comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 30 seconds ago
the technology will improve with patience.
---
I don't get the reasoning for this. We've had var for years. Unless we somehow apply machine learning to the video feeds, you'll always be relying on a person to make subjective calls based on what they see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the better the tech the les decisions to be made humans that can be made far quicker and more accurately than humans. for decisions that are absolute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, doubling the camera frame rates halves the errors due to that. Mapping the player profiles like they did for the WC can make the offside calls more reliable and faster. Increasing the map points can make it more accurate. Having the whole pitch covered by hawkeye can call the throw in decisions and me more accurate than the guy that paints the lines.
Players already wear GPS trackers, if we can have them wear head impact monitors that would be a huge step forward for player safety and potentially feigning injury. Imagine if those GPS vests could be enhanced to monitor and flag heart health we could maybe save some lives or prevent an arrest that damages the heart further.
Imagine the player mapping data is compiled into real match movement analysis that helps players run 1mph faster or understand what it is that causes their hammy to go?
What if technology could detect and help eliminate shirt pulling or determine what pushes merit or otherwise a penalty decision cos right now only the most blatant gets punished cos there's not enough eyes?
And so on...
doubling the camera frame rates halves the errors due to that
---
No it won't.
Sorry but the rest of the post is pipe dream stuff. Great if you're selling var but not very helpful to the rest of us who want to enjoy a game of football
Silver
I'd say the answer to 'should we' is actually no, in many cases.
No, we shouldn't concern ourselves with getting decisions accurate to a point of 5mm when it has no impact on the game.
The game didn't lack integrity because a computer proved that a forwards toe was 4mm ahead of the defender but the referee hadn't given offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, doubling the camera frame rates halves the errors due to that. Mapping the player profiles like they did for the WC can make the offside calls more reliable and faster. Increasing the map points can make it more accurate. Having the whole pitch covered by hawkeye can call the throw in decisions and me more accurate than the guy that paints the lines.
Players already wear GPS trackers, if we can have them wear head impact monitors that would be a huge step forward for player safety and potentially feigning injury. Imagine if those GPS vests could be enhanced to monitor and flag heart health we could maybe save some lives or prevent an arrest that damages the heart further.
Imagine the player mapping data is compiled into real match movement analysis that helps players run 1mph faster or understand what it is that causes their hammy to go?
What if technology could detect and help eliminate shirt pulling or determine what pushes merit or otherwise a penalty decision cos right now only the most blatant gets punished cos there's not enough eyes?
And so on...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
on the headknock thing on a tangent, we need to look into it not only from a safety aspect but also from and sporting integrity side.
We all know its there to be exploited.
Plyers if take a head knock need to take 3-5 mins off the side of the pitch being examined by an independent doctor and passed as fit to return.
This helps both ways firstly and less importantly it most likely reduces those feigning injury if they will be then missing for a few mins.
Secondly how often do we see these genuine knocks that require treatment, the player return then 3-5 mins later needs to come off. That tells me that player wasnt fit to return to the pitch and for those minutes on the pitch could have been in a very vulnerable position either missing treatment he should be getting or risk at causing far more damage.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
Silver
I'd say the answer to 'should we' is actually no, in many cases.
No, we shouldn't concern ourselves with getting decisions accurate to a point of 5mm when it has no impact on the game.
The game didn't lack integrity because a computer proved that a forwards toe was 4mm ahead of the defender but the referee hadn't given offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when the results of such decisions can determine how hundreds of millions of pounds is distributed then decisions need to be as accurate as we can achieve
What problem are you even trying to solve?
You want a camera system and sensors to tell if a player is hurt? What if their nose is broken but there's no concussion? What if a player gets cramp and will be ok in a minute or two?
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 32 seconds ago
What problem are you even trying to solve?
You want a camera system and sensors to tell if a player is hurt? What if their nose is broken but there's no concussion? What if a player gets cramp and will be ok in a minute or two?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
who said use cameras to tell if a players hurt?
