Let's say you're right. It's also often not very clear cut. VAR should initially be used to correct gross miscarriages of justice that would significantly affect the outcome of the match (eg offsides leading to goals, wrong calls on red cards etc). Get that working first, then review where to go from there. VAR doesn't need to fix everything straight away to be useful!
Drama for the sake of drama that has nothing to do with the game (and a bad call has nothing to do with the actual game) has no place on the pitch. That's why VAR will eventually be in. This has nothing to do with anything. VAR and technology isn't "American". The game has constantly evolved. You were probably one of the guys bitching when they changed the rules regarding passing back to your keeper, or offside calls, or whatever. This is still not an argument, the game and the rules will continue to evolve over time. It's a living game, it doesn't belong to one era. Because everyone's agreed that if it's not impacting the play it's just something that's going to have to be dealt with. But VAR will cut down on these incidents in terms of them ACTUALLY impacting the game. And that's a good thing. This is clearly NOT what VAR is about because of the specification of the rules of VAR... do I need to cite them for a third time? Do I need to, once again, ask why ALL 8 WBA-LIV corners didn't involve VAR replays/reviews? It's about the very specific outlined plays that are egregious misses that impact the outcome of matches. If they were ruling on every corner, you'd have a point and I'd agree with you somewhat, that VAR should stay out until they trimmed it down; however the rules explicitly state that's NOT what VAR is intending to do. I've said that multiple times in this thread, at this point you either understand it or not. The rules of VAR dismiss it, I don't have to dismiss anything.
tiddliy-winks = no exertion backgammon = no exertion darts = no exertion hitting a hammer offf a plate to raise a weight to ring a bell at a country fair = yes, that would be a sport just as much as weight lifting or discus bird-watching = no exertion Ian Woosnam, John Daly = another era Footballers (or indeed competitors in many other sports) have come a long way in the last few decades. Most golfers spend a lot of time on conditioning in order to hit the ball as far as they do. Sure, there are some roly-poly exceptions just as there are Charlie Adams's in football.
giving a foul in the box usually (90% +) of the time does affect the outcome of a match! Not giving these fouls can be just as easily construed as any other non-penalty call. They just aren't. Well, that's a GROSS injustice to teh perfect game that Hobo and others have their eye on. So, it's easily VARable - so start there. Why ruin the flow in slow increments of change. Ruin it all in one fell swoop, I say. Give thepeople their cake and the false teeth at the same time...
another era is totally irrelevant. It was called a sport then. (Was it not slaughter in the roman arenas, even though they called it sport and we now call it slaughter?) If you can show me how to play darts without exertion I'd be absolutely fascinated. Also tell it to a paraplegic.... I'm sure that they'd be even more fascinated.... Bird watching you are correct about, but i wanted to edit that to something else but left it there, just for fun. How about snooker? You gonna tell me that doesn't require exertion either? What's your opinion on idiotic japanese tv game shows that require all sorts of exertion to win prizes? Are they sports? Golf is a bloody game, and a flawed theory for sport, pandered to and propagated by the business class elites. Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer were no more sportsmen than Harvey Smith (the horsey does the workie) or Jocky Wilson. What about croquet?
I've stated repeatedly that the "perfect" game is not at all what I've asked for, nor is it what VAR seeks. When someone says things like "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" it means they are actually AGAINST attempts at perfection. This is amazing that this requires explanation, but it's a testament to the masterful job you've done misunderstanding and misconstruing not just the posters here defending VAR, but also the 2 paragraphs in the rules outlining what VAR is attempting to do.
All very well, and the rest - but once someone takes the time to point out to the rulersof the soccer world that the corner kick issue (again, I don't care that it is an issue, I'm willng to live with it) CAN BE fixed by VAR - surely then you'd have to (by virtue of your wish to take away the cheating and random bad-luck advantage/disadvantage in the game) be in favour of using it upon the offending mathematical set?
I do get it - you are saying that golf achieved sport status about 15-20 years ago.... I think that's bollix. If it's a sport now (it's not) it was just as much asport when Ian Woosnam was arsing around atAugusta National I was a pretty good striker at amateur level, but it takes a damn sight more physical acumen than I possess to hit 60x3 with 3 darts, something Phil(the power) Taylor can do quite easily, but at 35 yrs old he would have no hope of containing the 35 yr old me on a football field. Why isn't his physical prowess part of a sport? Because. just like golf, it's a game. Anyone who practises a lot can get good at golf. This is not the case for tennis or soccer or pole vaulting but yes, agreed to disagree.... Death to Golf!
although seriously? what about Croquet? that surely has to be defined as requiring effort?? Or Bowling? There's another one.
Look - either a coach can never be allowed ask a VAR question about a thing like the corner scrums, or he must be allowed ask it as often as needed. Otherwise its simply a mockery of trying to fix a problem. For my two cents I'd say never.. But if they agree with me they can't (rather like in the case of the United States touting democracy whilst overthrowing democracies) be waffling about using VAR to sort out issues of grossly missed, possibly game-changing refereeing decisions. Every time a referee overlooks minor grabbing in the box it IS a refereeing decision.
see- wrong again. I do play golf - well, used to. I didn't say you would get great at golf or at the level of a pro. I said you's get reasonably good at it. Almost everyone I ever played with got somewhat better at it the more they played or went to the driving range. A bit like snooker - you'll never be Steve Davis but you will get fairly good (unless you are cross-eyed) I got pretty ok at it,and I can't even really be arsed playing it. I've played with many soccer players who have been useless since day 1 and will stay that way. I suppose it's how you define good. I'd say being able to make a single hole par now and then ... and I'd say again that with practice most people could get close to that. I mean take a walk on a golf course and look at all the ponces who have gotten good at it.... ffs .. they have gotten good at it because it's the only effin' thing they could get good at.... Being able to return a hard tennis serve effectively - now that's a totally different matter.....
Common sense tells me that Ian Woosnam was not a sportsman, so what can we do..... It gets us nowhere...
Also - I meant indoor lane bowling .... (not the lawn thing) - surely that requires sufficient exertion, which seemed to be the crux of your point. I absolutely say no - that is merely a game.
They have defined the (one of the) problem they are trying to fix. Fouls that would have resulted in a penalty.