Is football corrupt?

[andyhinch]

Historically we get shafted look to the 80/81 semi, it's a struggle to go back further for games I was at(Sam fuck off with the grammer) should we win/expect four cups a year fuck off and join the rags

 

[mancity1]

It's not Platini's call - it's outside of his jurisdiction.

VT will actually increase the level of cheating.

Care to divulge your empirical or even any anecdotal evidence to support your last statement CBlue.

I suppose I could ask you the same question as to why wouldn't it. But just to be courteous, if a game is fixed you will have 2 opportunities to either deny a goal when required or "create" a situation for a goal to be scored i.e. a penalty (if you watch corners or free kicks around the box there is invariably a tug of a shirt or a blocked run that is missed by the referee - they happen all the time & by the letter of the law they should result in penalties - now you have a chance to call one & turn a blind eye to others). You also have to take into account the method & timing of stopping play to conduct a review & who is able to do this - depending on how this was to be organized it is conceivable that Hughes could have thrown a challenge before Aguero's goal last season & the goal not stood - how do you prevent that from happening?

Cblue , I asked for evidence to support your statement that VR will increase the level of cheating.

All you have provided once again I must add is your take on bent games/ officials which has nothing to do with VR whatsoever.

VR doesn't give the reviewer a chance to call one and turn a blind eye to the other , thats up to the reviewer.

Officials /players etc that are corrupt or not up to scratch when it comes to the speed of the modern game may in fact be exposed by VR if anything.

The replay is the replay and how its ruled upon is up to the reviewer.

It either confirms the decision as correct or its reversed simple as Cblue.

As with the VR on the review against Smith in the first test this morning if the vr cannot confirm he nicked it which he couldn't and the replay showed he couldn't the original decision of not out stands.

If as you infer the reviewer is on the take or the ref is on the take then VR will in fact increase the possibility of exposing the reviewer as either incompetent or corrupt or a combination of both.

If you think for one minute that the reviewer of Spurs "non goal" against Manure a couple of seasons ago wouldn't have lost his job if he decided that the ball did not cross the line BASED ON VR of the incident then you live in a different world to most Cblue.

If anything VR will decrease the number of opportunities that a ref can in fact turn a blind eye to the example which you use , which by the way again has nought to do with VR by itself increasing the level of cheating.

It's a completely absurd statement on its own to make Cblue and if you think those examples you use have anything to do with VR increasing the level of corruption in football you are sadly mistaken.

I asked for evidence.

You have replied with supposition , possible outcomes under the premise that a game is fixed and either the ref or the reviewer are party to that fix.

Do you honestly think that the level of corruption in games where VR has been introduced has increased as a direct result of the introduction of VR?

If you have evidence to support this Cblue the authorities of all these games earning megabucks to ensure VR is being used to assist officialdom and ensure that more decisions that in the heat of battle that are incorrect get corrected for the good of the game would love to hear from you.

Naturally if you provided the same response to them as you did to me they would politely reply you to explain your understanding of the meaning of the word evidence Cblue.

The reason why it wouldn't Cblue which of course is an absurd way to introduce evidence as to why it would is because Cblue , the VR doesn't lie Cblue , its like forensic evidence Cblue in a criminal investigation and why its used to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused.

Yes refs can lie , refs can turn a blind eye Cblue but the VR cannot.

Again if its plainly obvious to all stakeholders that Lampards " non goal " in the world cup was a goal a reviewer will have to be someone after 15 minutes of fame before he never sets foot in a similar position again for him not to give that strike a goal.

Supposition and your take on what you think may or may not happen is not evidence Cblue.

The introduction of VR would mean more decisions or non decisions as the case may be such as the two examples I have given are corrected as they should be but VR itself will never increase the level of corruption in the game of football , only more bent officials / players etc will do that.

 

[mancity1]

Think CBlues mind changes with the wind, probably plenty blowing though his ears to be fair

To be fair he has been dead against the intro of vr into football from the outset.

I am not sure if he thinks its assisted in other sports like NFL , Cricket, Rugby etc etc but I do believe his concerns are trivial and misguided as far as football is concerned.

