Ric
-
Posts
8,019 -
Joined
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Ric
-
-
Just now, Bairnardo said:
Fair play*, this has actually caused my brain to malfunction. There are now 1's where there should be zero's and I am going to have perform a lager reset.
The fact people don't get this point is bewildering to me, it is very very simple.
If people complain about a new technology being used, it is because they got used to a time when that technology was not present. Extend that to the developing rules of football. If you asked someone before the introduction of substitutes to a game they would probably parrot some of the talking points here, that it's going to "ruin" the game that they are used to.
It really is a very simply point, and the fact that several people having misunderstood it is quite surprising, if not a little revealing.
1 -
1 minute ago, AJF said:
I think you need to just accept that different people value different things than you.
I'm not the one throwing out insults, bud, or twisting their words.
Of course I accept that people have different views, that's the point of the forum.
0 -
Just now, Dons_1988 said:
You coping well with being roundly mocked for your little essay wee man?
"yur pure ragin" ..to add to the pile. Classic.
0 -
5 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:
Pretty sure the post office were fans of the old ‘you can’t uninvent technology’ argument.
You are rifling through the logical fallacies today aren't you big chap?
0 -
3 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:
I honestly just think you're talking mince and going over ground that's been covered loads of times.
In reply, I honestly think most people are doing this...
0 -
2 minutes ago, craigkillie said:
I've just explained in my post exactly how they do. Perhaps because it wasn't 45 paragraphs long you don't recognise it as being a real post.You can sound salty all you want, but the simple fact is VAR is showing players with a toe over the line, and thus technically offside, and others are blaming VAR for that. It's not VAR's fault, that is the fault of the legislation surrounding offside.
0 -
5 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:
Your points were entirely old and tired arguments for VAR that have been rebutted many, many times. I’m sorry but I’m not making a considered response to:
- VAR is clearly fine
- marginal improvement in decision accuracy can ONLY be a good thing and
- remember when sportscene showed replays.
Ah, the mote and bailey tactic.
0 -
1 minute ago, craigkillie said:
The premise of this entire TLDR post is wrong. The laws of the game have been substantially changed in recent years to accommodate VAR, and in my opinion generally for the worse.They may have been changed but the changes do not reflect the specificity that VAR provides.
0 -
3 minutes ago, AJF said:
because pre-VAR, the referee’s onfield decision was final and was not impacted by replays shown on TV hours later.
That's just an argument for VAR. A decision taken at the time that live footage on the television shows was incorrect but we need to accept that the referee was entirely right, despite clearly being wrong?
0 -
2 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:
A lot of this is stuff that has been addressed countless times.
1) The laws of the game were broadly fine. (1) Football's the most popular sport on the planet and we shouldn't be altering its laws to suit the use of technology that the sport doesn't need(2), and that only marginally increases the number of correct calls when the vast majority were correct pre-VAR.
(1) The laws of the game were broadly fine, pre VAR. Post VAR they are not.
(2) Where do you stop that argument? On one side technology cannot be uninvented, and on the other do you roll back everything? Let's stop subsitutions, or throw ins, after all they were not plat of the game to begin with, or are you prescribing the benchmark to be specifically in the timeline you live in?
(3) Somewhat self defeating argument really, VAR is not used for every call, and without doing a similar process as VAR you are unable to justify whether "the vast majority were correct". To do so, you would literally have to go through video evidence, presumably many hours/days/weeks after the event, whereas VAR can recall those incidents in real time.
0 -
1 minute ago, AJF said:
It addresses the question you asked, which was: for all those who want to remove VAR, what do you want to go back to
@Zamora Fanstated they’d go back to what we had pre-VAR, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Football, for me, was infinitely more enjoyable before VAR’s introduction.
It absolutely failed to address the question because the poster decided to change the context and somehow make out that VAR needs to be introduced because Sportscene complains about it.
That is a fundamental misunderstanding, and I feel intentional because they are trying to hyperbole their response.
My point wasn't to appease those who complain, but why have a 5 hour delay on the decision.
In that sense, it they failed to answer the question.
0 -
1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:
‘But replays on sportscene…’ is the best, worst and funniest argument for VAR I think I’ve seen.
If that is the argument you took from my post then it's clear you did not understand my point at all.
0 -
6 minutes ago, Zamora Fan said:
400 words of complete nonsense.
Great rebuttal, you really nailed all the reasons why that was "complete nonsense".
6 minutes ago, Zamora Fan said:To answer your last point — yes, back to what we had before, which was great. Why on earth would you fundamentally change the game for the worse to appease dipshit Sportscene pundits and those eternal victims who can't take a defeat?
That is word salad, and doesn't at all address the point I raised.
I presume you have never gotten over the introduction of the Spinning Jenny.
0 -
After some time, I think the answer is clear. VAR is fine, the problem is we are still using the laws of the pre-VAR game, and that is a fundamental failure of those who set the rules.
There are definitely problems to be sorted, and let me be clear here it is not as if we are going from a 100% reliability to something less with VAR. The simple fact is we are seeing more correct decisions being made, and obvious errors being addressed. That can only be a good thing. However when someone suggests that "He was only a toe over the line, how is that offside" then blames VAR, what they should be doing is blaming the rules that state the binary nature of the offside rule. That rule was put in place when it was nothing more than human judgement, not known for it's consistency and reliability, not when lasers can detect in centimetres rather than whether you can see one player's socks ahead of the others.
