I was saying that cricket, NFL and Rugby are stop/start.
So not the same as Football.
The comma didn't mean Rugby is the same as football. You misread.
I wish VAR could overturn that yellow!!
- Thread starter Dreambeliever
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
So not the same as Football.
The comma didn't mean Rugby is the same as football. You misread.
That's the worst thing about it. If they can't make the call without the ref they shouldn't be on VAR.
With this keeper Guardiola is lost. That was A RED CARD that WASN'T EVEN VAR-REVIEWED. Clear as daylight. And then the error for the second goal. And Lijners sitting next to Guardiola. Somebody did a couple of HUUUUUUGE numbers on Guardiola. Huge.
BTW, that is the huge and the biggest problem with VAR. Not everything is reviewed. Some things are reviewed BUT NOT ALL THINGS. Imagine you are controlling the VAR system and then you decide WHAT TO REVIEW and WHAT NOT TO REVIEW. Like that you could HUGELY affect the games. Just avoid reviewing things that are positive for Liverpool. Try and avoid reviewing. That is what's actually going on. That is the big issue with the VAR.
There is a whole, whole lot of difference between a situation being able to be reviewed and the situation actually being reviewed. That's the very most important issue with the VAR. Something being subject to review does not mean it will actually be reviewed. That is where the cheating comes in. One can greatly affect and control games like that.
ps Great thread. I think we do need a VAR thread.
This is an interesting incident which decided the Man Utd game yesterday. This shirt pulling was reviewed by the VAR and it was determined to be a penalty. Critical questions here are these:
Is every instance of shirt-pulling a foul?
Should or must every instance of shirt-pulling that is not called by the referee be reviewed?
Should or must every instance of shirt-pulling that is not called by the referee and that happens in the box be reviewed?
Was this shirt-pulling done in the box?
Did the VAR even look to determine that this shirt-pulling was done in the box? (It is unclear from what the referee stated. From what I heard referee announce, he just mentioned that there was an instance of shirt-pulling. The Burnley player here made sure to let go of the shirt the moment Man Utd player entered the box. The shirt-pulling you see here on the photo is clearly taking place outside of the box. If interested, you can go ahead and find the video and look at it in slow motion. From what I've seen, at the very least it is very hard to determine that the shirt pulling took place in the box.)
Those above questions do not have clear answers. Because those questions don't have clear answers cheating can and does regularly happen (because, for example, shirt-pulling doesn't get always but only sometimes reviewed). As in the Chelsea game, this instance also favoured a home team - and what is generally considered to be a big club *even though that may not be the case judging just by this and the standards of the last few seasons'.* All of those things are very, very important. The crowd has an impact on the referee. A huge impact. And the media works to generally favour what are considered to be big clubs. And certain big clubs are much, much better represented and even control the operation of the Premier League, the FA and, therefore, the VAR system itself.
** This is very, very critical. And here I do not mean to compare Man Utd to Liverpool or to other clubs that are generally considered big English football clubs. What I am doing here is comparing a club like Man Utd to a club like Burnley. It is clubs like Burnley and Fulham, which are never considered as big clubs, that constantly get blatantly discriminated eeespecially when playing what are considered to be "big" clubs. And then especially, especially when they visit such clubs. While a club like Man Utd (or Chelsea) can relatively easily accrue undeserving points when playing such clubs.
Here are the closest moments I captured as the Burnely player is releasing the shirt. I mean, it looks close.
Not just "a fella" in a box 200 miles away. It's a fella in such a box with earphones on. Who knows what that fella hears? Who knows who speaks to that fella? Who knows that? In order for the system to be corrected, improved and proven to be absent cheating and bias all of those conversations must be public. If not public then there will always be room for bias and for cheating. Always.
A: Did they err because they are stupid and lack expertise?
B: Or did they err because they are biased?
C: Or did they err because they cheated?
A: People who are biased don't know they are biased. That is the nature of bias. That's how bias works.
B: People who are stupid and lack expertise don't know they lack expertise. That is the nature of expertise. When you put a stupid, incompetent person in charge of something and give that person power you must know that the person will do those things absent knowing what would be a competent way to do it. Such a person just does things or follows orders. Cannot think things through.
C: And cheaters cheat purposefully. They are always biased and cheat in favour of their bias. They may be totally incompetent or they may have some competence. They just care that the outcomes serves their interests.
It's a vicious cycle like that. Only when things are made fully public can improvements be made. When things are fully public then cheaters are prevented. And when things are fully public then expertise can grow and bias can get eliminated. When things are public, the public can see and know which official made what mistake. And then such officials can learn from their mistakes. That is how learning works. Those officials that don't learn and that cannot learn public rejects. They lose jobs. That is how you can have a great institution. You can have officials that never err and that public sees that they never err. Officials with great reputations and experience. And everyone then knows who those officials are. That's how competence and expertise work. Only when things are known and public.
Link: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cp89g010yqyo .
Is the earth ROUND or flat? Is Paul McCartney really ALIVE? Is Elvis really DEAD? Do you have a tin foil LINED hat? Is 5g a way to HACK into our brains (I left brain small intentionally!)? Are birds REAL or are they spies? Does the illuminati control the WORLD... and ergo VAR? Is Garth Brooks a serial KILLER?
Not just "a fella" in a box 200 miles away. It's a fella in such a box with earphones on. Who knows what that fella hears? Who knows who speaks to that fella? Who knows that? In order for the system to be corrected, improved and proven to be absent cheating and bias all of those conversations must be public. If not public then there will always be room for bias and for cheating. Always.
A: Did they err because they are stupid and lack expertise?
B: Or did they err because they are biased?
C: Or did they err because they cheated?
A: People who are biased don't know they are biased. That is the nature of bias. That's how bias works.
B: People who are stupid and lack expertise don't know they lack expertise. That is the nature of expertise. When you put a stupid, incompetent person in charge of something and give that person power you must know that the person will do those things absent knowing what would be a competent way to do it. Such a person just does things or follows orders. Cannot think things through.
C: And cheaters cheat purposefully. They are always biased and cheat in favour of a club for various reasons. They may be totally incompetent or they may have some competence. They just care that the outcomes serves their interests.
It's a vicious cycle like that. Only when things are made fully public can improvements be made. When things are fully public then cheaters are prevented. And when things are fully public then expertise can grow and bias can get eliminated. When things are public, the public can see and know which official made what mistake. And then such officials can learn from their mistakes. That is how learning works. Those officials that don't learn and that cannot learn public rejects. They lose jobs. That is how you can have a great institution. You can have officials that never err and that public sees that they never err. Officials with great reputations and experience. And everyone then knows who those officials are. That's how competence and expertise work. Only when things are known and public.
Link: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cp89g010yqyo .
Only a true bot would know the answer to all of these questions.
Of course it's not a bot, I mean this confirmed bot's posts aren't similar at all:
Post in thread 'Trent, Salah and VVD' https://www.sixcrazyminutes.com/threads/trent-salah-and-vvd.204148/post-2353454
Post in thread 'Trent, Salah and VVD' https://www.sixcrazyminutes.com/threads/trent-salah-and-vvd.204148/post-2353454
That bot and our current bot have very similar posting styles. Subtle differences maybe due the recent releases of chapgpt5 and grok3. It's evolving.
I was being sarcastic
So was I, I'll add an emoji next time. Who needs chat GPT 😅😂😅😂😅😂😅😂
Similar threads