Even the most biased Manure supporter knew the ball had crossed the line against Spurs a while back once the replay was shown and in fact most knew it before it went to replay (LOL).

 

[andyhinch]

Care to divulge your empirical or even any anecdotal evidence to support your last statement CBlue.

I suppose I could ask you the same question as to why wouldn't it. But just to be courteous, if a game is fixed you will have 2 opportunities to either deny a goal when required or "create" a situation for a goal to be scored i.e. a penalty (if you watch corners or free kicks around the box there is invariably a tug of a shirt or a blocked run that is missed by the referee - they happen all the time & by the letter of the law they should result in penalties - now you have a chance to call one & turn a blind eye to others). You also have to take into account the method & timing of stopping play to conduct a review & who is able to do this - depending on how this was to be organized it is conceivable that Hughes could have thrown a challenge before Aguero's goal last season & the goal not stood - how do you prevent that from happening?

Cblue , I asked for evidence to support your statement that VR will increase the level of cheating.

All you have provided once again I must add is your take on bent games/ officials which has nothing to do with VR whatsoever.

VR doesn't give the reviewer a chance to call one and turn a blind eye to the other , thats up to the reviewer.

Officials /players etc that are corrupt or not up to scratch when it comes to the speed of the modern game may in fact be exposed by VR if anything.

The replay is the replay and how its ruled upon is up to the reviewer.

It either confirms the decision as correct or its reversed simple as Cblue.

As with the VR on the review against Smith in the first test this morning if the vr cannot confirm he nicked it which he couldn't and the replay showed he couldn't the original decision of not out stands.

If as you infer the reviewer is on the take or the ref is on the take then VR will in fact increase the possibility of exposing the reviewer as either incompetent or corrupt or a combination of both.

If you think for one minute that the reviewer of Spurs "non goal" against Manure a couple of seasons ago wouldn't have lost his job if he decided that the ball did not cross the line BASED ON VR of the incident then you live in a different world to most Cblue.

If anything VR will decrease the number of opportunities that a ref can in fact turn a blind eye to the example which you use , which by the way again has nought to do with VR by itself increasing the level of cheating.

It's a completely absurd statement on its own to make Cblue and if you think those examples you use have anything to do with VR increasing the level of corruption in football you are sadly mistaken.

I asked for evidence.

You have replied with supposition , possible outcomes under the premise that a game is fixed and either the ref or the reviewer are party to that fix.

Do you honestly think that the level of corruption in games where VR has been introduced has increased as a direct result of the introduction of VR?

If you have evidence to support this Cblue the authorities of all these games earning megabucks to ensure VR is being used to assist officialdom and ensure that more decisions that in the heat of battle that are incorrect get corrected for the good of the game would love to hear from you.

Naturally if you provided the same response to them as you did to me they would politely reply you to explain your understanding of the meaning of the word evidence Cblue.

The reason why it wouldn't Cblue which of course is an absurd way to introduce evidence as to why it would is because Cblue , the VR doesn't lie Cblue , its like forensic evidence Cblue in a criminal investigation and why its used to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused.

Yes refs can lie , refs can turn a blind eye Cblue but the VR cannot.

Again if its plainly obvious to all stakeholders that Lampards " non goal " in the world cup was a goal a reviewer will have to be someone after 15 minutes of fame before he never sets foot in a similar position again for him not to give that strike a goal.

Supposition and your take on what you think may or may not happen is not evidence Cblue.

The introduction of VR would mean more decisions or non decisions as the case may be such as the two examples I have given are corrected as they should be but VR itself will never increase the level of corruption in the game of football , only more bent officials / players etc will do that.

Think his mums put him to bed

 

[mancity1]

I suppose I could ask you the same question as to why wouldn't it. But just to be courteous, if a game is fixed you will have 2 opportunities to either deny a goal when required or "create" a situation for a goal to be scored i.e. a penalty (if you watch corners or free kicks around the box there is invariably a tug of a shirt or a blocked run that is missed by the referee - they happen all the time & by the letter of the law they should result in penalties - now you have a chance to call one & turn a blind eye to others). You also have to take into account the method & timing of stopping play to conduct a review & who is able to do this - depending on how this was to be organized it is conceivable that Hughes could have thrown a challenge before Aguero's goal last season & the goal not stood - how do you prevent that from happening?

