Aberdeen v St Mirren

[tlg1903]

1 minute ago, BigAl said:

Your clutching at straws if you think the clowns that run the game in Scotland could possibly approve something so sensible 

Or at Uefa and Fifa

[BigAl]

2 minutes ago, tlg1903 said:

Or at Uefa and Fifa

As I said earlier in this thread Sweden implement VAR best.

They simply don't recognise it 

[RicoS321]

22 minutes ago, tlg1903 said:

A countdown clock  would be a very easy way to make VAR significantly better.  If you can't tell if it's an error within ten seconds of seeing replays then it's not clear and obvious, play on.  

That's just as shite as VAR itself and solves nothing. Clear and obvious isn't defined by a time limit (because it cannot be defined by boundary). The first time the VAR cunts missed an incident that one of the scum was adamant was clear and obvious, but they couldn't get the camera angles in time, they'd change your arbitrary 20 seconds to 30 seconds, and so on. They'd rush to make a decision like last night's handball and just say it was handball because it hit the player's hand, and it's much, much quicker to spot handball, or "contact" rather than attempt to determine whether a foul has actually been committed. 

To be honest, it's one of the most cringey versions of VAR anyone could possibly think of. Imagine us all, sitting on the edge of our seats after every goal, perhaps counting down the 20 seconds with big grins on our faces, awaiting the result of our newly manufactured excitement. The players might do a huddle, Sky will give us a quick word from the VAR sponsors. As for most VAR calls, last night I sat in my seat with any excitement draining by the second. I genuinely couldn't have given a fuck what the outcome of any of the calls was by the time they were made. I don't need, or want, a manufactured "second cheer" after hearing the decision. I instantly assumed Lazetic was offside - as did the player - and didn't celebrate his first. None of this is removed by the 20 second rule.

VAR is shite. It will always be shite. It is shite by definition. It cannot operate on subjective calls, and there aren't enough offsides in the world that could make it worthwhile for that either. I wish people would stop suggesting "ways to make VAR better". It's a completely flawed concept, which everyone knew in advance. 

[tlg1903]

31 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

That's just as shite as VAR itself and solves nothing. Clear and obvious isn't defined by a time limit (because it cannot be defined by boundary). The first time the VAR cunts missed an incident that one of the scum was adamant was clear and obvious, but they couldn't get the camera angles in time, they'd change your arbitrary 20 seconds to 30 seconds, and so on. They'd rush to make a decision like last night's handball and just say it was handball because it hit the player's hand, and it's much, much quicker to spot handball, or "contact" rather than attempt to determine whether a foul has actually been committed. 

To be honest, it's one of the most cringey versions of VAR anyone could possibly think of. Imagine us all, sitting on the edge of our seats after every goal, perhaps counting down the 20 seconds with big grins on our faces, awaiting the result of our newly manufactured excitement. The players might do a huddle, Sky will give us a quick word from the VAR sponsors. As for most VAR calls, last night I sat in my seat with any excitement draining by the second. I genuinely couldn't have given a fuck what the outcome of any of the calls was by the time they were made. I don't need, or want, a manufactured "second cheer" after hearing the decision. I instantly assumed Lazetic was offside - as did the player - and didn't celebrate his first. None of this is removed by the 20 second rule.

VAR is shite. It will always be shite. It is shite by definition. It cannot operate on subjective calls, and there aren't enough offsides in the world that could make it worthwhile for that either. I wish people would stop suggesting "ways to make VAR better". It's a completely flawed concept, which everyone knew in advance. 

Disagree.  The boundary for clear and obvious is a person's eyes and brain working together to make the judgment.  I can usually tell on the first replay whether a decision is correct.  2bh 10 seconds to make the call is generous and you could argue 5 would be enough.  Regardless though it would stop the re refereeing of the game from the VAR official because they simply wouldn't have the time to. No big delays and yet still able to bail the ref out when they have had a mare is what fans wanted from Var in the first place.   

The Lazetic goal is actually a good  example as it's a  really tight call. It's certainly not instantly obvious whether he's on or off and var officials would soon learn to not even bother looking at decisions like that imo. They would instinctively know there's no point poring over millimeters because they would never have the time to come to a conclusive decision.  If that was the case your prediction of fans  counting down is unlikely 2bh (aside from the fact that to do so they would need to know when the var ref actually started watching replays... ) as on marginal calls the var ref would not need to use the allocated time to say "play on".  

We get it Rico, you don't like VAR.  It's unlikely to be going anywhere though and getting the rid of the big delays would make it easier to live with.  

[Ajjadeen]

Too many moving parts for them to solve this easily. Combination of piss poor referees who aren’t paid a full time wage to do the job and then players who are hell bent on gaming the system every minute of every game without punishment makes competence and quality difficult to find. Add to that the cheap shit tech we have invested in and you are pushing water up a hill with a fork. 
 

