VincentGuerin Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Just now, Ric said: (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. There have been various numbers run on this. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9413155/ This study reckons 92% pre-VAR 98% with VAR. I don't think that's worth it. Maybe you do. The rest of it, I can't be bothered with. I honestly just think you're talking mince and going over ground that's been covered loads of times. Substitutions and throw-ins have been improvements in the game. The passback rule was an improvement in the game. I don't comprehend how anyone can consider VAR to have been an improvement in the game. You do, I don't, I'm not spending all day going over old ground with you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Just now, Ric said: 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? In my opinion, yes. Football is entertainment, and the product was more entertaining pre-VAR. if that meant having to contend with more “incorrect” decisions, then so be it. I’ve said this before, but I quite enjoyed discussing and moaning about contentious decisions in the aftermath of a game. Be that in the pub with my mates or online. Now, VAR has sucked some of the life out of the sport and has tempered any passion in celebrations a lot of the time. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamora Fan Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 5 minutes ago, Ric said: (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? ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Just now, Zamora Fan said: ? Ken. No idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Pretty sure the post office were fans of the old ‘you can’t uninvent technology’ argument. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Just now, Ric said: In reply, I honestly think most people are doing this... Ok, Ric. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Just now, Ric said: You are rifling through the logical fallacies today aren't you big chap? You coping well with being roundly mocked for your little essay wee man? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Ric said: In reply, I honestly think most people are doing this... I think you need to just accept that different people value different things than you. You asked a question and it was answered. You clearly value the need for a marginal increase in correct decisions higher than the match going experience Others clearly value the match going experience higher than the need for a marginal increase in correct decisions Edited January 28 by AJF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 20 minutes ago, Ric said: (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? 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. *Assuming it was your intention, rather than a serious post 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 3 minutes ago, Ric said: "yur pure ragin" ..to add to the pile. Classic. I’ve already told you I’m not giving you serious retorts. I’m sorry but you tend to write many, many words and I almost never agree with you. You accuse others of hyperbole which it would be kind to describe as hypocritical. Mind when you ‘seriously’ suggested you’d strap a bomb to your chest over the royal family? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 4 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said: Mind when you ‘seriously’ suggested you’d strap a bomb to your chest over the royal family? 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.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Just now, Ric said: 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.. Fair enough ric, I think you’re entirely wrong but there was no need to get personal. For that I apologise. Next time I’ll just roll my eyes, tut and respond to something more sensible instead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Ric said: 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. Wrong People are complaining about a new technology being used because it has set the game back. We are living through it and believe it has made the sport worse. It has nothing to do with resistance to change or not being progressing thinkers. Edited January 28 by AJF 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said: Fair enough ric, I think you’re entirely wrong but there was no need to get personal. For that I apologise. Next time I’ll just roll my eyes, tut and respond to something more sensible instead. I'm happy to discuss it, everyone knows my viewpoint by now anyway. I fully accept that VAR has issues my point is that those could be fixed, and the result would be much less disruption but an increased level of accuracy (and to a non-OF supporter, consistency must come into that). 14 minutes ago, AJF said: Wrong People are complaining about a new technology being used because it has set the game back. We are living through it and believe it has made the sport worse. It has nothing to do with resistance to change or not being progressing thinkers. You are contradicting yourself with that answer. ...my point is "wrong" to suggest that people are against something because they think it "ruins the game". yet... ...but your point is "right" because people are complaining something was introduced as they think it "ruins the game". When you say, "we are living through this", all I see is a massive red flag for observer bias. Do you think when substitutes were first included in the game, that those "living throught it" at the time didn't feel as connected to the issue as some here do with VAR? I would wager they were. Edit: I probably need to add a caveat here, although it should be obvious I will be explicit in pointing out "disliking VAR" and "being a Luddite" are not mutually inclusive, with the reverse being true. You can be against technology but think VAR is fine, and equally you can pro-change yet dislike VAR. I am not claiming that everyone here has an irrational dislike for the system, although I do believe some would never back the system even if it's perfect, somehow thinking that questionable and inconsistent decisions are somehow a throwback to the halcyon days of football. Edited January 28 by Ric 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.