Cblue , I asked for evidence to support your statement that VR will increase the level of cheating.

All you have provided once again I must add is your take on bent games/ officials which has nothing to do with VR whatsoever.

VR doesn't give the reviewer a chance to call one and turn a blind eye to the other , thats up to the reviewer.

Officials /players etc that are corrupt or not up to scratch when it comes to the speed of the modern game may in fact be exposed by VR if anything.

The replay is the replay and how its ruled upon is up to the reviewer.

It either confirms the decision as correct or its reversed simple as Cblue.

As with the VR on the review against Smith in the first test this morning if the vr cannot confirm he nicked it which he couldn't and the replay showed he couldn't the original decision of not out stands.

If as you infer the reviewer is on the take or the ref is on the take then VR will in fact increase the possibility of exposing the reviewer as either incompetent or corrupt or a combination of both.

If you think for one minute that the reviewer of Spurs "non goal" against Manure a couple of seasons ago wouldn't have lost his job if he decided that the ball did not cross the line BASED ON VR of the incident then you live in a different world to most Cblue.

If anything VR will decrease the number of opportunities that a ref can in fact turn a blind eye to the example which you use , which by the way again has nought to do with VR by itself increasing the level of cheating.

It's a completely absurd statement on its own to make Cblue and if you think those examples you use have anything to do with VR increasing the level of corruption in football you are sadly mistaken.

I asked for evidence.

You have replied with supposition , possible outcomes under the premise that a game is fixed and either the ref or the reviewer are party to that fix.

Do you honestly think that the level of corruption in games where VR has been introduced has increased as a direct result of the introduction of VR?

If you have evidence to support this Cblue the authorities of all these games earning megabucks to ensure VR is being used to assist officialdom and ensure that more decisions that in the heat of battle that are incorrect get corrected for the good of the game would love to hear from you.

Naturally if you provided the same response to them as you did to me they would politely reply you to explain your understanding of the meaning of the word evidence Cblue.

The reason why it wouldn't Cblue which of course is an absurd way to introduce evidence as to why it would is because Cblue , the VR doesn't lie Cblue , its like forensic evidence Cblue in a criminal investigation and why its used to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused.

Yes refs can lie , refs can turn a blind eye Cblue but the VR cannot.

Again if its plainly obvious to all stakeholders that Lampards " non goal " in the world cup was a goal a reviewer will have to be someone after 15 minutes of fame before he never sets foot in a similar position again for him not to give that strike a goal.

Supposition and your take on what you think may or may not happen is not evidence Cblue.

The introduction of VR would mean more decisions or non decisions as the case may be such as the two examples I have given are corrected as they should be but VR itself will never increase the level of corruption in the game of football , only more bent officials / players etc will do that.

Think his mums put him to bed

Don't worry andy , as soon as she is downstairs he will be back online.

 

[CBlue]

Think his mums put him to bed

Talking shite again I see. I was trying to read what mancity1 had posted but kept falling asleep before I could get to the end.

 

[CBlue]

Care to divulge your empirical or even any anecdotal evidence to support your last statement CBlue.

I suppose I could ask you the same question as to why wouldn't it. But just to be courteous, if a game is fixed you will have 2 opportunities to either deny a goal when required or "create" a situation for a goal to be scored i.e. a penalty (if you watch corners or free kicks around the box there is invariably a tug of a shirt or a blocked run that is missed by the referee - they happen all the time & by the letter of the law they should result in penalties - now you have a chance to call one & turn a blind eye to others). You also have to take into account the method & timing of stopping play to conduct a review & who is able to do this - depending on how this was to be organized it is conceivable that Hughes could have thrown a challenge before Aguero's goal last season & the goal not stood - how do you prevent that from happening?

Cblue , I asked for evidence to support your statement that VR will increase the level of cheating.

