Var debate 2019/20

[kaz7]

Haha I shouldn’t have asked.

Salah’s was a definite pen and if you’re now saying you can tell something’s offside better than the linos and VAR with The naked eye and you and you alone have noticed theses errors then it’s absoluteky pointless discussing this with you further. You’re so far down the rabbit hole, I doubt you can see light.

As for which other teams can say that they’re so far untouched, about a dozen (including Spurs and United if you believe the three pens not given weren’t pens - which is what you’ve said I believe).

They were clearly onside using sky footage stopping it briefly so we could see it,var has proved already they do not have fast enough equipement to be able to accurately call a really tight offside which is what makes raz unforgivable,the linesman was flagging them offside,they didn't score but were on the break,he shouldn't have been flagging at all,by untouched i mean not a single intervention of var good or bad

 

[SWP's back]

They have NOT yet reveresed a decision but VAR are looking at them , that's why they put the decision on the board for the Silva/Kane one.

That’s exactly what I just fucking said.

3 times I’ve written that they’ve failed to overturn any one of the THIRTY-ONE penalty decision reviews that var has undertaken.

 

[ctid1894]

Yes as much as the Jesus offside and ball hitting Laporte’s hand can also be argued as being ‘proven correct’.

And I didn’t call you paranoid, I said just saying it’s in place to help Liverpool at this point in the season, is ludicrously paranoid. And it fits my narrative as it’s true. Until Liverpool score a goal following a handball which isn’t ruled off for handball or have a penalty decision over turned in their favour then it’s simply divination and guesswork to claim otherwise.

Proven correct??? The margin or error due to limitations of the camera technology mean that the Sterling/Jesus offside can NOT be 100% proven either way so that’s a complete and utter lie. There’s also not a single freeze frame of Laporte handling the ball against Spurs, just a video showing that it possibly/probably hit his arm but which in no possible way can be proven, so again another complete and utter lie.

You claim decisions as “proven correct” which factually can’t be proven correct on the EVIDENCE we’ve seen meaning replying to the rest of your post regarding “paranoia” is pointless. Ignorance/lying/making things up/being purposefully deceptive (pick one) to try and fit your narrative is slightly more paranoid than my opinion I’d suggest.

 

[SWP's back]

May I ask respectfully (too all those conspiracy theorists): Why do you think there’s an agenda? I’m genuinely curious.

I’m not one, but the main reason would be, as per Scudamore’s wishes, to ensure a different team wins the league as that helps the league sell more TV rights if it’s seen as competitive.

 

[Sir peace frog]

That’s exactly what I just fucking said.

3 times I’ve written that they’ve failed to overturn any one of the THIRTY-ONE penalty decision reviews that var has undertaken.

that's what you've just said,3 times I think :)

 

[SebastianBlue]

@SWP's back @Florida Blue

I could be wrong, but I think you both actually agree with one another, and this is just a case of initial confusion.

 

[kaz7]

I've not seen the others but I didn't think Kane's was, either at full speed or after review, but if there is doubt they do have the option for the referee on field to review it. In Silva and Rodri's cases I think the referee gives both, the both look clear fouls on replay (in Silva's case live I thought he'd dived though), in Kane's I'm still not sure for what exactly.

They are told not to use the screens to have a look so that is not an option,var have full control
Swarbrick insists that oliver has a great view of the rodders pen but decided it wasn't a pen,sky proved he was looking in a whole other direction,by lying it just makes people more annoyed,be honest and say we are not going to overule a ref decision and cut out the ridiculous pretend reviewswe are not fucking stupid

 

[SWP's back]

Proven correct??? The margin or error due to limitations of the camera technology mean that the Sterling/Jesus offside can NOT be 100% proven either way so that’s a complete and utter lie. There’s also not a single freeze frame of Laporte handling the ball against Spurs, just a video showing that it possibly hit his arm but which in no possible way can be proven, so again another complete and utter lie.

You claim decisions as “proven correct” which factually can’t be proven correct on the EVIDENCE we’ve seen meaning replying to the rest of your post regarding “paranoia” is pointless. Ignorance/lying/making things up/being purposefully deceptive (pick one) to try and fit your narrative is slightly more paranoid than my opinion I’d suggest.

Ok mate. If you’re going to be so biased then you can argue with yourself as I really can’t be arsed to argue with an idiot. As the saying goes, you’ll drag me down to your level and beat me with experience.

You say that Sterling is proven onside but the same system that proves him onside, you say can’t be trusted for the Jesus offside. You pick and choose when you want to trust the systems and you can’t see your bias.

As for “no freeze frame proves it hit Laporte’s” hand. Fucking brilliant, I’ve seen plenty of great reasoning as to why it shouldn’t have been disallowed but that’s a new one.

 

[ctid1894]

Lol Fuck off:

He’s two yards inside and still pulling his arm and pressing down on his shoulder. You’re taking the piss now.

If you’re going to be this one eyed then don’t bother replying because it’s like arguing with a religious fanatic that claims dinosaurs didn’t exist.

So you post a picture “proving” he’s pulling his arm which doesn’t show either players arms? Can we move this one to the classics thread.

 

[citizen_maine]

To be fair, I think @Florida Blue ’s point was that the current VAR implementation could be completely blind to which club the decision has been made (or not made) against (or for), but if we agree that Liverpool are still refereed differently to the rest of the clubs in the league (as in they are advantaged more regularly than other clubs), the “blind” implementation of VAR, which to date has been to not overturn “subjective” in/decisions by referees, means that Liverpool still benefits from the current implementation of VAR, regardless if there is no intended bias (or bias at all).

Hmm...it doesn't though, does it? The 'benefit' of VAR is neutral, if all they're benefiting from is the original inherent bias?