VAR West Ham Villa

[dylanisabaddog 6,148]

Fortunately it didn't affect the outcome but the VAR decision and explanation of the West Ham penalty was extraordinary. Cash clearly played the ball but the VAR official upheld the referee's decision on the basis that Cash "didn't appear to be trying to play the ball". 

Presumably the official thought Cash was trying to give away a penalty and just kicked the ball by mistake. It's not the technology that's the problem, it's the people using it. Absolutely ridiculous. 

[Bomber 57]

Fully agree - and apparently VAR have been informed according to the commentary not to over rule the ref’s decision so often - so in that case ‘you got it wrong ref but we won’t over rule you’ - utter joke 

[Google Bot 3,934]

21 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

It's not the technology that's the problem, it's the people using it. Absolutely ridiculous. 

It's also the constant changes to VAR and the rules moving to accommodate it that's a problem.   It's impossible to grow any consistency without a consistent framework that sets the standard.  That's what frustrates people the most.

[lake district canary 4,831]

33 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

It's also the constant changes to VAR and the rules moving to accommodate it that's a problem.   It's impossible to grow any consistency without a consistent framework that sets the standard.  That's what frustrates people the most.

Agreed. There is no standard - the whole VAR thing, for all of it's technology, wizardry and cleverness, is still dependent on the officials' own human interpretation - and that means more ineptitude, not less - so VAR is a waste of time and money.

I notice that tennis is introducing automatic line judging now - and that isn't working either, balls going obviously out not being not being picked up by the machine and the umpires not willing to overule the machines.........

At some point the human race will have to recognise that technology is not the answer to the world's problems. It might have some answers, but if you replace everything with technology, but somewhere along the line people are going to have to stand up and say enough is enough - and that applies to VAR. It is just beyond words ridiculous.

[Robert N. LiM 6,299]

3 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I notice that tennis is introducing automatic line judging now - and that isn't working either, balls going obviously out not being not being picked up by the machine and the umpires not willing to overule the machines.........

At least in the tennis the call is a 100% objective decision. You'd imagine the tech could be refined to get that right every time - what you're describing sound like teething troubles to me.

But VAR in football is based on a false premise, that technology can eliminate human error. It's absurd: they've outsourced decision-making from the person on the pitch ten yards away to some guy in a bunker watching on TV, just so they can give their opinion (because that's all it is) on whether something is a foul or not. It's just ridiculous.

Edited August 19 by Robert N. LiM

[Nuff Said 5,967]

26 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

At least in the tennis the call is a 100% objective decision. You'd imagine the tech could be refined to get that right every time - what you're describing sound like teething troubles to me.

But VAR in football is based on a false premise, that technology can eliminate human error. It's absurd: they've outsourced decision-making from the person on the pitch ten yards away to some guy in a bunker watching on TV, just so they can give their opinion (because that's all it is) on whether something is a foul or not. It's just ridiculous.

I’m not sure that’s fair Robert. What is supposed to have been done is that for contentious or difficult decisions, the referee (and assistants) have their view supplemented by a fourth pair of eyes who have the benefit of slow motion and additional camera angles. Surely the referee’s on the pitch, split-second judgement view can be improved with multiple angles and the ability to replay things slowly? The problem has been with the application of the technology , not the technology itself.

And…

 

35 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

At some point the human race will have to recognise that technology is not the answer to the world's problems. It might have some answers, but if you replace everything with technology, but somewhere along the line people are going to have to stand up and say enough is enough - and that applies to VAR. It is just beyond words ridiculous.

What do you mean when you say “technology”? Anything man-made? Because that would be ridiculous. Machinery? Presumably you’re not a Luddite. Modern medicine? Hopefully not? Information Technology? Do I need to point out the irony of that?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,622]

Too many reviews, they're spoiling the game. 

Not enough reviews, too many wrong decisions. 

The Premier League have said this season that they want a lighter touch, with VAR only getting involved for decisions that are clear and obvious. For me, that's the right thing to do. 

Should that have been a penalty for West Ham? Possibly not, but I can see why it was given. Was it a clear and obvious error that should've been reviewed? No. 

[Robert N. LiM 6,299]

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

I’m not sure that’s fair Robert. What is supposed to have been done is that for contentious or difficult decisions, the referee (and assistants) have their view supplemented by a fourth pair of eyes who have the benefit of slow motion and additional camera angles. Surely the referee’s on the pitch, split-second judgement view can be improved with multiple angles and the ability to replay things slowly?

Fair comment. I was guilty of exaggeration for effect there,  I think. I think VAR has improved the accuracy of decision making, though to my mind the trade-off with delaying games and removing the euphoria of the goalscoring moment is really not worth it.

And I do think the general point still stands: so much of football officiating is a matter of judgment rather than fact, but too many people wrongly think VAR is there to remove errors, which to my mind is a category mistake.

