The PGMOL are VARy sorry.....again- The VAR Thread II [R]

Discussion in 'Liverpool' started by Samarkand, Oct 12, 2023.

  1. usscouse

    usscouse BigSoccer Supporter

    May 3, 2002
    Orygun coast
    WHY! Because no two referees agree on the interpretation of the laws of football. They all have their pet subjective ways of making their subjective decisions and don’t forget, as you seem to, VAR is actually another ref making his decision subjectively. Or just adding support to the on field ref.
     
  2. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Strikes me as very very ********ing weird... no argument from me on that one. Haven't taken another look at it, but incredibly weird and fishy. Don't know what remit a ref has to just seemingly personally decide to not call this.

    I agree with all of this! This is what tends to be MY argument. We can't get rid of this subjectivity.
     
  3. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    CL VAR review:

    https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_...w-saka-penalty-gabriel-handball-kane-red-card

    Saka "pen":
    Yep. Fair enough.

    Gabriel handball:
    Still weird... but spirit/letter of the law kind of issue.
    Think it should have been given...
     
  4. newterp

    newterp Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 6, 2007
    North Potomac, MD
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    It's exceptionally weird - the Arsenal keeper played the ball like it was a normal restart.

    The ref apparently told Tuchel that he didn't want to give it in such a big game - and unless tuchel is lying - it's crazy.
     
    EruditeHobo repped this.
  5. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's just a ref seeing there's no urgency, the circumstance is what it is, and he's not going to apply the law.

    Should have been given. Gabriel isn't entitled to a brain fart like that IMO, should be punished.
     
    newterp repped this.
  6. newterp

    newterp Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 6, 2007
    North Potomac, MD
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yep! As someone said - that's like a keeper accidentally walking the ball back across the goal line.

    That's a goal regardless.
     
    EruditeHobo repped this.
  7. Samarkand

    Samarkand Member+

    May 28, 2001
    What it really is, essentially, is the referee arbitrarily rewriting the laws of the game to what he thinks they should be. No different from a cop making up the law on the spot or a judge deciding that because he does/doesn’t like the way you dress that you’re automatically innocent/guilty.

    Not only should that ref not work UEFA for a while, if ever, he should be suspended by his home association for a long, long time.
     
    SamScouse repped this.
  8. SamScouse

    SamScouse Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Toronto
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    reverse things: how about if it was a not-so-important game ....

    a player commits an obvious nasty foul and the ref says "I don't want to give a red card for that in a game like this".

    100% nonsense.

    have the PGMOL arranged for his transfer to the UK yet?
     
  9. Samarkand

    Samarkand Member+

    May 28, 2001
    Those sort of laissez-faire applications happen in pre-season a bit. More than once a ref has approached a bench and said “sub [Rooney] off or I’m going to send him off”. Which is kinda understandable and the games means nothing. But the QFs of the CL? For an individualistic interpretation of the rules? Not so much, not so much at all.
     
  10. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC

    I have to say I found this one rather hilarious - coming from the guy who gave us, amongst many other flippant disregards of quite serious posts - this one just from my memory...

    "no need to bring Kant into this" (a bit odd of a response to an irrefutable point, to state the least about it, when Kant's theories did specifically try to encompass a mapping for all rationality, and the point at play in the discussion was about human's perceptions...)
     
  11. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    btw- guys ...



    the entire argument on this one is silly.
    It assumes that Elliot's natural motion would have gotten him over the sliding leg had he really tried to avoid it. No such assumption can be easily made, nor should it. Eliot could have tried to get over the leg and landed on the guy's leg and gotten sent off, for example. All three landing positions are possible steps for Elliot, given the way he's being challenged.

    Before the leg. (Not to land on it, being as reasonable an explanation as is to get tripped by it.)
    On the leg. (Don't want to do that deliberately.)
    After the leg. (That's an extra effort that doesn't have to be made if he can land earlier.)

    Basically, this is simple. The guy flung himself into Elliot's path. And didn't get the touch on the ball. Elliot without changing direction (ala Saka's ridiculously idiotic motion yesterday v bayern) is impeded and tripped in running.
     
  12. Wingtips1

    Wingtips1 Member+

    May 3, 2004
    02116
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    The all-knowing and ever-perfect VAR, along with the on field ref, all thought it was deserving of a penalty and saw a foul on Elliott. How dare you question them!!

