Man United v Liverpool FC - EPL - Oct 20 [R]

Discussion in 'Liverpool' started by el-capitano, Oct 9, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Samarkand

    Samarkand Member+

    May 28, 2001
    Yes, I think that phrasing would go a long way to eliminating problems: "Is there any reason I cannot award the goal?" In rugby the TMO (technical match official aka VAR) will sometimes say you may want to review X play or X reason and replays are shown on the big screen. Sometimes the TMO comes in unbidden and tells the ref he should review a certain play. Despite the presence of the TMO and video playback, the ref has the authority to overrule the TMO and has the final say.

    If you adopted the same rubric for football, asking VAR after a contentious incident and allowing VAR to interject if, as happened, a foul was missed and also getting the ref into the habit of using video to augment his calls, I think it's be a good idea.
     
  2. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The laser-focus on the handful (or dozen, or whatever) of times VAR didn't inform the referee which resulted in a "bad call" completely misses the point of VAR, once again, but that said I'm all for that change. Makes a lot of sense.
     
    Samarkand repped this.
  3. bayern is god

    bayern is god Member+

    May 26, 2007
    india
    Just follow the Bundesliga model where the Referee can view the play at a pitch side monitor and overturn decisions having seen it with his own eyes.

    Let's assume hypothetically that said pitch side monitor was available at Old Trafford and the Genius Mr Atkinson jogs up to see Divock get slapped in his calf from behind..there's no way in the world he doesn't call that a foul..HE JUST HAS NO PASSAGE TO ESCAPE when put on the spot like that(with quasi crap like Clear and Obvious bullshit).

    I have seen Bundesliga referees made to look stupid by VAR teams(at least decisions are correct) whereas the Elitist referees in England behave like they invented Football..Something's got to Give.
     
  4. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    I think you open a can of worms there with the bold part. There's always going to be a part of the player he can't see. So, would he have to assume there was a hit to some part of it.
    He shouldn't have to tell the VAR refs anything as they have the tools in front of them to see if there was a hit in a line he couldn't see. Also, whether they are declaring an error or not is neither here nor there

    The key thing is that the VAR refs are acting as a law onto themselves by not calling something they can obviously see. What's at the back of that? The (seeming) convention they have established on what to overrule a ref for. Well, nobody asked them or authorized them to formulate any such conventions.
     
  5. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    GOD NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's bad enough watching it as it is. I have a better idea - scrap video assisted refereeing and put up with the fun of the errors game like we always did.
     
  6. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Find yourself a time machine and go back to the 1950s. You've got about the same chances of doing that as VAR getting scrapped.

    Or... they have a different definition of what constitutes a clear and obvious mistake by the referee.
     
  7. speker

    speker Member+

    May 16, 2009
    Canada
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Gotta luv 442oons

     
    el-capitano repped this.
  8. delaynomo

    delaynomo Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    The point is so the ref has the option to hand responsibility to VAR if he is not sure. Based on Carra's VR the ref could barely see anything at all! So a perfect opportunity to pass it on to VAR.

    The ref shouldn't be assuming anything.

    You are missing the point. If the ref has a very good view and thinks it's not a foul, then no foul. If the ref cannot see the incident at all pass it on to VAR!

    It is totally both here and there. VAR can only overrule if there is a clear and obvious error!

    It seems they are only going to overrule for "factual" errors (eg offside, handball). They do not seem prepared to overrule "subjective" incidents like fouls (even if it is a fairly obvious foul). It would be good for some official guidance to be given to refs to overcome this problem.
     
    Samarkand and EruditeHobo repped this.
  9. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    I would doubt there is a definition, as such - as there are a myriad variants of fouls. The only definition I know of wouold go something like this: (a) "does it fit my definition of a foul?" and (b) "did I see it?"

    It seems to me that in this case they just didn't want to face up to being in the position to make such a contentious decision.


    What I meant there is that even though there may be an error in the call, the error may not have been made by the referee. He can only be erring in what he has been able to see to make a judgement on. The error could, as it did in this case, reside elsewhere.
    (It's neither here nor there that he didn't make the error. What matters is that there is a patent error realized.)
    I should have said "whether they are declaring (that he made) an error or not"

    might have made more sense, maybe.....
     
  10. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I know you would doubt it. You doubt lots of things without actual reason behind your logic.

