|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 1 Mar 15:20
Apologies if this has been suggested before, but I was just watching a video regarding a VAR handball decision during Burnley v Brentford. Gabby Logan asks Shearer, `What d`you think would simplify it?` Shearer says, if it`s deliberate [handball] or not. I disagree - a far easier solution would be to put a time limit on all VAR decisions.
If it`s a clear and obvious mistake by the ref, there`s no reason on earth why it should take more than, say, one minute. If no decision is reached after one minute, then you would stick with the ref`s first onfield call.
What is so difficult about enforcing `clear and obvious?` Is it not obvious? A brief time limit would tell you categorically if any ref`s decision was a clear and obvious mistake or not, and then no-one need interpret anything.
Post Edited (Sun 01 Mar 15:29)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sun 1 Mar 15:42
Quote:
onandupthepars, Sun 1 Mar 15:20
Apologies if this has been suggested before, but I was just watching a video regarding a VAR handball decision during Burnley v Brentford. Gabby Logan asks Shearer, `What d`you think would simplify it?` Shearer says, if it`s deliberate [handball] or not. I disagree - a far easier solution would be to put a time limit on all VAR decisions.
If it`s a clear and obvious mistake by the ref, there`s no reason on earth why it should take more than, say, one minute. If no decision is reached after one minute, then you would stick with the ref`s first onfield call.
What is so difficult about enforcing `clear and obvious?` Is it not obvious? A brief time limit would tell you categorically if any ref`s decision was a clear and obvious mistake or not, and then no-one need interpret anything.
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Milos Drizzle
Date: Sun 1 Mar 15:53
I`ve been blethering on for ages about this... VAR gets 10 seconds to decide one way or the other... and if no clear decision can be made in that time it defaults to, e.g. the attacking team in terms of offside, no penalty awarded etc. Saves this ludicrous extended scientific investigation into whether the guys pinky was ahead of the other guy`s butt cheek.
This is my signature
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 1 Mar 16:39
Yeh, Milos, why are the blithering idiots in charge not doing it?
Now that I`ve done a wee bit of research, I see that NOT all refs decisions are subject to the `clear and obvious` rule.
According to AI, they have prioritised accuracy over speed in making the decisions, but that doesn`t make sense. If accuracy was the top priority, then ALL refs decisions should be subject to checking. It could go on in the background continuously - always with a time limit - and when it`s not obvious then the VAR should just shut their geggies.
As things stand, there are several decisions every match that the ref gets wrong and VAR doesn`t intervene, so I don`t buy the idea that the main concern is accuracy. It may be so regarding offsides at the atomic level,
but such decisions make VAR absurd.
I would prioritise FAIRNESS over accuracy, and it`s absurd to think that being offside by the size of an atom allows a player an unfair advantage. Is that not supposed to be what rules are for - fairness?
Apparently a time limit has been debated, about which AI says:
`While some, like former player Danny Murphy, have suggested time limits to improve the "spectacle" it is generally considered that a time limit might result in more wrong decisions.`
Are they just spineless, hidebound, bureaucratic maggots?
Post Edited (Sun 01 Mar 16:41)
|
|
|
|
|
|
