comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
What used to happen is we’d see a handful of replays and in these instances, there would generally be two reactions - one from people who accepted its too tight to call and others from people who felt they could see one way or the other and complain about the linesman.
------
I said the toenail was offside. This is not in question so its not a "too tight to call scenario". If the toenail is visibly offside then it wouldn't lead to what you said.
The post I was replying to is about toenails and nose hairs being offside, not the ones where you can't tell if a body part is offside.
You would do well to read and understand what has gone before, instead of just replying to my posts out of context. This makes the rest of your musings kinda pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I know what you said.
And pre VAR, the replays would not show you enough detail to ascertain whether the toenail was offside.
You’d be guessing - that’s my point.
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
You say yourself that time is the issue and that’s exactly it - people are moaning because they don’t understand why the game is being held up to manually try and decide whether an armpit is 1mm ahead of the defender. It’s absurd.
======
This means there are scenarios where its OK to hold up the game? If its absurd to manually try and decide whether an armpit is 1mm ahead of the defender, then when is it not absurd? When the armpit is 2mm offside?
Fact is the game should jot be held up for any check. All checks should be within a reasonable time frame, not just checks for mm offsides.
You are wrong because people are also unhappy when the game is held up for 4 minutes to decide a handball or any other decision for that matter. It shouldn't be happening and hopefully it will be fixed.
Its not about the decision or the details of an incident, its about the time taken to reach all decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn’t mean that at all, no.
When decisions are clear, the hold up in play is significantly reduced. The reason these delays are so long is because the decision is too tight to call properly.
My point is that it’s not the rule people have an issue with in the main, it’s the time it takes to resolve the decision.
If it were automatic, I’d still be saying that it hasn’t really added anything to the game but I wouldn’t be saying it’s spoiling the game, as it is now.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 38 seconds ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
What used to happen is we’d see a handful of replays and in these instances, there would generally be two reactions - one from people who accepted its too tight to call and others from people who felt they could see one way or the other and complain about the linesman.
------
I said the toenail was offside. This is not in question so its not a "too tight to call scenario". If the toenail is visibly offside then it wouldn't lead to what you said.
The post I was replying to is about toenails and nose hairs being offside, not the ones where you can't tell if a body part is offside.
You would do well to read and understand what has gone before, instead of just replying to my posts out of context. This makes the rest of your musings kinda pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I know what you said.
And pre VAR, the replays would not show you enough detail to ascertain whether the toenail was offside.
You’d be guessing - that’s my point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know. My point was that even if that scenario was realistic VAR cannot really be blamed, I don't care how realistic/unrealistic it is in my response.
Clearly you should be addressing your point towards the poster who came up with the scenario which you happen to think would not happen. Sounds like its between you and him. I didn't invent the scenario you have a problem with.
You need to identify the origin of stuff instead of jumping in replying to my posts which are replies to other posts in themselves. Save me the trouble of explaining this over and over.
Thanks
Well if you know what I said was correct then your comment about ‘what used to happen’ was not correct, as I explained.
When decisions are clear, the hold up in play is significantly reduced.
-------
Sometimes but not enough. A lot of time is still being consumed even for clearer decisions which most people feel should not be happening. This is a common opinion.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Well if you know what I said was correct then your comment about ‘what used to happen’ was not correct, as I explained.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You miss the point. The premise is to imagine a scenario where the toenail or nose hair is already offside, its not a debate. From that premise what I said is exactly what would happen preVAR and also post VAR.
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 9 minutes ago
When decisions are clear, the hold up in play is significantly reduced.
-------
Sometimes but not enough. A lot of time is still being consumed even for clearer decisions which most people feel should not be happening. This is a common opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I agree, I was explaining why tight offsides attract a lot of the criticism.
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Well if you know what I said was correct then your comment about ‘what used to happen’ was not correct, as I explained.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You miss the point. The premise is to imagine a scenario where the toenail or nose hair is already offside, its not a debate. From that premise what I said is exactly what would happen preVAR and also post VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, you said ‘what used to happen’ and then described a situation that didn’t use to happen.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Well if you know what I said was correct then your comment about ‘what used to happen’ was not correct, as I explained.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You miss the point. The premise is to imagine a scenario where the toenail or nose hair is already offside, its not a debate. From that premise what I said is exactly what would happen preVAR and also post VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, you said ‘what used to happen’ and then described a situation that didn’t use to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I described exactly what used to happen
But it didn’t happen, did it?
No one could tell if a toenail was offside. We all saw a few replays and made our own minds up, but we didn’t have the level of detail available that VAR has brought.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
But it didn’t happen, did it?
No one could tell if a toenail was offside. We all saw a few replays and made our own minds up, but we didn’t have the level of detail available that VAR has brought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't care about that in my response.