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
Silver
I'd say the answer to 'should we' is actually no, in many cases.
No, we shouldn't concern ourselves with getting decisions accurate to a point of 5mm when it has no impact on the game.
The game didn't lack integrity because a computer proved that a forwards toe was 4mm ahead of the defender but the referee hadn't given offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when the results of such decisions can determine how hundreds of millions of pounds is distributed then decisions need to be as accurate as we can achieve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they don’t, that’s the point.
That’s just something people have made up because they’ve forgotten why the law exists.
But yes, football becoming a business has contributed to this incessant and flawed concept of having all decisions consistent and correct, because of some absurd perceived unfairness.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 32 seconds ago
What problem are you even trying to solve?
You want a camera system and sensors to tell if a player is hurt? What if their nose is broken but there's no concussion? What if a player gets cramp and will be ok in a minute or two?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
who said use cameras to tell if a players hurt?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Silver
Oh shoot yeah he just said sensors. My bad. Either way it's got nothing to do with sporting fairness. This is all a madness tbh. Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development. It should be doomed to failure but they've got a captive audience of not very bright people who are entirely sold on human referees being the problem.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
Silver
I'd say the answer to 'should we' is actually no, in many cases.
No, we shouldn't concern ourselves with getting decisions accurate to a point of 5mm when it has no impact on the game.
The game didn't lack integrity because a computer proved that a forwards toe was 4mm ahead of the defender but the referee hadn't given offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when the results of such decisions can determine how hundreds of millions of pounds is distributed then decisions need to be as accurate as we can achieve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they don’t, that’s the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats a claim you cannot prove, and a silly way to go .... what cut off point do you use ?
Like I said when decisions of say offside and onside can be the sway of hundreds of millions. there shouldnt be a cut off point in an ideal world it should be black and white, but we dont have the technology to do so, so we should aim to get as close to that goal as possible.
its not about if you think it makes a difference or not its about applying the rules as vigilantly as possible, a point that becomes more and more important as the money continues to grow.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
Silver
I'd say the answer to 'should we' is actually no, in many cases.
No, we shouldn't concern ourselves with getting decisions accurate to a point of 5mm when it has no impact on the game.
The game didn't lack integrity because a computer proved that a forwards toe was 4mm ahead of the defender but the referee hadn't given offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when the results of such decisions can determine how hundreds of millions of pounds is distributed then decisions need to be as accurate as we can achieve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they don’t, that’s the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats a claim you cannot prove, and a silly way to go .... what cut off point do you use ?
Like I said when decisions of say offside and onside can be the sway of hundreds of millions. there shouldnt be a cut off point in an ideal world it should be black and white, but we dont have the technology to do so, so we should aim to get as close to that goal as possible.
its not about if you think it makes a difference or not its about applying the rules as vigilantly as possible, a point that becomes more and more important as the money continues to grow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And nor can you prove it.
That last sentence proves my point.
People like you are so obsessed with the law, you haven’t stopped to think about why it was introduced and what the outcome we want actually is.
I don’t think you’ll ever understand it, though.
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 10 seconds ago
Oh shoot yeah he just said sensors. My bad. Either way it's got nothing to do with sporting fairness. This is all a madness tbh. Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development. It should be doomed to failure but they've got a captive audience of not very bright people who are entirely sold on human referees being the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, I didnt say anything about that i was talking about the state of play currently with head knocks, and the current procedures.
We had a game recently against a lower league team and no lies they went down holding their heads to stop play about 8/9 times in the first half alone. I think 2 were genuine, and on 3 other occasions you actually see the defender put his head up to see where about the ball is before staying down (2 occasions) or actually getting up onto all fours then just going back down again as the ball came towards his own box again.
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
football
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 10 seconds ago
Oh shoot yeah he just said sensors. My bad. Either way it's got nothing to do with sporting fairness. This is all a madness tbh. Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development. It should be doomed to failure but they've got a captive audience of not very bright people who are entirely sold on human referees being the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, I didnt say anything about that i was talking about the state of play currently with head knocks, and the current procedures.