All you have provided once again I must add is your take on bent games/ officials which has nothing to do with VR whatsoever.

VR doesn't give the reviewer a chance to call one and turn a blind eye to the other , thats up to the reviewer.

Officials /players etc that are corrupt or not up to scratch when it comes to the speed of the modern game may in fact be exposed by VR if anything.

The replay is the replay and how its ruled upon is up to the reviewer.

It either confirms the decision as correct or its reversed simple as Cblue.

As with the VR on the review against Smith in the first test this morning if the vr cannot confirm he nicked it which he couldn't and the replay showed he couldn't the original decision of not out stands.

If as you infer the reviewer is on the take or the ref is on the take then VR will in fact increase the possibility of exposing the reviewer as either incompetent or corrupt or a combination of both.

If you think for one minute that the reviewer of Spurs "non goal" against Manure a couple of seasons ago wouldn't have lost his job if he decided that the ball did not cross the line BASED ON VR of the incident then you live in a different world to most Cblue.

If anything VR will decrease the number of opportunities that a ref can in fact turn a blind eye to the example which you use , which by the way again has nought to do with VR by itself increasing the level of cheating.

It's a completely absurd statement on its own to make Cblue and if you think those examples you use have anything to do with VR increasing the level of corruption in football you are sadly mistaken.

I asked for evidence.

You have replied with supposition , possible outcomes under the premise that a game is fixed and either the ref or the reviewer are party to that fix.

Do you honestly think that the level of corruption in games where VR has been introduced has increased as a direct result of the introduction of VR?

If you have evidence to support this Cblue the authorities of all these games earning megabucks to ensure VR is being used to assist officialdom and ensure that more decisions that in the heat of battle that are incorrect get corrected for the good of the game would love to hear from you.

Naturally if you provided the same response to them as you did to me they would politely reply you to explain your understanding of the meaning of the word evidence Cblue.

The reason why it wouldn't Cblue which of course is an absurd way to introduce evidence as to why it would is because Cblue , the VR doesn't lie Cblue , its like forensic evidence Cblue in a criminal investigation and why its used to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused.

Yes refs can lie , refs can turn a blind eye Cblue but the VR cannot.

Again if its plainly obvious to all stakeholders that Lampards " non goal " in the world cup was a goal a reviewer will have to be someone after 15 minutes of fame before he never sets foot in a similar position again for him not to give that strike a goal.

Supposition and your take on what you think may or may not happen is not evidence Cblue.

The introduction of VR would mean more decisions or non decisions as the case may be such as the two examples I have given are corrected as they should be but VR itself will never increase the level of corruption in the game of football , only more bent officials / players etc will do that.

So what's all this crap I read in the papers about corruption in cricket? Don't they have VR?

I'll try & respond to this nonsense the best that I can - it's pretty much an incoherent mess - it's all over the place. Why don't you put your points down on a piece of paper before you start & then you can cross out the ones that keep repeating themselves?

You haven't given me any proof that VR won't increase corruption - it's impossible to do so when it isn't in place. I've given you plenty of scenarios where the chance of corruption can occur without the integrity of the reviewers being questioned - I know you're not aware of this as we have discussed it in the past but the decisions being given will be based upon OPINION not FACT. That's why they are called laws of the game.
You keep hanging your hat on goals going over the line & VR helping out - VR will never, never, never, never, never be used for goal line incidents - goal line technology will be. I've told you this a number of times yet it still has to sink in. I suggest you get mummy or daddy to explain it to you.
You also haven't explained HOW VR could be introduced which itself can be open to corruption & gamesmanship.
So to reiterate - corruption can occur in an additional 2 ways with VR that isn't possible at the moment - 1) it will give the reviewer the chance to overturn a perfectly good goal (Kompany v Man United is probably the best example) & 2) depending on the logistics of how a review system is to be implemented (which isn't possible without fundamental changes to the game) there is a possibility of managers/referees/players using a review system to prevent disadvantageous situations from developing during the game.

 

[CBlue]

Think CBlues mind changes with the wind, probably plenty blowing though his ears to be fair

Care to point out where I've changed my mind?