I chose to reply to the hypothetical aspect instead of arguing the unrealistic nature of the idea.
If you want to argue the unrealistic nature take it up with the poster who came up with it instead of lying in wait and pouncing on my posts out of context for otherwise being unreasonable. Its my choice what I want to debate.
I've already explained this. If there's nothing else then thanks
You haven’t explained why you described something that didn’t used to happen and said that if did happen.
I’m not being argumentative, just debating a point as it’s key to the issue that people have with VAR and key to this article.
You said something inaccurate and I picked up on it. No big deal.
But if you can’t accept that point then you’ll continue to struggle to understand why VAR is being criticised in relation to this point.
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 10 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by Globaled (U7198)
posted 5 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by Firmino's Brightest Tooth (U1217)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 53 seconds ago
Spurs must be one of the biggest benefactors of VAR this season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR only helps those who help themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR has succeeded in making a farce of the off-side rule. Now off-side can be applied if someone's nose hairs, big toe nail, chin etc. are beyond the last defender. The off-side rule was always somewhat controversial. VAR has made it a total joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its always been offside if someone's nose hairs, big toe nail, chin etc. are beyond the last defender. The only question used to be whether the linesman would flag or not.
If the linesman flagged and replays showed that only a toenail was offside, we would hail the accuracy of the linesman on a correct offside call.
Why has this changed after VAR? All of a sudden people are uncomfortable with hairline offsides. Its always been that offside is offside, end of.
VAR is a tool and did not introduce new rules to the game. If your expectations are irrational you will be frustrated.
My only gripe with VAR is the time its taking to make decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR by its design and implementation adds time to making decisions. What did you expect?
The goal line technology is a great success. VAR, so far, is a marginal success at best!
https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/1224656513001836544?s=19
Good link Bales
Football fans may hate VAR, but only 15% think it should be scrapped. They think it has to change though - 74% want to keep it but improve it, while only 8% want to keep it as it is.
What can I say?
It's demonstrably bad for the sport, but people still for some reason vote for it. Sums up the state of the country.
It's certainly bad for the sport at the moment, but I can see why people don't want it scrapped.
I still believe that over time people will come to get used to it and the crap parts of VAR will just become the norm.
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR: Premier League referees set to.....
Page 2 of 2
posted on 18/1/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
What used to happen is we’d see a handful of replays and in these instances, there would generally be two reactions - one from people who accepted its too tight to call and others from people who felt they could see one way or the other and complain about the linesman.
------
I said the toenail was offside. This is not in question so its not a "too tight to call scenario". If the toenail is visibly offside then it wouldn't lead to what you said.
The post I was replying to is about toenails and nose hairs being offside, not the ones where you can't tell if a body part is offside.
You would do well to read and understand what has gone before, instead of just replying to my posts out of context. This makes the rest of your musings kinda pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I know what you said.
And pre VAR, the replays would not show you enough detail to ascertain whether the toenail was offside.
You’d be guessing - that’s my point.
posted on 18/1/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
You say yourself that time is the issue and that’s exactly it - people are moaning because they don’t understand why the game is being held up to manually try and decide whether an armpit is 1mm ahead of the defender. It’s absurd.
======
This means there are scenarios where its OK to hold up the game? If its absurd to manually try and decide whether an armpit is 1mm ahead of the defender, then when is it not absurd? When the armpit is 2mm offside?
Fact is the game should jot be held up for any check. All checks should be within a reasonable time frame, not just checks for mm offsides.
You are wrong because people are also unhappy when the game is held up for 4 minutes to decide a handball or any other decision for that matter. It shouldn't be happening and hopefully it will be fixed.
Its not about the decision or the details of an incident, its about the time taken to reach all decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn’t mean that at all, no.
When decisions are clear, the hold up in play is significantly reduced. The reason these delays are so long is because the decision is too tight to call properly.
My point is that it’s not the rule people have an issue with in the main, it’s the time it takes to resolve the decision.
If it were automatic, I’d still be saying that it hasn’t really added anything to the game but I wouldn’t be saying it’s spoiling the game, as it is now.
posted on 18/1/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 38 seconds ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
What used to happen is we’d see a handful of replays and in these instances, there would generally be two reactions - one from people who accepted its too tight to call and others from people who felt they could see one way or the other and complain about the linesman.
------
I said the toenail was offside. This is not in question so its not a "too tight to call scenario". If the toenail is visibly offside then it wouldn't lead to what you said.
The post I was replying to is about toenails and nose hairs being offside, not the ones where you can't tell if a body part is offside.
You would do well to read and understand what has gone before, instead of just replying to my posts out of context. This makes the rest of your musings kinda pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I know what you said.
And pre VAR, the replays would not show you enough detail to ascertain whether the toenail was offside.
You’d be guessing - that’s my point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know. My point was that even if that scenario was realistic VAR cannot really be blamed, I don't care how realistic/unrealistic it is in my response.