We had a game recently against a lower league team and no lies they went down holding their heads to stop play about 8/9 times in the first half alone. I think 2 were genuine, and on 3 other occasions you actually see the defender put his head up to see where about the ball is before staying down (2 occasions) or actually getting up onto all fours then just going back down again as the ball came towards his own box again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, and I was replying to Silver.
Anyway, technology won't solve the problem you're describing.
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One wonders WTF is the future for humankind with an outlook like that? Thankfully, not prevalent so on we go.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
Silver
I'd say the answer to 'should we' is actually no, in many cases.
No, we shouldn't concern ourselves with getting decisions accurate to a point of 5mm when it has no impact on the game.
The game didn't lack integrity because a computer proved that a forwards toe was 4mm ahead of the defender but the referee hadn't given offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when the results of such decisions can determine how hundreds of millions of pounds is distributed then decisions need to be as accurate as we can achieve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they don’t, that’s the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats a claim you cannot prove, and a silly way to go .... what cut off point do you use ?
Like I said when decisions of say offside and onside can be the sway of hundreds of millions. there shouldnt be a cut off point in an ideal world it should be black and white, but we dont have the technology to do so, so we should aim to get as close to that goal as possible.
its not about if you think it makes a difference or not its about applying the rules as vigilantly as possible, a point that becomes more and more important as the money continues to grow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And nor can you prove it.
That last sentence proves my point.
People like you are so obsessed with the law, you haven’t stopped to think about why it was introduced and what the outcome we want actually is.
I don’t think you’ll ever understand it, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
never mind your just being obtuse for the sake of it.
I, like you just cannot fathom why owners of clubs and the fans in general would want to see us get close to a definitive correct decision as possible. why would they want that.
your boring and I expect no les from someone who spends a whole day arguin with folk that technique and composure are the same things!
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 10 seconds ago
Oh shoot yeah he just said sensors. My bad. Either way it's got nothing to do with sporting fairness. This is all a madness tbh. Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development. It should be doomed to failure but they've got a captive audience of not very bright people who are entirely sold on human referees being the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, I didnt say anything about that i was talking about the state of play currently with head knocks, and the current procedures.
We had a game recently against a lower league team and no lies they went down holding their heads to stop play about 8/9 times in the first half alone. I think 2 were genuine, and on 3 other occasions you actually see the defender put his head up to see where about the ball is before staying down (2 occasions) or actually getting up onto all fours then just going back down again as the ball came towards his own box again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, and I was replying to Silver.
Anyway, technology won't solve the problem you're describing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok I couldnt tell,
I didnt say it would I literally said the way I think it should be done now.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
champions league finals, champ league slots in EPL. the play offs like you said.
not all money involved in football directly involves the two teams playing in the game.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One wonders WTF is the future for humankind with an outlook like that? Thankfully, not prevalent so on we go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly how normal technology development and capitalism in general works. There's a problem or a demand and people solve it. What you're talking about is inventing demand to sell a solution.
Start a business with that approach see how you get on.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
champions league finals, champ league slots in EPL. the play offs like you said.
not all money involved in football directly involves the two teams playing in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff is the biggest, right. Still a stretch to say hundreds of millions but whatever ok. Yes I'll take the point that big games raise the stakes. I'll make two points as to why that's not a great argument for why we have to have var:
1. Big games should be won by the better team. I (personally) don't see satisfaction in the team winning because of a millimetre offside. Or a clearly accidental handball given as a penalty etc. Basically, the idea itself of having factually correct decisions isn't always possible or desirable.
2. How many of those big games are actually decided by bad decisions? Because even agreeing with you that we HAVE to do something, the cost shouldn't outweigh the benefit. What we're doing, is changing the rules and the nature of the sport, in order to correct for a very small set of incidents that are largely hypothetical. This also ignores the fact that var officials can still make mistakes.
