halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,896
I don’t think there ever was a clamour for getting off sides correct to the millimetre. There was a clamour for getting blindingly obvious errors overturned. The trouble is, once you’ve got the technology, they are always going to use it to the best of its abilities.
You hear people saying, have one look and if it’s not clearly a wrong decision, let the on field decision stand. But are fans really going to be happy to see goals ruled out, when replays prove it was narrowly but definitely on side? I’m not so sure.
I suppose that was the situation before VAR came in, although I guess it was more likely to be the opposite: goals standing that were marginally offside.
Maybe I am remembering my own approach: it was just onside but it's difficult to see and they are only human (possibly after a bit of a sweary rant). Maybe it was more generally: why can't we have the technology to get it right? Especially with idiot commentators and pundits analysing every incident to the nth degree and coming out with absolute bollocks for reasons of controversy.
Personally, I preferred the former but I get that some people may prefer the latter.
I am old, I prefer the flow of the game, the spirit of the game, and the benefit of doubt to beautiful goals, all of which to me make the game what it is, rather than robotic accuracy. People lamenting the in-stadium experience these days? Then disallowing great goals for a toenail is part of the problem, imho.