Clearly you should be addressing your point towards the poster who came up with the scenario which you happen to think would not happen. Sounds like its between you and him. I didn't invent the scenario you have a problem with.
You need to identify the origin of stuff instead of jumping in replying to my posts which are replies to other posts in themselves. Save me the trouble of explaining this over and over.
Thanks
posted on 18/1/20
Well if you know what I said was correct then your comment about ‘what used to happen’ was not correct, as I explained.
posted on 18/1/20
When decisions are clear, the hold up in play is significantly reduced.
-------
Sometimes but not enough. A lot of time is still being consumed even for clearer decisions which most people feel should not be happening. This is a common opinion.
posted on 18/1/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Well if you know what I said was correct then your comment about ‘what used to happen’ was not correct, as I explained.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You miss the point. The premise is to imagine a scenario where the toenail or nose hair is already offside, its not a debate. From that premise what I said is exactly what would happen preVAR and also post VAR.
posted on 18/1/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 9 minutes ago
When decisions are clear, the hold up in play is significantly reduced.
-------
Sometimes but not enough. A lot of time is still being consumed even for clearer decisions which most people feel should not be happening. This is a common opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I agree, I was explaining why tight offsides attract a lot of the criticism.
posted on 18/1/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Well if you know what I said was correct then your comment about ‘what used to happen’ was not correct, as I explained.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You miss the point. The premise is to imagine a scenario where the toenail or nose hair is already offside, its not a debate. From that premise what I said is exactly what would happen preVAR and also post VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, you said ‘what used to happen’ and then described a situation that didn’t use to happen.
posted on 18/1/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Well if you know what I said was correct then your comment about ‘what used to happen’ was not correct, as I explained.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You miss the point. The premise is to imagine a scenario where the toenail or nose hair is already offside, its not a debate. From that premise what I said is exactly what would happen preVAR and also post VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, you said ‘what used to happen’ and then described a situation that didn’t use to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I described exactly what used to happen
posted on 18/1/20
But it didn’t happen, did it?
No one could tell if a toenail was offside. We all saw a few replays and made our own minds up, but we didn’t have the level of detail available that VAR has brought.
posted on 18/1/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
But it didn’t happen, did it?
No one could tell if a toenail was offside. We all saw a few replays and made our own minds up, but we didn’t have the level of detail available that VAR has brought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't care about that in my response.
I chose to reply to the hypothetical aspect instead of arguing the unrealistic nature of the idea.
If you want to argue the unrealistic nature take it up with the poster who came up with it instead of lying in wait and pouncing on my posts out of context for otherwise being unreasonable. Its my choice what I want to debate.
I've already explained this. If there's nothing else then thanks
posted on 18/1/20
You haven’t explained why you described something that didn’t used to happen and said that if did happen.
I’m not being argumentative, just debating a point as it’s key to the issue that people have with VAR and key to this article.
You said something inaccurate and I picked up on it. No big deal.
But if you can’t accept that point then you’ll continue to struggle to understand why VAR is being criticised in relation to this point.
posted on 18/1/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 10 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by Globaled (U7198)
posted 5 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by Firmino's Brightest Tooth (U1217)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 53 seconds ago
Spurs must be one of the biggest benefactors of VAR this season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR only helps those who help themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR has succeeded in making a farce of the off-side rule. Now off-side can be applied if someone's nose hairs, big toe nail, chin etc. are beyond the last defender. The off-side rule was always somewhat controversial. VAR has made it a total joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its always been offside if someone's nose hairs, big toe nail, chin etc. are beyond the last defender. The only question used to be whether the linesman would flag or not.
If the linesman flagged and replays showed that only a toenail was offside, we would hail the accuracy of the linesman on a correct offside call.
Why has this changed after VAR? All of a sudden people are uncomfortable with hairline offsides. Its always been that offside is offside, end of.
VAR is a tool and did not introduce new rules to the game. If your expectations are irrational you will be frustrated.
My only gripe with VAR is the time its taking to make decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR by its design and implementation adds time to making decisions. What did you expect?
The goal line technology is a great success. VAR, so far, is a marginal success at best!
posted on 5/2/20
https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/1224656513001836544?s=19
posted on 5/2/20
Good link Bales
Football fans may hate VAR, but only 15% think it should be scrapped. They think it has to change though - 74% want to keep it but improve it, while only 8% want to keep it as it is.
posted on 5/2/20
What can I say?
It's demonstrably bad for the sport, but people still for some reason vote for it. Sums up the state of the country.
posted on 5/2/20
posted on 5/2/20
It's certainly bad for the sport at the moment, but I can see why people don't want it scrapped.
I still believe that over time people will come to get used to it and the crap parts of VAR will just become the norm.
Page 2 of 2