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
champions league finals, champ league slots in EPL. the play offs like you said.
not all money involved in football directly involves the two teams playing in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff is the biggest, right. Still a stretch to say hundreds of millions but whatever ok. Yes I'll take the point that big games raise the stakes. I'll make two points as to why that's not a great argument for why we have to have var:
1. Big games should be won by the better team. I (personally) don't see satisfaction in the team winning because of a millimetre offside. Or a clearly accidental handball given as a penalty etc. Basically, the idea itself of having factually correct decisions isn't always possible or desirable.
2. How many of those big games are actually decided by bad decisions? Because even agreeing with you that we HAVE to do something, the cost shouldn't outweigh the benefit. What we're doing, is changing the rules and the nature of the sport, in order to correct for a very small set of incidents that are largely hypothetical. This also ignores the fact that var officials can still make mistakes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not all money involves what it paid to clubs, betting for eg.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
champions league finals, champ league slots in EPL. the play offs like you said.
not all money involved in football directly involves the two teams playing in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff is the biggest, right. Still a stretch to say hundreds of millions but whatever ok. Yes I'll take the point that big games raise the stakes. I'll make two points as to why that's not a great argument for why we have to have var:
1. Big games should be won by the better team. I (personally) don't see satisfaction in the team winning because of a millimetre offside. Or a clearly accidental handball given as a penalty etc. Basically, the idea itself of having factually correct decisions isn't always possible or desirable.
2. How many of those big games are actually decided by bad decisions? Because even agreeing with you that we HAVE to do something, the cost shouldn't outweigh the benefit. What we're doing, is changing the rules and the nature of the sport, in order to correct for a very small set of incidents that are largely hypothetical. This also ignores the fact that var officials can still make mistakes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not all money involves what it paid to clubs, betting for eg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't disagree. But that doesn't address either of my points.
Sign in if you want to comment
Football (Ass Like) Laws
Page 2 of 4
posted on 15/3/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 30 seconds ago
the technology will improve with patience.
---
I don't get the reasoning for this. We've had var for years. Unless we somehow apply machine learning to the video feeds, you'll always be relying on a person to make subjective calls based on what they see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the better the tech the les decisions to be made humans that can be made far quicker and more accurately than humans. for decisions that are absolute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, doubling the camera frame rates halves the errors due to that. Mapping the player profiles like they did for the WC can make the offside calls more reliable and faster. Increasing the map points can make it more accurate. Having the whole pitch covered by hawkeye can call the throw in decisions and me more accurate than the guy that paints the lines.
Players already wear GPS trackers, if we can have them wear head impact monitors that would be a huge step forward for player safety and potentially feigning injury. Imagine if those GPS vests could be enhanced to monitor and flag heart health we could maybe save some lives or prevent an arrest that damages the heart further.
Imagine the player mapping data is compiled into real match movement analysis that helps players run 1mph faster or understand what it is that causes their hammy to go?
What if technology could detect and help eliminate shirt pulling or determine what pushes merit or otherwise a penalty decision cos right now only the most blatant gets punished cos there's not enough eyes?
And so on...
posted on 15/3/23
doubling the camera frame rates halves the errors due to that
---
No it won't.
Sorry but the rest of the post is pipe dream stuff. Great if you're selling var but not very helpful to the rest of us who want to enjoy a game of football
posted on 15/3/23
Silver
I'd say the answer to 'should we' is actually no, in many cases.
No, we shouldn't concern ourselves with getting decisions accurate to a point of 5mm when it has no impact on the game.
The game didn't lack integrity because a computer proved that a forwards toe was 4mm ahead of the defender but the referee hadn't given offside.
posted on 15/3/23
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, doubling the camera frame rates halves the errors due to that. Mapping the player profiles like they did for the WC can make the offside calls more reliable and faster. Increasing the map points can make it more accurate. Having the whole pitch covered by hawkeye can call the throw in decisions and me more accurate than the guy that paints the lines.
Players already wear GPS trackers, if we can have them wear head impact monitors that would be a huge step forward for player safety and potentially feigning injury. Imagine if those GPS vests could be enhanced to monitor and flag heart health we could maybe save some lives or prevent an arrest that damages the heart further.
