I hadn't managed getting around to answering all that - and yes it would be delightful to let this go and be free of "VAR this Var that - har-de-har-var-var" but just for a quick reply about this straining of meaning that you are indulging in above. You are/were getting right off track again with this. They, as you put it, are/were nothing but a committee, or a set of committees tasked with coming to a rule change/arbitration agreement. They are merely representatives of organizations constituted for rule analysis in place of larger groups which would be too unwieldy. They are not representative of what necessarily is for the best. They were tasked to seek a solution to a problem. But a rule change is not absolutely either "for the best" of "not for the best". It can't be ruled on in that way generally speaking, as opinion will differ, and this one certainly can't (outside of the inside of your head, where it says that these rule changes have definite values which trump other values). That's the flaw in your thinking about the two parts of your statement - you portray that I was addressing it in terms of why did a VAR group decide to (quoting you) "encode within the very rules and protocol of VAR" a weighting of desires and outcomes. When, in fact, the question being asked is, of course, entirely different - which is to ask the only question which matters now - that of those two statements' truth as a factual basis of reference insofar as they apply to the collective entirity of the audience in question. Here they are again for reminder from you: [[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. ]] To put it simple: What does the audience of the sport want? was my question. Not you ort your committee that you value so highly. But everybody, as an agglomerate, with equal rights to an opinion on what they wish to view. I posed this question. It's a reasonable one. You however, both claim that it is not a reasonable question, and then go on to insist this with an answer of why it meant what it meant to a ruling committee, which - I keep pointing out - is only a tiny microcosm of the audience. The collective are the ones being asked: Is this cr@p too much to put up with for the recompense of getting the few bad calls right (and making a few right calls into exact horror calls that wouldn't have otherwise ever been analyzed that far); or is it all not worth it? So - that said: my last word on this [[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/but it is not a fact 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. ]]
I didn't say it was, in fact I've agreed that the opposite is quite true for many people... but again, I don't really care! The only thing that I said was "a fact" was in regards to the actual implementation of the technology -- the fact that VAR exists in the game today is more than enough evidence that the correct calls have been prioritized over the annoyance of stopping the game in order to ensure that those calls are, as often as possible, made correctly! That's a fact! If it weren't for this fact, VAR wouldn't have been implemented. I don't care about the rest of your post, I don't care what or who you respect, I don't care about your opinion about the governing bodies/panels making decisions about where the rules of the game are headed... I don't care at all. I only care about the validity of each individual argument behind any given opinion, and as you've demonstrated, good sir, that is not exactly your forte.