World Cup 2018 LIVE thread (54 Viewers)

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,795
I honestly don't know what the heck you are talking about lol.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
:D Let me put it a different way.

Let's say there's security video cameras showing a group of black kids running out of a 7-Eleven with items they didn't pay for in their hands. The courts decide that video evidence is the best form of truth out there, and the kids are accused of stealing.

Now let's say there's witness testimony suggesting that someone walked into the store while they were in line, and the guy was from a neighborhood gang and could have been carrying a weapon. If the basis of truth is slow-motion video evidence, none of that matters: the kids are convicted of stealing and everybody gets to celebrate, "But you see it! They are running out of the store red-handed with the goods! Case closed!" and everyone feels that the truth has been served. Or almost everyone.
 

Dantes

Senior Member
Dec 15, 2017
1,042
:D Let me put it a different way.

Let's say there's security video cameras showing a group of black kids running out of a 7-Eleven with items they didn't pay for in their hands. The courts decide that video evidence is the best form of truth out there, and the kids are accused of stealing.

Now let's say there's witness testimony suggesting that someone walked into the store while they were in line, and the guy was from a neighborhood gang and could have been carrying a weapon. If the basis of truth is slow-motion video evidence, none of that matters: the kids are convicted of stealing and everybody gets to celebrate, "But you see it! They are running out of the store red-handed with the goods! Case closed!" and everyone feels that the truth has been served. Or almost everyone.
I think I get what you're saying, but the example isn't the best illustration.

It is not a crime to run out of a store with goods you didn't pay for, per se. Theft has a very specific definition. And the burden of proof in criminal cases is beyond any reasonable doubt and not merely on the balance of probabilities.

If we can all accept that VAR is evidence which is to be 'considered' and not proof (or THE truth), then we're in a better place. Perhaps that was what you were saying? I'd like to see the VAR (Video Assistant Referee) be named, and for him to walk onto the pitch at the start of games with the rest of the referee's team and to shake hands with the players, just to remind us all that this is a tool - which has its benefits - but which is still subject to human judgement.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,351
Marouane Fellaini did ::lol3::
To be frank I probably would have taken him too. Not as a starter, but when you're all out of options and don't know what to do, you can often sub this guy in and he'll score some ugly ass header.

He's quite possibly the least elegant football player in the history of the game though :D.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,795
Sorry to burst your sense of superiority but that's what most people think when they look around the streets SF.
Even San Franciscans think that.

Belgium - Panama: a match of the Fake Countries
:lol:

I think I get what you're saying, but the example isn't the best illustration.

It is not a crime to run out of a store with goods you didn't pay for, per se. Theft has a very specific definition. And the burden of proof in criminal cases is beyond any reasonable doubt and not merely on the balance of probabilities.

If we can all accept that VAR is evidence which is to be 'considered' and not proof (or THE truth), then we're in a better place. Perhaps that was what you were saying? I'd like to see the VAR (Video Assistant Referee) be named, and for him to walk onto the pitch at the start of games with the rest of the referee's team, just to remind us all that this is a tool - which has its benefits - but which is still subject to human judgement.
You got it.

Well, it was to illustrate the limitations in believing that what you see on camera is the source of irrefutable proof. Another perspective from a camera in addition to an official is just that: another perspective. Arguably more perspectives (and more evidence) reduce errors, so that's a net improvement.

But let's be clear about intentions here: it is designed to serve the TV viewer's belief that what they are watching is the absolute proof of reality. So VAR is currently set up primarily to appease TV viewers for their perspective. That doesn't mean that the TV viewer's perspective is the most accurate or truthful or complete one, however. That was my illustration attempt to Osman.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 53)