sullydnl
Ross Kemp's caf ID
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 34,063
He can be retrospectively banned anyway, can't he?They’ve just admitted they’ve made a mistake
Crazy!
Can they retrospectively give a red?
He can be retrospectively banned anyway, can't he?They’ve just admitted they’ve made a mistake
Crazy!
Can they retrospectively give a red?
Did the ref even take a second look at Lo Celso’ challenge?I am for it totally. Anything that helps refs get a second look has my vote.
If the ref says he didn't see the incident fully, or made a mistake, they yes. If the ref says he saw it and stands by his decision then no. To be honest I might be out of date, but that's the way it used to be.He can be retrospectively banned anyway, can't he?
Why didn't they tell the ref so he could be sent off? 20 minutes late but better than nothing!Stockley Park just communicated they got the decision wrong.
What a clusterfeck.
They're all human errors though, aren't they? Unless the images VAR gives are distorted then it cant really make a mistake, can it?Not a VAR error, it was a human error. What a load of shite.
Exactly. Though you may be excused for thinking a couple of monkeys are manning it at times.They're all human errors though, aren't they? Unless the images VAR gives are distorted then it cant really make a mistake, can it?
Why does a league with so much money only have one person reviewing? It should be a panel of three and perhaps the referee should have the final look and say.Not a VAR error, it was a human error. What a load of shite.
I don't think the on-field ref should even have the option. The rules are the rules regardless of if whatever ref is looking at the reply. Giving the on-field ref the option (or not) of going to check the replay just adds another layer of doubt.Why does a league with so much money only have one person reviewing? It should be a panel of three and perhaps the referee should have the final look and say.
Yep. I usually dislike the way that Rugby refereeing is used as a stick to beat football with; they have their own problems in this department. But at least their officials work in tandem. The conversation between the TMO and on-pitch referee is broadcast to the audience, too. This has to be a route under consideration, even if every decision is unlikely to be viewed at the screen. If the VAR is unsure himself, that’s fine; at least let us hear that conversation, which (should) lead to on-pitch referee consulting the off-pitch television.I don't think the on-field ref should even have the option. The rules are the rules regardless of if whatever ref is looking at the reply. Giving the on-field ref the option (or not) of going to check the replay just adds another layer of doubt.
Let the ref in the VAR booth advise the on-field ref. They should be a team.
VAR needs a human, therefore the system is fatally flawed.Not a VAR error, it was a human error. What a load of shite.
Of course he should. The majority are subjective decisions, you don't want a different ref with a different judgement change those callsI don't think the on-field ref should even have the option.
I think the below is the best answer to that odd logic:VAR needs a human, therefore the system is fatally flawed.
It’s a VAR error as you need a human to operate it
It's like blaming the calculator after failing. It's a tool if used wrong, it will look shit
How is it odd logic? If VAR needs a human still to operate it it’s always going to be flawed- I dont really care about some calculator analogy as they’re not comparableI think the below is the best answer to that odd logic:
Why not? What difference does it make if fully qualified Ref A or fully qualified Ref B makes the call?Of course he should. The majority are subjective decisions, you don't want a different ref with a different judgement change those calls
Another shocking decision from the clowns standing over VAR, as others stated it’s not the system itself that’s the problem. However out will come the “you just hate VAR and want to fuel your agenda” brigade soon enough.
Aye but at that point VAR would still have done it's job correctly. As in it would have given the referee the best possible opportunity to make the correct decision. If he still makes the wrong call at that point then it's on him, as it would have been without VAR anyway.If the on the field ref looked at the monitor and said it wasn’t a red people would only have the same complaints.
It's odd logic because you're taking a concept which is broadly subjective and turning it into something black and white. Take today out as an example and look at the countless VAR decisions world wide that would polarize opinion. There's no way anyone outside of a human can make the final decision, which is why your logic is odd. Computers work for scientific decisions, which the topic of fouls isn't.How is it odd logic? If VAR needs a human still to operate it it’s always going to be flawed- I dont really care about some calculator analogy as they’re not comparable
You’re probably right regarding the technicalities especially.Aye but at that point VAR would still have done it's job correctly. As in it would have given the referee the best possible opportunity to make the correct decision. If he still makes the wrong call at that point then it's on him, as it would have been without VAR anyway.