Imagine the player mapping data is compiled into real match movement analysis that helps players run 1mph faster or understand what it is that causes their hammy to go?
What if technology could detect and help eliminate shirt pulling or determine what pushes merit or otherwise a penalty decision cos right now only the most blatant gets punished cos there's not enough eyes?
And so on...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
on the headknock thing on a tangent, we need to look into it not only from a safety aspect but also from and sporting integrity side.
We all know its there to be exploited.
Plyers if take a head knock need to take 3-5 mins off the side of the pitch being examined by an independent doctor and passed as fit to return.
This helps both ways firstly and less importantly it most likely reduces those feigning injury if they will be then missing for a few mins.
Secondly how often do we see these genuine knocks that require treatment, the player return then 3-5 mins later needs to come off. That tells me that player wasnt fit to return to the pitch and for those minutes on the pitch could have been in a very vulnerable position either missing treatment he should be getting or risk at causing far more damage.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
Silver
I'd say the answer to 'should we' is actually no, in many cases.
No, we shouldn't concern ourselves with getting decisions accurate to a point of 5mm when it has no impact on the game.
The game didn't lack integrity because a computer proved that a forwards toe was 4mm ahead of the defender but the referee hadn't given offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when the results of such decisions can determine how hundreds of millions of pounds is distributed then decisions need to be as accurate as we can achieve
posted on 15/3/23
What problem are you even trying to solve?
You want a camera system and sensors to tell if a player is hurt? What if their nose is broken but there's no concussion? What if a player gets cramp and will be ok in a minute or two?
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 32 seconds ago
What problem are you even trying to solve?
You want a camera system and sensors to tell if a player is hurt? What if their nose is broken but there's no concussion? What if a player gets cramp and will be ok in a minute or two?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
who said use cameras to tell if a players hurt?
posted on 15/3/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
Silver
I'd say the answer to 'should we' is actually no, in many cases.
No, we shouldn't concern ourselves with getting decisions accurate to a point of 5mm when it has no impact on the game.
The game didn't lack integrity because a computer proved that a forwards toe was 4mm ahead of the defender but the referee hadn't given offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when the results of such decisions can determine how hundreds of millions of pounds is distributed then decisions need to be as accurate as we can achieve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they don’t, that’s the point.
That’s just something people have made up because they’ve forgotten why the law exists.
But yes, football becoming a business has contributed to this incessant and flawed concept of having all decisions consistent and correct, because of some absurd perceived unfairness.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 32 seconds ago
What problem are you even trying to solve?
You want a camera system and sensors to tell if a player is hurt? What if their nose is broken but there's no concussion? What if a player gets cramp and will be ok in a minute or two?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
who said use cameras to tell if a players hurt?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Silver
posted on 15/3/23
Oh shoot yeah he just said sensors. My bad. Either way it's got nothing to do with sporting fairness. This is all a madness tbh. Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development. It should be doomed to failure but they've got a captive audience of not very bright people who are entirely sold on human referees being the problem.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
Silver
I'd say the answer to 'should we' is actually no, in many cases.
No, we shouldn't concern ourselves with getting decisions accurate to a point of 5mm when it has no impact on the game.
The game didn't lack integrity because a computer proved that a forwards toe was 4mm ahead of the defender but the referee hadn't given offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when the results of such decisions can determine how hundreds of millions of pounds is distributed then decisions need to be as accurate as we can achieve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they don’t, that’s the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats a claim you cannot prove, and a silly way to go .... what cut off point do you use ?
Like I said when decisions of say offside and onside can be the sway of hundreds of millions. there shouldnt be a cut off point in an ideal world it should be black and white, but we dont have the technology to do so, so we should aim to get as close to that goal as possible.
its not about if you think it makes a difference or not its about applying the rules as vigilantly as possible, a point that becomes more and more important as the money continues to grow.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
Silver
I'd say the answer to 'should we' is actually no, in many cases.