Once again your contribution to this is attacking the poster & not what is being said. Are you not up to it? Is this you way of saving face after being humiliated by someone with plenty of wind "blowing through his ears"? Is Platini going to turn up on my doorstep & arrest me - even though that is also outside of his jurisdiction?

 

[mancity1]

I suppose I could ask you the same question as to why wouldn't it. But just to be courteous, if a game is fixed you will have 2 opportunities to either deny a goal when required or "create" a situation for a goal to be scored i.e. a penalty (if you watch corners or free kicks around the box there is invariably a tug of a shirt or a blocked run that is missed by the referee - they happen all the time & by the letter of the law they should result in penalties - now you have a chance to call one & turn a blind eye to others). You also have to take into account the method & timing of stopping play to conduct a review & who is able to do this - depending on how this was to be organized it is conceivable that Hughes could have thrown a challenge before Aguero's goal last season & the goal not stood - how do you prevent that from happening?

Cblue , I asked for evidence to support your statement that VR will increase the level of cheating.

All you have provided once again I must add is your take on bent games/ officials which has nothing to do with VR whatsoever.

VR doesn't give the reviewer a chance to call one and turn a blind eye to the other , thats up to the reviewer.

Officials /players etc that are corrupt or not up to scratch when it comes to the speed of the modern game may in fact be exposed by VR if anything.

The replay is the replay and how its ruled upon is up to the reviewer.

It either confirms the decision as correct or its reversed simple as Cblue.

As with the VR on the review against Smith in the first test this morning if the vr cannot confirm he nicked it which he couldn't and the replay showed he couldn't the original decision of not out stands.

If as you infer the reviewer is on the take or the ref is on the take then VR will in fact increase the possibility of exposing the reviewer as either incompetent or corrupt or a combination of both.

If you think for one minute that the reviewer of Spurs "non goal" against Manure a couple of seasons ago wouldn't have lost his job if he decided that the ball did not cross the line BASED ON VR of the incident then you live in a different world to most Cblue.

If anything VR will decrease the number of opportunities that a ref can in fact turn a blind eye to the example which you use , which by the way again has nought to do with VR by itself increasing the level of cheating.

It's a completely absurd statement on its own to make Cblue and if you think those examples you use have anything to do with VR increasing the level of corruption in football you are sadly mistaken.

I asked for evidence.

You have replied with supposition , possible outcomes under the premise that a game is fixed and either the ref or the reviewer are party to that fix.

Do you honestly think that the level of corruption in games where VR has been introduced has increased as a direct result of the introduction of VR?

If you have evidence to support this Cblue the authorities of all these games earning megabucks to ensure VR is being used to assist officialdom and ensure that more decisions that in the heat of battle that are incorrect get corrected for the good of the game would love to hear from you.

Naturally if you provided the same response to them as you did to me they would politely reply you to explain your understanding of the meaning of the word evidence Cblue.

The reason why it wouldn't Cblue which of course is an absurd way to introduce evidence as to why it would is because Cblue , the VR doesn't lie Cblue , its like forensic evidence Cblue in a criminal investigation and why its used to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused.

Yes refs can lie , refs can turn a blind eye Cblue but the VR cannot.

Again if its plainly obvious to all stakeholders that Lampards " non goal " in the world cup was a goal a reviewer will have to be someone after 15 minutes of fame before he never sets foot in a similar position again for him not to give that strike a goal.

Supposition and your take on what you think may or may not happen is not evidence Cblue.

The introduction of VR would mean more decisions or non decisions as the case may be such as the two examples I have given are corrected as they should be but VR itself will never increase the level of corruption in the game of football , only more bent officials / players etc will do that.

So what's all this crap I read in the papers about corruption in cricket? Don't they have VR?

I'll try & respond to this nonsense the best that I can - it's pretty much an incoherent mess - it's all over the place. Why don't you put your points down on a piece of paper before you start & then you can cross out the ones that keep repeating themselves?