    Lots of things appear to you in lots of ways... I don't really care, because yet again you simply haven't made a good case. That's all I care about.

    As to the first part of your post, you know what they say... wish in one hand, shit in the other, and then tell me which fills up first.
     
  11. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    #136 zaqualung, Oct 23, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2019
    Have I got News for You --- You not wanting to be wrong, doesn't make you right. You not liking something doesn't make it illogical.

    ((((As I may have pointed out before, I don't put a lot of pass on your analysis of my reasoning. Perhaps it's beyond you sometimes?? There is no reason behind your logic in this case - not mine. There is nothing remotely illogical in the assessment that a kick delivered, the result of which was to cause the muscle to physically wobble in full camera view, would be considered by the referee viewing it as anything other than a foul. It is illogical to think otherwise. Yet here you are claiming there is no logic in my reasoning.))))

    It also seems unbelievably odd that someone who cares so much about bad calls - so much so as to go to the extent of stating that people who hold the opposite viewpoint and don't care enough that every offside is caught, to want to disrupt the emotional factor of the game with video refereeing etc., are somehow insane - is soo unfilteringly blinkered in failing to grasp an actual undeniable case of a bad call when that call is made by the VAR refs and affects your own team.

    that is bonkers ....
     
  12. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    If the wish put in the hand happened to be
    "God - I wish I wasn't so constipated" (granted, this would be more likely to be a wish of yours than mine, I think) then your expectation of the correct answer would be left in limbo.

    Nothing is ever as cut and dried as you think.......
     
  13. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not when you're determined to be obtuse, that's for sure.

    Yes that's true... but you claiming there's only 1 or 2 ways to possibly see things makes it impossible for you to be using logic properly. Those are the rules of logic, that's literally a logical fallacy.
     
  14. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  15. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    A good example of a logical fallacy is me bothering in answering one of Hobo's posts or him bothering to answer one of mine. Both fail in the "what's the point" logical stage.

    It's ironic here that the whole basis of VAR is predicated on a type of logical fallacy. The idea of doing VAR was advanced (as far as I can tell) on the basis of a perceived good consequence. Getting more calls right in a highly contentious area was claimed that as an outcome would be worth the emotional annoyance the system's implementation would inevitably cause.

    As an argument that has a classic flaw - in that it looks like an argument, but it isn't actually one of any merit. It's a theme of persuasion. As such it worked pretty well.
     
  16. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's not an argument at all... it is a fact, one that is demonstrable, which should be taken into account by anyone attempting to make an intellectually-honest argument on the subject to which that fact applies (VAR).
     
  17. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    re:Getting more calls right in a highly contentious area was claimed that as an outcome would be worth the emotional annoyance the system's implementation would inevitably cause.


    No offence - but that of itself can't be called a fact.

    It's not a fact that it is a necessarily good consequence. It is a fact that more people are willing to put up with the method of getting to this consequence than those who are not. And it's a fact that the consequence is desirable to most (or at least to a significant majority). But that's not a fact about whether VAR is demonstrably good/necessary or not. ((That can't really be ascertained other than in terms of stuff like you love it - and it drives me and US Scouse bonkers....))

    It is wanted (and it's there) but there is no argument that can prove it is necessary either to the game or to enjoyment of the game, or to the furtherance of enjoyment of the game. These are all nothing more than speculations based in personal psychology. Although I would say that there may well be a medical argument that it is necessary to some people!!
     
  18. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #143 EruditeHobo, Oct 24, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2019
    It's a fact that VAR was "advanced" based on it's ability to positively impact the number of correct decisions made in important, game-changing scenarios, and that the annoyance of the time spent ensuring that these calls are made correctly is secondary to the reality that more correct calls get made. That is why VAR is introduced in the prem... and yes it is a fact. That's what I was referring to, because as I've said repeatedly, I don't care about what any one person likes, or prefers, I don't care what they feel is "too annoying", I only care about their ability to support that stance with a logical argument.

    And why are you talking about this here? Go to the VAR thread if you want to post more bad opinions.
     
  19. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Because (1) an incident of line of sight blockage to the referee occurred in the Man Utd game, and led (pertinently) to the question ---- are the VAR refs deliberately ignoring the rules of football in order to not upset their own neatly stacked little apple cart of rules - duh ....

    or to paraphrase myself-
    To ask the question why are they allowed to act in a manner in which they have no right (whatsoever) to be acting.
    quote Delaynomo
    They do not seem prepared to overrule "subjective" incidents like fouls (even if it is a fairly obvious foul).
    (doubtless you'll allege that they have some right to act this way. They don't.)