No, we shouldn't concern ourselves with getting decisions accurate to a point of 5mm when it has no impact on the game.
The game didn't lack integrity because a computer proved that a forwards toe was 4mm ahead of the defender but the referee hadn't given offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when the results of such decisions can determine how hundreds of millions of pounds is distributed then decisions need to be as accurate as we can achieve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they don’t, that’s the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats a claim you cannot prove, and a silly way to go .... what cut off point do you use ?
Like I said when decisions of say offside and onside can be the sway of hundreds of millions. there shouldnt be a cut off point in an ideal world it should be black and white, but we dont have the technology to do so, so we should aim to get as close to that goal as possible.
its not about if you think it makes a difference or not its about applying the rules as vigilantly as possible, a point that becomes more and more important as the money continues to grow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And nor can you prove it.
That last sentence proves my point.
People like you are so obsessed with the law, you haven’t stopped to think about why it was introduced and what the outcome we want actually is.
I don’t think you’ll ever understand it, though.
posted on 15/3/23
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 10 seconds ago
Oh shoot yeah he just said sensors. My bad. Either way it's got nothing to do with sporting fairness. This is all a madness tbh. Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development. It should be doomed to failure but they've got a captive audience of not very bright people who are entirely sold on human referees being the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, I didnt say anything about that i was talking about the state of play currently with head knocks, and the current procedures.
We had a game recently against a lower league team and no lies they went down holding their heads to stop play about 8/9 times in the first half alone. I think 2 were genuine, and on 3 other occasions you actually see the defender put his head up to see where about the ball is before staying down (2 occasions) or actually getting up onto all fours then just going back down again as the ball came towards his own box again.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
football
posted on 15/3/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 10 seconds ago
Oh shoot yeah he just said sensors. My bad. Either way it's got nothing to do with sporting fairness. This is all a madness tbh. Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development. It should be doomed to failure but they've got a captive audience of not very bright people who are entirely sold on human referees being the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, I didnt say anything about that i was talking about the state of play currently with head knocks, and the current procedures.
We had a game recently against a lower league team and no lies they went down holding their heads to stop play about 8/9 times in the first half alone. I think 2 were genuine, and on 3 other occasions you actually see the defender put his head up to see where about the ball is before staying down (2 occasions) or actually getting up onto all fours then just going back down again as the ball came towards his own box again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, and I was replying to Silver.
Anyway, technology won't solve the problem you're describing.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One wonders WTF is the future for humankind with an outlook like that? Thankfully, not prevalent so on we go.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
Silver
I'd say the answer to 'should we' is actually no, in many cases.
No, we shouldn't concern ourselves with getting decisions accurate to a point of 5mm when it has no impact on the game.
The game didn't lack integrity because a computer proved that a forwards toe was 4mm ahead of the defender but the referee hadn't given offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when the results of such decisions can determine how hundreds of millions of pounds is distributed then decisions need to be as accurate as we can achieve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they don’t, that’s the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats a claim you cannot prove, and a silly way to go .... what cut off point do you use ?
Like I said when decisions of say offside and onside can be the sway of hundreds of millions. there shouldnt be a cut off point in an ideal world it should be black and white, but we dont have the technology to do so, so we should aim to get as close to that goal as possible.
its not about if you think it makes a difference or not its about applying the rules as vigilantly as possible, a point that becomes more and more important as the money continues to grow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And nor can you prove it.
That last sentence proves my point.
People like you are so obsessed with the law, you haven’t stopped to think about why it was introduced and what the outcome we want actually is.
I don’t think you’ll ever understand it, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
never mind your just being obtuse for the sake of it.
I, like you just cannot fathom why owners of clubs and the fans in general would want to see us get close to a definitive correct decision as possible. why would they want that.
your boring and I expect no les from someone who spends a whole day arguin with folk that technique and composure are the same things!
