It1 was gutting when that goal was ruled out in the CL game.I’m reminded of the Spurs CL game and Stirlings winner - which is basically what Cov had yesterday -the c2-3 minutes of bollocks before they decide.
This is another point of mine in that at Klanfield & OT this is decided in seconds whereas at our place it takes 2-3 minutes for them to decide if we’ve scored etc
It’s BS -we all know they are looking to disallow our Goals by whatever possible reason they can come up with and will trawl through the Video to come up with something regardless of how long it takes -and this simply doesn’t happen at OT or Klanfield
It’s not an obviously correct decision either. That was my main takeaway. I have been a supporter of VAR in the main but for the Coventry goal there was no justification to disallow it. The margins were too fine and the technology is not capable of accuracy to measure toe nail gaps. And yet they did disallow it which makes me think it’s more about human manipulation than technology.This Coventry offside is not an example of an obviously incorrect decision
It's not though is it. It just looks like that because when the ball is played you can't even see where Wan Bissaka is. Wright was offside. It was a tight call and a harsh one but ultimately the correct one. Whether we want these kinds of tight (but ultimately right) offside calls being made is a separate matter, and it's fair enough to question whether the exact right frame was used, but by the letter of the law Wright was offside. It's shit and cruel because he was only a toe offside but that's life.
Well said.It’s not an obviously correct decision either. That was my main takeaway. I have been a supporter of VAR in the main but for the Coventry goal there was no justification to disallow it. The margins were too fine and the technology is not capable of accuracy to measure toe nail gaps. And yet they did disallow it which makes me think it’s more about human manipulation than technology.
Fuck me that’s about 2 metres on.
I said it's fair enough to question it, not that the wrong frame was used.You accept you don’t know if the correct frame was used but then want to apply the letter of the law to that?
Sounds sensible.
It’s not an obviously correct decision either. That was my main takeaway. I have been a supporter of VAR in the main but for the Coventry goal there was no justification to disallow it. The margins were too fine and the technology is not capable of accuracy to measure toe nail gaps. And yet they did disallow it which makes me think it’s more about human manipulation than technology.
This is pretty much my take.
Do I like VAR? No, I think it is possibly one of the worst examples of technology implementation I've seen from a multi-billion dollar industry. It is laughably bad. I have a long list of things that I would change if it were up to me. Either that or, like you, have it summarily dismissed as a failed experiment.
That said, it never ceases to amuse me how hilariously short people's memories are about what life was like before VAR. If I had a penny for every time I heard "the technology is there, why don't they use it?" I would have been able to retire by 25.
Remember the Reading ghost goal? When Kieran Gibbs got sent off? Nani's handball goal v Spurs? Henry v Ireland? People have been having kittens over decisions like this for as long as time immemorial. The one thing you can say is none of the above would have happened in the VAR era.
This Coventry offside is not an example of an obviously incorrect decision, it's an example of a decision people just don't like. I can't blame them for that, I hate it too. But it's not a problem with execution, it's a problem with process. Which are two very different things. And it's United, so that naturally fucks people off even more.
I've said it before, the problem isn't the decision it's the delay. In my opinion (and it is only my opinion), they should have only allowed VAR to get involved in offsides if the technology was capable of enhancing decisions at no detriment to the game. It wasn't and now they've given people a reason to hate it.
It would have been so easy to make the VAR introduction more gradual and measured. First use it for exceptional errors like mistaken identity. Then maybe timekeeping. Then if people think that's worked, just give referees the option to look at a screen to review reds/handballs. Then, when the tech was up to it (it isn't today in its current state) offsides. Instead, they brought it in to do a whole raft of things at once with untested chaotic processes, so much of which is not fit for purpose.
They should have had us begging/complaining that VAR doesn't get involved enough because they are overly cautious, but now the genie is out of the bottle and they've properly fucked it. If they aren't going to get rid of it (because they won't), it now needs a total overhaul.
there is another unlikely scenario which is consistent with the decisions - a pile of money on the match going to a penalty shootout.I agree entirely, I think it's largely established that the efficacy of the technology at this level of precision is highly questionable. Though I would be interested if anybody has any studies showing the current system's margin of error because I've not seen the PL even admit it has a margin of error.
My point is that the problem isn't that they've got this one decision wrong - the problem is that they're using tech for decisions like this in the first place. Which is a different complaint. I don't think it makes sense that this is a case of human manipulation on this occasion, because if it were then there's a much easier and less controversial bit of manipulation they could have done, which is just to not give Coventry the penalty.
So we're left with the conclusion that they're using technology with limited capability, in the way it's been proscribed, and it has come to a decision which is wildly unpopular. For perfectly understandable reasons.
there is another unlikely scenario which is consistent with the decisions - a pile of money on the match going to a penalty shootout.I agree entirely, I think it's largely established that the efficacy of the technology at this level of precision is highly questionable. Though I would be interested if anybody has any studies showing the current system's margin of error because I've not seen the PL even admit it has a margin of error.
My point is that the problem isn't that they've got this one decision wrong - the problem is that they're using tech for decisions like this in the first place. Which is a different complaint. I don't think it makes sense that this is a case of human manipulation on this occasion, because if it were then there's a much easier and less controversial bit of manipulation they could have done, which is just to not give Coventry the penalty.
So we're left with the conclusion that they're using technology with limited capability, in the way it's been proscribed, and it has come to a decision which is wildly unpopular. For perfectly understandable reasons.