    And Because (2) you decided to respond to a statement that didn't require a response

    upload_2019-10-25_10-18-37.png

    Double DUH .......
     
  20. Kawklee

    Kawklee BigSoccer Supporter

    Oct 30, 2008
    Miami
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    when you guys start arguing with zaqualung i dont care who is right or what is being discussed I just dont read it.
     
  21. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    I wouldn't want to spoil the ending either.....
     
  22. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    I've been making the exact same case that Delaynomo stated as an aside, but without encountering the flak. That they don;t seem prepared to call back missed fouls (this was before last weekend). You can't simultaneously agree that his statement makes sense and say glibly that I didn't make a good argument when all i basically said amounts to what he said. They don;t want to call this stuff.:rolleyes:
     
  23. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC

    A logical argument---- ok---
    Back to the other part of all this: this near Nietschean WunderFact!! that you’ve suddenly discovered. Beyond-Fact, let's call it. (After we're done here, let's try to sell it to Trump). The first part of your two-part answer underlined is a fact. Well done. But then you add on to it the problem part for your statement. Call it a fact if you like, call it whatever - Othello or Methuselah or Jiminy Cricket if you like, but that bold half above is not a Fact any more than it is Othello or Methuselah or Jiminy. It is a surmising based on how (most likely greater, I'll grant you) numbers of people feel about one of two parallel outcomes. One is not automatically, in terms of its intrinsic value, secondary to the other. You say it is, because you feel it is, and you want it to be, but it is not.


    Also I believe it’s better stated as "the annoyance of the emotional interference with enjoyment" rather than "the annoyance of the time spent ensuring"


    Two propositions:

    One has a guy who says he doesn’t care what James Milner feels about the emotional enjoyment of the game been messed with. That getting the few very bad missed calls that screw a team each year corrected is more important.

    In the 2nd one, James Milner says that he does give as much weight to getting those calls right at the expense of the game’s excitement value and the expense of a bunch of great plays where the infraction is a shoe-lace.


    Neither of these statements has any more truth in it than the other. It is not a fact that one is secondary to the other. For someone purporting to understand a logical sequence not grasping this much is astonishing.
     
  24. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #149 EruditeHobo, Oct 29, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
    @zaqualung... I'm sorry, but if you'd read the rules you might threaten to understand that the bold element of that statement, which you are dismissing, is encoded within the very rules and protocol of VAR itself. If they weren't prioritizing getting these calls right over the game delays that are necessary for VAR to function, VAR quite simply wouldn't be in the league at all. It exists, thus the correct calls are being prioritized. Period.

    As to your propositions you've put forward:
    I don't give a shit that you -- or anyone! -- may feel justified in having an opinion built on nostalgia, tradition, and/or your own personally-defined emotional comfort level based on what you feel is essential to the sport. And I mean, I literally couldn't possibly give any less of a flying blue ********. I care, and I've probably pointed this out a dozen times, about the supporting logical argument which informs the opinion. So again, agree to disagree, because all opinions are not created equal and the reason is some people apply logic and some do not.

    But either way, it's true lots of people have lots of opinions based on stupid bullshit. I've never tried saying otherwise; Person A has an opinion based on shit, Person B has an opinion based on common sense, both statements are true! But the opinions are not necessarily equal.

    I'm not going over previous disagreements or points any more. If you want to take some moral victory from that, okay, that's fine, and I get it because it may seem/feel like I'm dodging you. I think it's much more likely we'll be able to communicate more clearly if we just stick to things that are happening now, and not going back and referencing any previous exchanges.

    I'll be listing VAR decisions in the VAR thread and maybe talking about them, if we have more discussions about them in that thread that's fine. But please consider this me being officially done going over previous posts/points/arguments/etc. It's a waste of time, for both of us. No one's really reading it. No one cares. Not even me.

    See you for the next VAR call.
     
  25. Samarkand

    Samarkand Member+

    May 28, 2001
    See, that's why I thought my post-doctoral thesis on the VAR Thread would have made for much lighter reading and easier understanding. :)
     

Share This Page