Plus realistically the odds of him making a blatantly wrong decision decrease a lot at that point. Especially as he isn't restricted by technicalities in the same way as VAR is.
I wold be fine with that kind of mistake if the ref had taken a look and made the mistake. Not some anonymous guy sitting in a bus somewhere.They're all human errors though, aren't they? Unless the images VAR gives are distorted then it cant really make a mistake, can it?
In general, other leagues don’t use VAR as much as in the PL.You’re probably right regarding the technicalities especially.
Do European leagues use the monitor a lot? I think the problem we’ll always have with VAR is the referees in England aren’t all that.
Consistency. These are subjective calls - and players get used to the ref's and react accordinglyWhy not? What difference does it make if fully qualified Ref A or fully qualified Ref B makes the call?
It's not some anonymous guy sitting in a bus. It's another, fully qualified ref (and we know which one, today was David Coote).I wold be fine with that kind of mistake if the ref had taken a look and made the mistake. Not some anonymous guy sitting in a bus somewhere.
Really? Is it because they’re more confident in their referees or is it just a difference in the way the technology is used?In general, other leagues don’t use VAR as much as in the PL.
Yes, the PL took an unusual (i.e. stupid) policy of light-touch intervention on subjective decisions.You’re probably right regarding the technicalities especially.
Do European leagues use the monitor a lot? I think the problem we’ll always have with VAR is the referees in England aren’t all that.
That’s pretty interesting isn’t it, I wonder if next season they’ll try to change it to be more in line with how Europe are using the technology, surely they’ll have to at this point.Yes, the PL took an unusual (i.e. stupid) policy of light-touch intervention on subjective decisions.
For example, not a single penalty was awarded by VAR in the first 90 games of this season. As opposed to the Bundesliga, in which 12 penalties were awarded in the first 72 games. Obviously the notion that not a single penalty was missed in 90 games is stupid beyond belief, but the PL decided that having as few interventions as possible was their priority.
That ethos extends to the use of the pitchside monitors too. So even though they're in place at all the grounds, even though IFAB protocol is to use them when required and even though other leagues use them, the PL don't. Mostly because their priority is to have as few delays as possible.
Exactly thisman - - - > shit decision
man - - - > tech - - - > 2nd man - - - > shit decision
conclusion - involvement of extra man and tech is a waste of time
They've already lowered the threshold for penalty overturns this season, which is why the pattern of that first 90 days didn't continue. So I guess they're (sort of) open to changing some things at least.That’s pretty interesting isn’t it, I wonder if next season they’ll try to change it to be more in line with how Europe are using the technology, surely they’ll have to at this point.
Ding ding dingSo now the refs saying they got it wrong on Lo Celso.
It’s not VAR. Its the idiots running it.
This is so frustrating. If the system needs the refs & human error still then it’s not & never will be a good system. You’re just adding more time & delays to a process to still at the end of the day have a human make a subjective call.Ding ding ding
"A system that relies on humans and is vulnerable to human error isn't and can never be a good system" is an argument against most institutions and/or human endeavour.This is so frustrating. If the system needs the refs & human error still then it’s not & never will be a good system. You’re just adding more time & delays to a process to still at the end of the day have a human make a subjective call.
It's not just a tool though. You'll always have a human who can make errors controlling the tool, and currently this is the best level humans in PL can produce.I think the below is the best answer to that odd logic:
It's better than pre-VAR.Just going to say it, VAR is being used to manipulate games in the premier league.
It's been an absolute disgrace all season and the two Chelsea games this week are the cherry on top.
Personally done with the league until it's admitted and fixed. Will watch other leagues instead.
I applaud your strenght to keep trying to argue with him."A system that relies on humans and is vulnerable to human error isn't and can never be a good system" is an argument against most institutions and/or human endeavour.
The world is full of systems that rely on humans and are vulnerable to human error. That doesn't mean they aren't useful, or that there isn't good/bad practice when setting them up, or that people should have given up on them when the first iterations weren't up to scratch.
Your argument seems to be that a) if it isn't perfect then it isn't worthwhile and b) whatever it is now, it can never be any better. Which isn't a position most people hold.