Is football corrupt?

[CBlue]

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.

FFS - it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who doesn't have the capacity to actually read or are you being deliberately disingenuous?
I asked for proof that it wouldn't increase corruption. Unfortunately, if you had read it & comprehended it I wouldn`t have had to trawl through the rest of your shite & your response would have been a lot shorter.

Re your stance on vr for goal line decisions - I never said you had changed your stance - it`s always been retarded - that was my point. There is no one advocating the use of vr for goal line decisions because everybody, other than you it would seem, know that cameras can`t see through people & therefore would be fucking useless. They are trialling goal line technology which, you may recall, I have no issues with as long as the decision is guaranteed to be 100% accurate & can be delivered with a couple of seconds.

 

[mancity1]

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.

FFS - it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who doesn't have the capacity to actually read or are you being deliberately disingenuous?
I asked for proof that it wouldn't increase corruption. Unfortunately, if you had read it & comprehended it I wouldn`t have had to trawl through the rest of your shite & your response would have been a lot shorter.

Re your stance on vr for goal line decisions - I never said you had changed your stance - it`s always been retarded - that was my point. There is no one advocating the use of vr for goal line decisions because everybody, other than you it would seem, know that cameras can`t see through people & therefore would be fucking useless. They are trialling goal line technology which, you may recall, I have no issues with as long as the decision is guaranteed to be 100% accurate & can be delivered with a couple of seconds.

Rubbish Cblue, commentators , managers , supporters, bluemooners, politicians, and numerous stakeholders have been advocating the use of vr for goal line decisions for years Cblue.

Only you and one or two others are dead against trialling it and so far the authorities have wished to buck the trend.

Thankfully in all the other sports where it has been trialled and been proven successful including AFL the authorities saw that the benefits outweighed the negatives.

Football is the last bastian Cblue to come on board.

Thats your problem Cblue , you know you cannot provide any evidence to support your original assertion so you try to defend your unsupported stance by asking for something which cannot be answered with any degree of certainty.

Thats not providing evidence Cblue.

That's a question you asked which cannot be answered yet.

No one asked you to pose it and in anycase you have answered it already yourself.

Once again you are confusing vr itself with the officials that will use it.

vr itself will not increase the corruption in football , only corrupt officials / stakeholders that use it corruptly will increase corruption in football but as I said in the only cases I want it used they will be weeded out very quickly by the very thing they are using.

Once again there is no proof available that the introduction of vr will increase corruption in football as I have said before if you bothered to read my posts for obvious reasons you have already alluded to.

Whether corrupt officials will use vr to serve their ends whatever that may be will be exposed quite quickly for the examples I want vr to be used for.

All that is irrelevant though CBlue to your assertion that VR will increase corruption in football.

vr is cheaper easier and more universally accepted as a means of adjucating in games like AFL , NFL and others with some similarities to the game of football.

That's why they are in vogue in those sports Cblue and will continue to be until a better alternative serves the same purpose.

As an aside seeing you raised it , how do actually know that goal line technology will work effectively and what if any effect will it have on corruption in football.

vr can be used today in football if the relevant authorities decided to on a trial basis and I firmly believe without the concerns you have being needed to be addressed in any way shape or form.

If it proves to be ineffective or causes more problems that its worth it can be easily canned cblue.

When it comes to vr in football Cblue you are in the minority by some margain but that doesn't mean it will come to pass either.

Good today to see Smith originally not given out lbw today , given out by vr.

The right decision was made but I doubt you will have much to say on that Cblue will you know.

 

[mancity1]

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.

FFS - it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who doesn't have the capacity to actually read or are you being deliberately disingenuous?
I asked for proof that it wouldn't increase corruption. Unfortunately, if you had read it & comprehended it I wouldn`t have had to trawl through the rest of your shite & your response would have been a lot shorter.

Re your stance on vr for goal line decisions - I never said you had changed your stance - it`s always been retarded - that was my point. There is no one advocating the use of vr for goal line decisions because everybody, other than you it would seem, know that cameras can`t see through people & therefore would be fucking useless. They are trialling goal line technology which, you may recall, I have no issues with as long as the decision is guaranteed to be 100% accurate & can be delivered with a couple of seconds.

It is possible Cblue and you have huge tickets on yourself if you think I am being deliberately disingenuous.

Again who asked you to ask the question you raised without even addressing the question that was asked of you?

A very simple question mind you that I thought you would have the capacity to address but it seems like you do not know the meaning of the word proof , evidence or the word will.

Not that I should have been bothered but I answered your question on more than one occasion if you bothered to read it.

Do you understand the difference between technology and the people that use it?

If you cannot see that difference then you are beyond redemption Cblue.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I made a post to this effect earlier, but let me repeat the gist of it, which is this:

This debate about VR has got bogged down in far too much detail and CBlue for one, cannot see the wood for the trees. It is not up to us in Bluemoon to worry about the detail of the ins and outs of some particular aspect of VR and how it will affect this or that. (a). We haven't the experience of working with the technology and (b) we don't make the rules.

If we ask the questions at a much more fundamental level, then the answer becomes obvious.

Are there some truly shocking decisions in football - bent or incompetent - which are grossly unfair, totally change the outcomes of games and which we wish did not happen? YES.

Are there potential technologies which if given proper consideration and careful introduction could help reduce these dreadful decisions? YES.

Should the governing bodies take a look a technologies like these - such as VR - and consider how they might be implemented in such a way to derive benefit, whilst not destroying the fundamentals of the game or it's natural flow? YES.

I don't see how any sane person could rage otherwise. Getting into this, yes but it won't reduce corruption, or no but the managers would stop play all the time, or whatever, is just horseshit that detracts from the fundamental point that it could help if implemented sensibly.

 

[mancity1]

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.

FFS - it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who doesn't have the capacity to actually read or are you being deliberately disingenuous?
I asked for proof that it wouldn't increase corruption. Unfortunately, if you had read it & comprehended it I wouldn`t have had to trawl through the rest of your shite & your response would have been a lot shorter.

Re your stance on vr for goal line decisions - I never said you had changed your stance - it`s always been retarded - that was my point. There is no one advocating the use of vr for goal line decisions because everybody, other than you it would seem, know that cameras can`t see through people & therefore would be fucking useless. They are trialling goal line technology which, you may recall, I have no issues with as long as the decision is guaranteed to be 100% accurate & can be delivered with a couple of seconds.

They use vr now in AFL CBlue to rule on goal line decisions and it works well.

Many stakeholders are advocating its use in football.

Its not as useless as you seem to think it would be.

I bet Lampard wouldn't think it was useless and for that matter neither would all the poms and others that support England either.

Every week a discussion on the use of vr on poor decisions that occur is taking place on some form of media or in the pubs throughout the world.

Most are for it Cblue , some dead against it , some don't care either way.

 

[waspish]

City might get a favoured decision about once in 10 games bad ones I'd say 1 in 3 now the scum usually it's every game or at least 1 in 2 games they get a favoured one and bad ones its 1 every 15 games and don't we not hear the end of it!

 

[cyprustavern]

yes, yes it is.

 

[The Future's Blue]

Bent as a five-bob note.

 

[cyprustavern]

yes , yes it is.

 

[Shirley]

We have goal line technology about to be introduced.
VR in football will eventually arrive but football then I imagine will be nothing like it is these days, it will be totally controlled by TV companies.