    And I was comparing Jesus to Mac's penalty. Both defenders got the ball. Neither attacker was able to continue thanks to 'coming together' with the defender. Should not be treated any differently.
     
  13. Samarkand

    Samarkand Member+

    May 28, 2001
    The ref claimed spirit of the game, common sense for not giving the Raya/Gabriel penalty.

    So if a perfectly good goal was ruled out by VAR for offside when it was clearly on, so clearly on that ref, linesmen, VAR and all dogs knew it was on, surely the common sense rule would also apply?

    I mean we can’t have the common sense dictum applied in some cases and not others, could we? Wouldn’t that be inconsistency, leading to accusations of bias and so forth?
     
  14. Samarkand

    Samarkand Member+

    May 28, 2001
    Oh great! More technological shithouse arguments for this thread.

    Semi-automated technology comes to the PL next season.
     
  15. usscouse

    usscouse BigSoccer Supporter

    May 3, 2002
    Orygun coast
    That been my point all along. Each referee has his own subjective interpretation of the laws. This includes when they are doing the TV overwatch. Unless they’re backing up their on field buddy.
     
    CB-West repped this.
  16. usscouse

    usscouse BigSoccer Supporter

    May 3, 2002
    Orygun coast
    Some people think that VAR is already some sort of AI.
     
  17. SamScouse

    SamScouse Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Toronto
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    we can look forward to posts explaining that a shit offside decision is OK because the programmer was a bit sick that day and we shouldn't expect perfection.
     
  18. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    But they're different! It's very hard to treat such different incidents as the same.

    Everyone agrees with all of this. The nitty gritty of VAR/the laws/reffing is much more complicated than this... or rather, we are several steps past this point.

    After 5 years it's embarrassing that you can't accurately represent the kinds of arguments that are used in here. But you do you I guess.
     
  19. SamScouse

    SamScouse Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Toronto
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    of course I could - if I was the least bit interested in your viewpoint.
     
  20. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    @zaqualung no one is ********ing talking about Kant -- not responding to your horseshit about the nazis or Kant or grapefruits painted white to look like a ball isn't avoiding a cogent, compelling point.

    That's not the same as Sam sarcastically coming at me for being wrong about penalties/fouls, then me explaining how I'm not wrong and he just ignores it. Or Samarkand swooping down from the heavens to say "you're wrong but I won't engage with the specifics of why" then floating back up into the clouds. These things aren't the same as ignoring your nonsense.

    And I have no hope you will engage with why that is, so we can just leave it there.

    SAOT, good change. Of course now we will see a bunch of posts upset about how the offside margin of error is gone. 2 steps forward, 1 step back, as always.
     
  21. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    LOL what a great response. You could say something accurate, but you don't care enough to. A+ argument there. Thread-winner.
     
  22. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #447 EruditeHobo, Apr 11, 2024
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2024

    Looks like a win all around -- new 3D animations/no more misleading still shots, better for broadcasts, in-stadium fans, and quicker decisions on most offside calls.

    But of course many will be upset at the toenail offsides returning. Maybe in the next iteration in a couple years they can bring in margin of error with the SAOT. No idea how that would work.

     
  23. Samarkand

    Samarkand Member+

    May 28, 2001
    Don’t have a dog in your fight, haven’t had for a while now. Not interested.

    No idea why you thought it necessary to bring me up in your laundry list of grievances. You certainly don’t need me to argue endlessly, Godot-like, about VAR; anyone will do, but it ain’t me.

    In the meantime, I’m going to go back to cooking my chicken, tarragon, mushrooms and rice, so I’m genuinely not interested in engaging on VAR with you in this thread or any other.

    I’ll discuss (not argue, discuss) all other Liverpool and football related matters on the various other threads, but please take me off your VAR Festivus list from here on in, there’s a good chap.
     
  24. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    It's hard to fit it into their otherwise busy schedule of starring in retrospective VAR debates...
     
  25. Wingtips1

    Wingtips1 Member+

    May 3, 2004
    02116
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    How about we just change the f'ing offside law? Nobody wants the player depicted in that image called offside in a match.
     

Share This Page