You haven't given me any proof that VR won't increase corruption - it's impossible to do so when it isn't in place. I've given you plenty of scenarios where the chance of corruption can occur without the integrity of the reviewers being questioned - I know you're not aware of this as we have discussed it in the past but the decisions being given will be based upon OPINION not FACT. That's why they are called laws of the game.
You keep hanging your hat on goals going over the line & VR helping out - VR will never, never, never, never, never be used for goal line incidents - goal line technology will be. I've told you this a number of times yet it still has to sink in. I suggest you get mummy or daddy to explain it to you.
You also haven't explained HOW VR could be introduced which itself can be open to corruption & gamesmanship.
So to reiterate - corruption can occur in an additional 2 ways with VR that isn't possible at the moment - 1) it will give the reviewer the chance to overturn a perfectly good goal (Kompany v Man United is probably the best example) & 2) depending on the logistics of how a review system is to be implemented (which isn't possible without fundamental changes to the game) there is a possibility of managers/referees/players using a review system to prevent disadvantageous situations from developing during the game.

Got to laugh at your first statement.

I asked you for evidence that VR will increase corruption in football.

I don't need to give you any proof that it will reduce corruption in football.

As you say it hasn't been introduced yet in football.

You made the sweeping statement that VR will increase corruption in football.

I asked you to provide actual evidence to support this statement.

Your examples as you put them are not evidence in any way shape or form that support your assertion.

You are confusing VR itself with the opinions and interpretations of those that have access to it.

In fact you answered your own assertions yourself when you said vr has't been introduced yet so what evidence could you even produce to confirm your assertion when none exists.

Corruption in sport was around long before you and I were around Cblue and it will be around long after we are gone.

The introduction of VR has neither increased or decreased this activity other than the fact it is used to support the evidence that corruption is ongoing ala the Paki cricketers deliberate no balling in recent times that was used in part albeit somewhat superficially to convict them.

I have never changed my stance on vr for goal line decisions CBLUE.

Again if you have any evidence of this (a word which clearly you do not understand the meaning of) please feel free to supply to all and sundry on this forum.

The fact that you will not be able to doesn't absolve you from being correctly accused of being a person who makes sweeping statements but when asked to provide evidence to support the statement consistently come up short.

You would have been better of saying in my opinion vr may be open to some conjecture as to whether it can be used to by officialdom to increase speculation that those officials using it or relying on it to confirm a decision or otherwise are corrupt but of course I will never be able to proof one way or the other.

VR itself will not lead to more corruption in football than already exists but as I said before it will highlight on occassion how poor or perhaps corrupt some officials are which is a good thing.

 

[mancity1]

I suppose I could ask you the same question as to why wouldn't it. But just to be courteous, if a game is fixed you will have 2 opportunities to either deny a goal when required or "create" a situation for a goal to be scored i.e. a penalty (if you watch corners or free kicks around the box there is invariably a tug of a shirt or a blocked run that is missed by the referee - they happen all the time & by the letter of the law they should result in penalties - now you have a chance to call one & turn a blind eye to others). You also have to take into account the method & timing of stopping play to conduct a review & who is able to do this - depending on how this was to be organized it is conceivable that Hughes could have thrown a challenge before Aguero's goal last season & the goal not stood - how do you prevent that from happening?

Cblue , I asked for evidence to support your statement that VR will increase the level of cheating.

All you have provided once again I must add is your take on bent games/ officials which has nothing to do with VR whatsoever.

VR doesn't give the reviewer a chance to call one and turn a blind eye to the other , thats up to the reviewer.

Officials /players etc that are corrupt or not up to scratch when it comes to the speed of the modern game may in fact be exposed by VR if anything.

The replay is the replay and how its ruled upon is up to the reviewer.

It either confirms the decision as correct or its reversed simple as Cblue.

As with the VR on the review against Smith in the first test this morning if the vr cannot confirm he nicked it which he couldn't and the replay showed he couldn't the original decision of not out stands.

If as you infer the reviewer is on the take or the ref is on the take then VR will in fact increase the possibility of exposing the reviewer as either incompetent or corrupt or a combination of both.