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 10 seconds ago
Oh shoot yeah he just said sensors. My bad. Either way it's got nothing to do with sporting fairness. This is all a madness tbh. Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development. It should be doomed to failure but they've got a captive audience of not very bright people who are entirely sold on human referees being the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, I didnt say anything about that i was talking about the state of play currently with head knocks, and the current procedures.
We had a game recently against a lower league team and no lies they went down holding their heads to stop play about 8/9 times in the first half alone. I think 2 were genuine, and on 3 other occasions you actually see the defender put his head up to see where about the ball is before staying down (2 occasions) or actually getting up onto all fours then just going back down again as the ball came towards his own box again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, and I was replying to Silver.
Anyway, technology won't solve the problem you're describing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok I couldnt tell,
I didnt say it would I literally said the way I think it should be done now.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
champions league finals, champ league slots in EPL. the play offs like you said.
not all money involved in football directly involves the two teams playing in the game.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
Trying to invent ways to use a technology to make it useful is the complete opposite of a normal, logical approach to development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One wonders WTF is the future for humankind with an outlook like that? Thankfully, not prevalent so on we go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly how normal technology development and capitalism in general works. There's a problem or a demand and people solve it. What you're talking about is inventing demand to sell a solution.
Start a business with that approach see how you get on.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
champions league finals, champ league slots in EPL. the play offs like you said.
not all money involved in football directly involves the two teams playing in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff is the biggest, right. Still a stretch to say hundreds of millions but whatever ok. Yes I'll take the point that big games raise the stakes. I'll make two points as to why that's not a great argument for why we have to have var:
1. Big games should be won by the better team. I (personally) don't see satisfaction in the team winning because of a millimetre offside. Or a clearly accidental handball given as a penalty etc. Basically, the idea itself of having factually correct decisions isn't always possible or desirable.
2. How many of those big games are actually decided by bad decisions? Because even agreeing with you that we HAVE to do something, the cost shouldn't outweigh the benefit. What we're doing, is changing the rules and the nature of the sport, in order to correct for a very small set of incidents that are largely hypothetical. This also ignores the fact that var officials can still make mistakes.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
champions league finals, champ league slots in EPL. the play offs like you said.
not all money involved in football directly involves the two teams playing in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff is the biggest, right. Still a stretch to say hundreds of millions but whatever ok. Yes I'll take the point that big games raise the stakes. I'll make two points as to why that's not a great argument for why we have to have var:
1. Big games should be won by the better team. I (personally) don't see satisfaction in the team winning because of a millimetre offside. Or a clearly accidental handball given as a penalty etc. Basically, the idea itself of having factually correct decisions isn't always possible or desirable.
2. How many of those big games are actually decided by bad decisions? Because even agreeing with you that we HAVE to do something, the cost shouldn't outweigh the benefit. What we're doing, is changing the rules and the nature of the sport, in order to correct for a very small set of incidents that are largely hypothetical. This also ignores the fact that var officials can still make mistakes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not all money involves what it paid to clubs, betting for eg.
posted on 15/3/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 5 minutes ago
What game is worth hundreds of millions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
champions league finals, champ league slots in EPL. the play offs like you said.
not all money involved in football directly involves the two teams playing in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Championship playoff is the biggest, right. Still a stretch to say hundreds of millions but whatever ok. Yes I'll take the point that big games raise the stakes. I'll make two points as to why that's not a great argument for why we have to have var:
1. Big games should be won by the better team. I (personally) don't see satisfaction in the team winning because of a millimetre offside. Or a clearly accidental handball given as a penalty etc. Basically, the idea itself of having factually correct decisions isn't always possible or desirable.
2. How many of those big games are actually decided by bad decisions? Because even agreeing with you that we HAVE to do something, the cost shouldn't outweigh the benefit. What we're doing, is changing the rules and the nature of the sport, in order to correct for a very small set of incidents that are largely hypothetical. This also ignores the fact that var officials can still make mistakes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not all money involves what it paid to clubs, betting for eg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't disagree. But that doesn't address either of my points.
Page 2 of 4