Officials have been and will be judged according to the rulebook, video replays is just an instrument.
Buy on AliExpress.com
World Cup 2018 LIVE thread (17 Viewers)
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
It sounds to me as if your issue is not with VAR, per se. But with Football becoming a TV spectacle.
If our clubs are going to take billions from the TV companies (and they don't all just recycle that through transfer fee inflation, but build new stadia etc, e.g. both of our clubs) then we must accept that TV has a say in how the game is run.
If our clubs are going to take billions from the TV companies (and they don't all just recycle that through transfer fee inflation, but build new stadia etc, e.g. both of our clubs) then we must accept that TV has a say in how the game is run.
Because, quite literally, the camera lies. Yet we hold it up as the gold standard of proof. Even at the expense of what actually happens in real time on the pitch. That's backwards to me.
What's real to a TV viewer is real on TV, but it's not the same as what's real on the pitch. TV viewers fall for this, believing that their view is the ultimate authority on truth.
It's the frame of reference on which we judge evidence. Taken to the extreme, it means what actually happens on the pitch doesn't matter as long as what people are fed on TV looks correct to their own beliefs.
I'm not saying we're there yet in terms of having someone insert real-time deep fakes where Ronaldo is punching a referee when it never happened. But if that's what people watching on TV see and thus believe to be true, then we treat it as the truth.
What's real to a TV viewer is real on TV, but it's not the same as what's real on the pitch. TV viewers fall for this, believing that their view is the ultimate authority on truth.
It's the frame of reference on which we judge evidence. Taken to the extreme, it means what actually happens on the pitch doesn't matter as long as what people are fed on TV looks correct to their own beliefs.
I'm not saying we're there yet in terms of having someone insert real-time deep fakes where Ronaldo is punching a referee when it never happened. But if that's what people watching on TV see and thus believe to be true, then we treat it as the truth.
Well, I agree. But does it matter?
Looking back through these forums there are different takes (and many based on partisan bias) as to whether this person should have been red carded or that person dived etc. Without VAR or instant replays then opinions will still be formed based on what's seen on live TV, gut instinct, what's written in the newspaper or what our mate at the game says.
We'll find a way of believing what we want to with or without VAR.
Looking back through these forums there are different takes (and many based on partisan bias) as to whether this person should have been red carded or that person dived etc. Without VAR or instant replays then opinions will still be formed based on what's seen on live TV, gut instinct, what's written in the newspaper or what our mate at the game says.
We'll find a way of believing what we want to with or without VAR.
As long as VAR is treated as just another tool to split hairs in a close call, I’m good with that. What irks me more are decisions like we saw in the Portugal-Iran match last night. The referee doubted himself mostly and seemed to defer his own agency to the tyranny of video cameras.
Why even be on the pitch if you have no clue and are afraid to make a decision that will be criticized because of video replays?
Why even be on the pitch if you have no clue and are afraid to make a decision that will be criticized because of video replays?
Agreed. He was a crap referee.
If he was genuinely unsure as to whether he was making the right calls then what was he doing before VAR. Guessing?
On the other hand, if he was just fearful that his decisions would be second guessed by TV viewers then such a man with that weak a disposition has no place officiating in a flagship tournament.
If he was genuinely unsure as to whether he was making the right calls then what was he doing before VAR. Guessing?
On the other hand, if he was just fearful that his decisions would be second guessed by TV viewers then such a man with that weak a disposition has no place officiating in a flagship tournament.
Of course it isn't, but it's still "real" and you're both seeing the same performance.
A kid runs out into the street, car 1 stops short to avoid it, car 2 rear ends car 1. Whether you saw the entire chain of events occur or only the first car stopping short, the same thing happened. It wouldn't make sense to say "I only saw car 1 stop for no reason, so it is their fault for the accident and therefore what is real."
I'm not trying to attack you or anything, I just don't understand your argument of an incident being reality just because someone in a stadium saw it, regardless of whether they were able to see the incident fully or at a good angle.
A kid runs out into the street, car 1 stops short to avoid it, car 2 rear ends car 1. Whether you saw the entire chain of events occur or only the first car stopping short, the same thing happened. It wouldn't make sense to say "I only saw car 1 stop for no reason, so it is their fault for the accident and therefore what is real."
I'm not trying to attack you or anything, I just don't understand your argument of an incident being reality just because someone in a stadium saw it, regardless of whether they were able to see the incident fully or at a good angle.
I just want to be the coach that gets to say, "F*ck this! Send in the Klovns."
No, I get it. No attacking here. Just a debate that's sadly beating a dead horse for everybody. (Apologies.
)
Reality is in the eye of the beholder. I would prefer that judgement prioritize beholders in the stadium in a flesh-and-blood match with all its sounds, all the stuff in the periphery, all its smells than a clinical, reductionist facsimile of that. Because most people judge the correctness of calls exclusively on the latter.
No, I get it. No attacking here. Just a debate that's sadly beating a dead horse for everybody. (Apologies.
)Reality is in the eye of the beholder. I would prefer that judgement prioritize beholders in the stadium in a flesh-and-blood match with all its sounds, all the stuff in the periphery, all its smells than a clinical, reductionist facsimile of that. Because most people judge the correctness of calls exclusively on the latter.