What pisses me off is that VAR is basically a construct introduced to appease the big money investments in the game. Those who put their cash in are less and less prepared to throw the game to chance and want certainty in outcomes. They seem to have stumbled on exactly the opposite. Money has fucked the game. 

[TheDonbytheDee]

VAR hasn't cut out the mistakes that it was meant to, so by that metric alone, it has failed.

Factor in the sheer nonsense of the time it takes to make a decision, which sucks all enjoyment out of the games, then it has been an unmitigated disaster.

Outwith what we see in games involving either of the cheeks, I think mistakes by refs were part of the game and usually evened themselves out over a season.

For me, VAR can get to fuck and when it reaches its destination, it can fuck right off again.

[OrlandoDon]

I’m assuming VAR is about money and the league gets money to use it? I say that because I don’t see how anyone can argue it has made the game better. I’d argue we now have more debatable goals ,uncertainty on clear and obvious, delays, and the biggie for me, I don’t celebrate goals any more because you now have the ‘stress’ of a possible VAR check. I know decisions go for us and against us, and over time they may well even out, but VAR clearly has not improved the game or the fan experience. As I said, I assume it’s because of money that we have it and are stuck with it.

[OxfordDon]

4 hours ago, tlg1903 said:

A countdown clock  would be a very easy way to make VAR significantly better.  If you can't tell if it's an error within ten seconds* of seeing replays then it's not clear and obvious, play on.  

*18 seconds with time added on

[RicoS321]

12 hours ago, tlg1903 said:

Disagree.  The boundary for clear and obvious is a person's eyes and brain working together to make the judgment.  I can usually tell on the first replay whether a decision is correct.  2bh 10 seconds to make the call is generous and you could argue 5 would be enough.  Regardless though it would stop the re refereeing of the game from the VAR official because they simply wouldn't have the time to. No big delays and yet still able to bail the ref out when they have had a mare is what fans wanted from Var in the first place.   

The Lazetic goal is actually a good  example as it's a  really tight call. It's certainly not instantly obvious whether he's on or off and var officials would soon learn to not even bother looking at decisions like that imo. They would instinctively know there's no point poring over millimeters because they would never have the time to come to a conclusive decision.  If that was the case your prediction of fans  counting down is unlikely 2bh (aside from the fact that to do so they would need to know when the var ref actually started watching replays... ) as on marginal calls the var ref would not need to use the allocated time to say "play on".  

We get it Rico, you don't like VAR.  It's unlikely to be going anywhere though and getting the rid of the big delays would make it easier to live with.  

I think that response shows you don't understand how VAR works at all. The only way to tell if a player is offside some, or all, of the time is to have a camera that's in line. That's why the linesman runs up and down. The reason that we have VAR in the first place is because of screaming twats from England shouting "there's daylight!" (between players), completely unable to grasp the concept that if you spin the angle round to in-line then parallax ensures that the daylight disappears. As we see on so many of these decisions, the calls are nearly always tighter than first thought. There are two things that need to be seen in order to make a call better than that of the linesman. The first is that they need to choose the frame at which to present the offside (which is your 20 seconds gone), the second is that they either need a camera angle that is in line or lines added to remove parallax effect. Otherwise they are in a significantly worse position to make a call than the linesman. I'd be absolutely fuming if I was a linesman, having calls made by some cunt with a dodgy camera angle. The TV cunts should have been able to show VAR lines years before we were subjected to its shite on the pitch. At that point they would have realised that they were pointing out things that were 20cm off or on, and that all their pathetic whining wasn't really worth it. 

Have a look back at the offsides this season if you're bored. Try and find a single one where the linesman has it wrong, and the player is off by more than, say, half a yard. You won't find one. Or you might find one. If we're subjecting offside to the nebulous concept of "clear and obvious" as you seem to be suggesting, then we'll have as many of those calls as we do for the ball crossing the goal line. In other words, we'd be paying an absolute shite tonne of money for two decisions. 

Your idea wouldn't make VAR easier to live with because all it does, like it does already, is change the point of controversy. It doesn't somehow solve subjective decision making. The manufactured 20 second pish would likely see an end to spontaneous celebration completely. Because it's such a short wait, folk will instantly stay in their seats, or do some good awful "ohhhhhhhhhh"ING for the short period until they can cheer. It will become the celebration in and of itself. That's what VAR is and does, it's an entire abstract entity that sits above and away from the fitba game. Hovering above it like a slimy fucker, desperate to inject itself into the conversation, like the weird colleague that keeps attending the nights out, standing in the corner with their hand on their crotch. It's a cunt technology for cunts. It can't be made better. 

[TheDonbytheDee]

Gavin Malloy did a ligament in his knee, when he came on and is out for 6-8 weeks.