If you think for one minute that the reviewer of Spurs "non goal" against Manure a couple of seasons ago wouldn't have lost his job if he decided that the ball did not cross the line BASED ON VR of the incident then you live in a different world to most Cblue.

If anything VR will decrease the number of opportunities that a ref can in fact turn a blind eye to the example which you use , which by the way again has nought to do with VR by itself increasing the level of cheating.

It's a completely absurd statement on its own to make Cblue and if you think those examples you use have anything to do with VR increasing the level of corruption in football you are sadly mistaken.

I asked for evidence.

You have replied with supposition , possible outcomes under the premise that a game is fixed and either the ref or the reviewer are party to that fix.

Do you honestly think that the level of corruption in games where VR has been introduced has increased as a direct result of the introduction of VR?

If you have evidence to support this Cblue the authorities of all these games earning megabucks to ensure VR is being used to assist officialdom and ensure that more decisions that in the heat of battle that are incorrect get corrected for the good of the game would love to hear from you.

Naturally if you provided the same response to them as you did to me they would politely reply you to explain your understanding of the meaning of the word evidence Cblue.

The reason why it wouldn't Cblue which of course is an absurd way to introduce evidence as to why it would is because Cblue , the VR doesn't lie Cblue , its like forensic evidence Cblue in a criminal investigation and why its used to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused.

Yes refs can lie , refs can turn a blind eye Cblue but the VR cannot.

Again if its plainly obvious to all stakeholders that Lampards " non goal " in the world cup was a goal a reviewer will have to be someone after 15 minutes of fame before he never sets foot in a similar position again for him not to give that strike a goal.

Supposition and your take on what you think may or may not happen is not evidence Cblue.

The introduction of VR would mean more decisions or non decisions as the case may be such as the two examples I have given are corrected as they should be but VR itself will never increase the level of corruption in the game of football , only more bent officials / players etc will do that.

So what's all this crap I read in the papers about corruption in cricket? Don't they have VR?

I'll try & respond to this nonsense the best that I can - it's pretty much an incoherent mess - it's all over the place. Why don't you put your points down on a piece of paper before you start & then you can cross out the ones that keep repeating themselves?

You haven't given me any proof that VR won't increase corruption - it's impossible to do so when it isn't in place. I've given you plenty of scenarios where the chance of corruption can occur without the integrity of the reviewers being questioned - I know you're not aware of this as we have discussed it in the past but the decisions being given will be based upon OPINION not FACT. That's why they are called laws of the game.
You keep hanging your hat on goals going over the line & VR helping out - VR will never, never, never, never, never be used for goal line incidents - goal line technology will be. I've told you this a number of times yet it still has to sink in. I suggest you get mummy or daddy to explain it to you.
You also haven't explained HOW VR could be introduced which itself can be open to corruption & gamesmanship.
So to reiterate - corruption can occur in an additional 2 ways with VR that isn't possible at the moment - 1) it will give the reviewer the chance to overturn a perfectly good goal (Kompany v Man United is probably the best example) & 2) depending on the logistics of how a review system is to be implemented (which isn't possible without fundamental changes to the game) there is a possibility of managers/referees/players using a review system to prevent disadvantageous situations from developing during the game.

Corruption in Cricket - Yes.

Before vr -Yes

After vr - Yes.

Has it increased? Who knows.

Has it decreased? Who knows.

Has vr been used to highlight corruption? Yes

Is vr effective in reducing corruption ? The Jury is out on that one.

If its a good goal ala VK's then only a corrupt or inept official will overturn it Cblue.

Point 2 is not even worth discussing in the context of whether VR will increase the level of corruption in football.

I asked you for evidence Cblue , not irrelevant conjecture.

If Hughes want to stop the game when they are up for no good reason but can predict that the next foray the opposition make forward will result in a goal then his one/two appeals he is allowed in a game will soon disappear and will have no bearing on whether the next foray won't result in a goal or not either.

Seriously Cblue , have a good read of that book your referred to earlier in the thread and see if you can come up with some empirical evidence that supports your outlandish claim that VR WILL INCREASE CORRUPTION in football.

Truth is you won't be able to but it shouldn't stop you from trying.