Aside the officials trying to abide by the rules which were revised for the VAR era, the time is a major issue and one that I don't understand why it's not been addressed by now. The time taken to sort out problems is far, far too long, and it now seems to have been shrouded in a cloud of conspiracy. That needs to be changed, decisions on whether VAR should be reviewed by the ref should be taken within 10 seconds of seeing a replay. VAR shouldn't tell the ref there is a foul, VAR officials should say based on their experience that the ref could have a second look at it. The VAR officials shouldn't be reviewing and reviewing before handing it over to the ref, taking up to 4 or 5 minutes, it should be immediately obvious whether the ref should have a second look, you don't need to spend minutes figuring out an answer for that ref, that is their job let them do it.
All in all, if those who want to remove VAR, what do you want to go back to? Remember all we had before were slow motion replays on Sportscene, the ONLY difference VAR has done is allowed those videos to be shown immediately rather than with a 4 hour delay where, if an error is spotted, it is impossible to fix because the game is over. "Un-inventing VAR" is not really an option.
1 -
6 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:
Scott looked "unfit". In what way as I was surprised how sharp he looked when he came on and he certainly didn't look to be carrying excess weight.
I didn't take much notice of him while at Motherwell, so perhaps that's just the way he is, but he seemed to lack sharpness, I was watching a stream so I didn't really get a chance to see much of his movement off the ball.
I wouldn't read too much into it, just a first impression. It could be that the player is not a particularly fast or sharp player, perhaps he's more a "time on the ball/cultured foot".
0 -
A narrow loss, where we played pretty well in one half and ok in the other, no injuries or suspensions, all the while losing only one goal at the same time those around us in the league could only draw?
That is a pretty successful old firm visit to be honest.
Though Bwomomo looked good, Scott looked unfit, and Kwon continues to look a very decent addition. All three will benefit from game time, but at this moment you have to say our transfer policy has been broadly successful this winter. We have strengthened at the front, the middle and the back.
Be a shame for Nahmani to go without him really getting a chance, but we don't see what is going on behind the scenes. Wouldn't like to see him rock up at a competitor, but that is less about "coming back to haunt us" and more "if another team down the road can get him settled and playing, why couldn't we?"
1 -
1 hour ago, AW saint said:
Apparently we have 2 players on PCA for next season and will announce them after the window closes.
If it wasn't for the fact injury has caused him to retire, I would have bet money on Steven Davis being one of those PCAs.
0 -
Just now, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:
Ahead of Tanser? I doubt it. Unless Tanser is injured/suspended.
We’ve become that loan team again haven’t we? After a welcome period of having almost exclusively our own players, how many loanees is that we have now?
Actually, hold up, perhaps I'm reading it wrong, it's saying first team rather than starting line up. I, like you, immediately thought that Tanser must be injured/suspended.
0 -
"and the 25-year-old is expected to go straight into Stephen Robinson’s first-team for their weekend clash with Rangers"
Edit: Isn't Erhahon at Lincoln, I guess the lad Brown will have spoken to him about us before he agreed to join.
0 -
10 hours ago, Norrie82 said:
Mandron not Ayunga v Aberdeen
Yeah, you are right. My post was more my own surprise that we've played 3 up front as much as we have this season.
0 -
12 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:
We've been playing with some variation of a three most of the season.
Going over the starting formations (these are just ones in Dec and the recent Celtic game), we also play Rangers soon, so perhaps Robinson will play with a 3 again adding to that count.
Rangers - 3 - McMenamin, Ayunga, Kiltie
St Johnstone - 3 - Jaimieson, Ayunga, Kiltie
County - 2 - Nahami, Ayunga
Motherwell - 2 - Nahami, Ayunga
Hearts - 3 - Greive, Ayunga, Kiltie
Kilmarnock - 2 - Olusanya, Ayunga
Aberdeen - 3 - Jamieson, Ayunga, Kiltie
Celtic - 2 - Olusanya, Mandron
I'll be honest, I thought most of the season was with 2 up front, and I'm clearly wrong there, but it seems to be a bit 50/50 really.
Edit: Obviously, formations are fluid, if Scott can play wide, he'll probably end up with along with Kiltie and Ayunga, just going on Robinson's choices before.
0 -
I get that Scott can play wide, but we don't tend to play with a front three.
0 -
Just now, djchapsticks said:
I'd imagine he'll be playing almost exclusively as a wide player.
I would have thought he'd be a front pairing with Ayunga. Isn't Scott a striker?
0 -
To save the need for anyone to visit the Record website, here is the salient information from their article...
I mean, sure, why not through someone else at the problem, although going by his recent stats it's hardly inspiring.
That said, he got far (far, far) more out of Main than Goodwin did and when I thought he was a lost cause, and it's public record I thought the Hemming deal was crazy but it's turned out to be a decent bit of business.
0
VAR in Scottish Football
in Scottish Premiership General Chatter
Posted
Deary fucking me, for crying out loud, you are getting as bad as that Dundee idiot that just randomly makes shit up or posts stuff wildly out of context.
Sometimes, this forum..