A guy beside us was shouting for him to get on with it and stop being a fanny.

I'd be a fanny too if I did a ligament in my knee.

 

[tlg1903]

8 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

I think that response shows you don't understand how VAR works at all. The only way to tell if a player is offside some, or all, of the time is to have a camera that's in line. That's why the linesman runs up and down. The reason that we have VAR in the first place is because of screaming twats from England shouting "there's daylight!" (between players), completely unable to grasp the concept that if you spin the angle round to in-line then parallax ensures that the daylight disappears. As we see on so many of these decisions, the calls are nearly always tighter than first thought. There are two things that need to be seen in order to make a call better than that of the linesman. The first is that they need to choose the frame at which to present the offside (which is your 20 seconds gone), the second is that they either need a camera angle that is in line or lines added to remove parallax effect. Otherwise they are in a significantly worse position to make a call than the linesman. I'd be absolutely fuming if I was a linesman, having calls made by some cunt with a dodgy camera angle. The TV cunts should have been able to show VAR lines years before we were subjected to its shite on the pitch. At that point they would have realised that they were pointing out things that were 20cm off or on, and that all their pathetic whining wasn't really worth it. 

There's plenty of reasons we have VAR not just offside calls. Yeah that's not how it would work, why would you start the clock when the vidoe tech is arranging the replays for watching?  I would see it as the ref watches the game alone on a two screen setup.  When a replay is asked for the VT arranges that and sends it to the refs second screen and the clock starts.  Send him three angles at once and he can move it forward and back in time, it's really all you should need.    If deemed worthy before the clock is out it is sent to the refs screen.  The only time the fans should even know it's been checked is when the ref gets called to the screen.   

Quote

Have a look back at the offsides this season if you're bored. Try and find a single one where the linesman has it wrong, and the player is off by more than, say, half a yard. You won't find one. Or you might find one. If we're subjecting offside to the nebulous concept of "clear and obvious" as you seem to be suggesting, then we'll have as many of those calls as we do for the ball crossing the goal line. In other words, we'd be paying an absolute shite tonne of money for two decisions. 

 

Clear and obvious is what it was supposed to be for though and I don't find it particularly nebulous.  If Var officials have to resort to drawing lines to tell whether someone is off or not then, imo anyway, it should be benefit of the doubt to the attacking team and play on.  

 

Quote

Your idea wouldn't make VAR easier to live with because all it does, like it does already, is change the point of controversy. It doesn't somehow solve subjective decision making. The manufactured 20 second pish would likely see an end to spontaneous celebration completely. Because it's such a short wait, folk will instantly stay in their seats, or do some good awful "ohhhhhhhhhh"ING for the short period until they can cheer. It will become the celebration in and of itself. That's what VAR is and does, it's an entire abstract entity that sits above and away from the fitba game. Hovering above it like a slimy fucker, desperate to inject itself into the conversation, like the weird colleague that keeps attending the nights out, standing in the corner with their hand on their crotch. It's a cunt technology for cunts. It can't be made better. 

I disagree, I think it would remove some controversy because it would eliminate long delays and re-refereeing of the game.  I never said it would solve subjective decision making 2bf but that's not something that can be solved anyway.  I do, however, think it would  encourage a bit more pragmatism into the VAR process and cunt tech for cunts as it may be I don't think that would be a bad thing. 

Ok you're entitled to your opinion re celebration but I think you're a bit off with how it would go.  When a goal gets reviewed we usually have a good idea already if it was going to be or not and celebrations can be muted as a result.   The only time you get a proper bounce these days imo is a goal from outside the box as you're not worrying about offside and the player is usually in a bit of space so unlikely to be commiting a foul.  Var's biggest sin for me.  FWIW I actually largely agree with you about VAR but I just don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.  

[Jupiter]

20 hours ago, OrlandoDon said:

I’m assuming VAR is about money and the league gets money to use it? I say that because I don’t see how anyone can argue it has made the game better. I’d argue we now have more debatable goals ,uncertainty on clear and obvious, delays, and the biggie for me, I don’t celebrate goals any more because you now have the ‘stress’ of a possible VAR check. I know decisions go for us and against us, and over time they may well even out, but VAR clearly has not improved the game or the fan experience. As I said, I assume it’s because of money that we have it and are stuck with it.

What a load of nonsense, VAR actually costs money.

[OrlandoDon]

24 minutes ago, Jupiter said:

What a load of nonsense, VAR actually costs money.

So what exactly are we paying for then??

[TheDonbytheDee]

7 minutes ago, OrlandoDon said:

So what exactly are we paying for then??

To kill fans enjoyment at games.

Maybe it is why they are softening their approach to alcohol at games.

Get the majority bladdered and they wont give a flock how long the decisions take.