but it has resulted in MORE correct decisions. does that justify it's introduction in a league system where bad decisions are rarely the end of the world? possibly not, but in a world cup, one refereeing error and you're out, i think it's great. Peru pen, good decision, got a penalty they would have been denied. Sweden likewise, clear pen, game winning pen. France, debatable decision, debatable referrel, debatable change of decision. If it's debatable surely it's best the ref has a second look? Those two blatant penalties that both ref and VAR missed on Kane yesterday would suggest that VAR isn’t working, in fact it’s creating more confusion amongst fans as to how it is supposed to works . Can’t wait for the final when teams will be forever looking up at the replay screen screaming for VAR on all manner of incidents.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Jun 19, 2018 14:52:38 GMT
In the World Cup VAR is used only to review goals, penalties, straight red cards and mistaken identity. This is very ambiguous because does it mean that incidents are automatically reviewed without a call from the ref. I said in a previous thread that assistant refs have been instructed to not flag for very marginal offside incidents and allow the game to flow and if a goal results then the VAR would disallow it if it was definitely offside. This would indicate that goals are always subject to VAR scrutiny. However the blatant penalty Arg vs Iceland would indicate that VAR is only used when called for by the ref. Very unfair and just adding to the general confusion of VAR. I personally don’t like it because controversial decisions are all part of the game and create great discussion. Cheating can be stopped by review panel after the game in a similar way that bans are issued for missed violent conduct. The ref doesn't call for VAR, or at leats he hasn't in any game i've seen yet, he is informed if it looks like an error by the VAR team, if they refer it back to im for a pen then it is almost certainly a cock up. The one argentina should have had, i can only assume they had exceeded the time limit before having reached a conclusion or seen the relevant angle. They only have about 20 seconds i think. Also, they appear only to be referring decisions that the ref has seen and then either given or not given, when the build up suggested that they would use it to cut out on wrestling, ie Kane yesterday which hasn't happened at all, if the ref doesn't clearly state he's giving it or wave it away then it looks like they consider that not to be a clear and obvious error, because he hasn;t seen it to make an error. All in all however, i think it has worked suprisingly well. I was expecting a shambles but don't believe it has been. Some niggles to iron out sure but it has resulted in MORE correct decisions. does that justify it's introduction in a league system where bad decisions are rarely the end of the world? possibly not, but in a world cup, one refereeing error and you're out, i think it's great. Peru pen, good decision, got a penalty they would have been denied. Sweden likewise, clear pen, game winning pen. France, debatable decision, debatable referrel, debatable change of decision. If it's debatable surely it's best the ref has a second look? That 20 second rule leaves it wide open for corruption.
|
|
|
Post by vahl on Jun 19, 2018 15:05:38 GMT
I repeat because it was one of my wiser posts which was sadly lost and drowned on here by people who like the sound of their own voice >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VAR work fine where the decision is handed over to a machine to decide, for example a line call in tennis, a snick at cricket or a goal line clearance in football, everyone accepts it without fail and you move on. But where all you do is hand over some video to another group of decision makers you simply court further controversy. This is the solution. Gary Neville has been saying it should be TV companies that control VAR - is he mad? Human error still plays a part regardless. It should be AI (artificial intelligence, machines, robotic etc) controlled. There are possibilities. There is 'code' now that can learn from itself even - it's ideal for something like VAR. AI is indeed the future anyway.
|
|