Edited August 19 by Robert N. LiM
Corrected ridiculous autocorrect

[cornish sam 1,040]

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

I’m not sure that’s fair Robert. What is supposed to have been done is that for contentious or difficult decisions, the referee (and assistants) have their view supplemented by a fourth pair of eyes who have the benefit of slow motion and additional camera angles. Surely the referee’s on the pitch, split-second judgement view can be improved with multiple angles and the ability to replay things slowly? The problem has been with the application of the technology , not the technology itself.

And…

 

What do you mean when you say “technology”? Anything man-made? Because that would be ridiculous. Machinery? Presumably you’re not a Luddite. Modern medicine? Hopefully not? Information Technology? Do I need to point out the irony of that?

Whilst lakey doesn't necessarily agree with Ned Ludd he does feel that he makes some valid points...

[lake district canary 4,831]

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

What do you mean when you say “technology”? Anything man-made? Because that would be ridiculous. Machinery? Presumably you’re not a Luddite. Modern medicine? Hopefully not? Information Technology? Do I need to point out the irony of that?

I think I would qualify "technology" by saying the "judicious use of technology".  The problem as I see it is that there is very little restraint on using technology in all sorts of areas where it suits business and corporations rather than actual people. 

Banks closing, automated check outs at supermarkets, ridiculous car parking machines that require you download apps and jump through hopes just to park for an hour are just some day to day examples. The use of cards rather than cash is another - which allows banks to make money every time you use your card and also give them total control of money. 

VAR is just part of that rush towards technology taking over, in an area where it isn't really much help - we all know that it just adds another level of incompetence to officiating. But who will call time on it? Which group will stand up and put pressure on the authorities to getting rid of it? There seems nobody that has the influence - pundits, fans, virtually anyone you can think of, pillories VAR, yet it is still there. 

 

[Nexus_Canary 1,206]

The Premier League has an agenda and a "script" it has for a number of years.
VAR just insures that the points go in the correct direction on the day or go against whoever is undeserving.

If you doubt it think back to us when Pukki arm pit hair was offside. We were not wanted to got shafted.

Look across the border - Liverpool at home and then Moneycheat Citeh away for the opening 2?? Then Arsenal straight out of Christmas to stop any revival dead. I mean sure its Ipswich, unlucky boys! But doesn't your inner football fan die a little? 
Mine certainly does. 

Edited August 19 by Nexus_Canary

[Nuff Said 5,967]

2 hours ago, lake district canary said:

I think I would qualify "technology" by saying the "judicious use of technology".  The problem as I see it is that there is very little restraint on using technology in all sorts of areas where it suits business and corporations rather than actual people. 

Banks closing, automated check outs at supermarkets, ridiculous car parking machines that require you download apps and jump through hopes just to park for an hour are just some day to day examples. The use of cards rather than cash is another - which allows banks to make money every time you use your card and also give them total control of money. 

VAR is just part of that rush towards technology taking over, in an area where it isn't really much help - we all know that it just adds another level of incompetence to officiating. But who will call time on it? Which group will stand up and put pressure on the authorities to getting rid of it? There seems nobody that has the influence - pundits, fans, virtually anyone you can think of, pillories VAR, yet it is still there. 

 

I might suggest that the issue isn’t technology itself in many of the examples you quote, rather the competitive nature of business that means ever more pressure to keep up in the market - ultimately capitalism. If something is legal and increases profit, businesses will do it. Technology just happens to be the tool to achieve that in the cases you give. Any social aspects, even customer impact, unless they affect customer retention and/or spending, are irrelevant. If the shark doesn’t keep swimming, it will die (for some reason, I’m typing that in Eric Cantona’s voice).

And I completely agree about giving up a lot of control over money to the banks, especially compared to cash. Hard not to though, and I’m as guilty as anyone, I use my phone to pay for almost everything now. 

Edited August 19 by Nuff Said

[lake district canary 4,831]

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

I might suggest that the issue isn’t technology itself in many of the examples you quote, rather the competitive nature of business that means ever more pressure to keep up in the market - ultimately capitalism. If something is legal and increases profit, businesses will do it. Technology just happens to be the tool to achieve that in the cases you give. Any social aspects, even customer impact, unless they affects customer retention and/or spending, are irrelevant. If the shark doesn’t keep swimming, it will die (for some reason, I’m typing that in Eric Cantona’s voice).

Agree with all of that. Its a damning indictment of the way things are going. Profit has always been key to capitalism, but the pursuit of profit by large corporations now seems to ignore people's sensitivities altogether. Customer service poor or non-existent, lack of staff (saving wages - like in the Aslef dispute and in many large businesses), lack of stock in shops sending everyone online. 

It's all about clinical  efficiency - with less and less regard for human beings. The effect of it is to turn us into good little computer controlled automatons, expected to suck it all up without complaining.  In the case of VAR, making people put up with it even through all the complaints. Its the unstoppable force/march of technology and the manipulation of everything from shopping to watching sport, trying to control everything we do as human beings.  

Technology is removing the soul from sports, but people seem powerless to stop it.