US Seagull
Well-known member
As they say, never attribute to malice (or corruption) what can be explained by incompetence.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] VAR decision on Estupiñán goal
- Thread starter singing4seagulls
- Start date
US Seagull
Well-known member
100% this. And that's why there is no after the match fix here that would be entirely fair and just. We just don't know what would have happened if the goal had been given then. Maybe Palace would have fallen apart? Maybe they would have gotten their tails up and fought back. We just don't know (we all assume "fall apart" is more likely).
And if results were "adjusted" after the fact, then the game would never really "end". After the final whistle we'd have several days of committees reviewing every action of the game and deciding if the result on the field was "right" or needed to be changed. You know that agonizing 2-3 minutes (or more) of VAR review after a goal? Now imagine it was a week!
Mistakes happen. It sucks and we got totally shafted in the last game. But we move on.
UTA
Seagull58
In the Algarve
That's not a good comparison. Sanchez made a goalkeeping error dropping the ball. It happens. Brooks and his assistant contrived to not see the other defender who was less than 1 metre from Romkins and very obviously nearer the goal. Can you put that down to an honest mistake? Stretching credibility in my eyes. Matchfixing has occurred in cricket, tennis, snooker and also in football. Starlizard even has an integrity services division that works with multiple partners, including La Liga, to try and identify corrupt football matches through the analysis of betting patterns and other data. Do you believe Brooks and the VAR assistant are so monumentally stupid that they missed the other defender or is it more likely to be deliberate? If big bets were being placed on the HT market, HT goals market or FT goals market (trading out at HT) Solly's goal and Sanchez's howler would have no impact.
Bloom didn't make all his money off asian betting syndicates. He made it off asian "mug" punters.
I was only pointing out that had the goal stood, the way the rest of the game played out would have been different. The goal we scored, and the goal they scored, would not have happened. Something different would have happened. What actually happened from that point onwards is irrelevant to my argument: the point is, if the goal had stood it's possible (though would agree unlikely given how they played!) that Palace would have galvanised and played better. They would have had a different half-time talk from the manager and could potentially have played a far better second half. We don't know is the point I was making: we can't stand here today and say that decision cost us three points because it would have been 2-1 to us, as the two goals that did make it into the books would not have happened. Hence I provided the other view as well: we could have run away with it 5-0 if the goal had stood.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Seagull58
In the Algarve
How on earth os he still in the job? Surely the worst of the worst and either monumentally useless or very corrupt.
Ethelwulf
Well-known member
Hope the fat see you next Tuesday gets sacked
US Seagull
Well-known member
I understand the anger, but who hasn't made a mistake at work? Firing seems harsh.
Instead he should be demoted to ref in the Essex & Suffolk Border League Premier Division until he can demonstrate his competence?
schmunk
"Members"
This kind of faultless logic has no place here
I was only pointing out that had the goal stood, the way the rest of the game played out would have been different. The goal we scored, and the goal they scored, would not have happened. Something different would have happened. What actually happened from that point onwards is irrelevant to my argument: the point is, if the goal had stood it's possible (though would agree unlikely given how they played!) that Palace would have galvanised and played better. They would have had a different half-time talk from the manager and could potentially have played a far better second half. We don't know is the point I was making: we can't stand here today and say that decision cost us three points because it would have been 2-1 to us, as the two goals that did make it into the books would not have happened. Hence I provided the other view as well: we could have run away with it 5-0 if the goal had stood.
TBH it's not the error, I can accept the error, we all make mistakes. It's this blind, dogmatic mantra that VAR has 'improved decision making' that I can't stand. It quite patently hasn't; all that's happened is we now have another added layer of decision-making where we can introduce more human error (in ours and Arsenal's case) and probably worse, more subjective interpretation (In Chelsea's penalty case).
VAR has led to more correct decisions for sure, but post-VAR errors are infinitely worse as rather than a ref/lino having to make a rapid judgement in real time, this is a gormless incompetent making an incorrect decision despite having the benefit of unlimited slow-mos from multiple angles, technology to ‘help’ and a team of people to discuss it with. It beggars belief they can be so useless (the Arsenal and Chelsea decisions were equally appalling)
If Pervis has been given offside by the lino and the goal disallowed instantly we would all be a bit pissed off when MOTD confirm it was marginally onside, but would accept it as part of the game (and we wouldn’t have gone mental celebrating). When Mr Magoo and his cronies STILL get it wrong despite everything it’s far more egregious. Ironically the on-field decision was correct
Last edited:
Seagull58
In the Algarve
Mason consistently makes incorrect decisions and even lies about them ( said he didn't blow the whistle at West Brom). Brooks is, possibly, redeemable but Mason is just too bad or corrupt and should go permanently.
Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo
Waxing chumps like candles since ‘75
- Oct 4, 2003
- 11,098
With or without VAR refs still need to held to account though and the only way that will happen is through TV replays and pundits discussing etc otherwise things will just be brushed under the carpet.
VAR was meant to reduce errors, and overall it has done, the problem is that the errors it makes are magnified by the fact that they get multiple angles etc to look at the incidents from and with factual decisions like offside mistakes shouldn't happen.
VAR at the moment isn't fit for purpose but it's more the human failings that are the issues than the technology they use, although obviously there are issues with camera positions at some ground for offside that do need addressing.
Javeaseagull
Well-known member
- Feb 22, 2014
- 2,503
I really can’t understand why all goals are examined by VAR automatically. Why? It is only needed if a goal is disallowed for offside. If the goal is not called off-side, like Pervis’s, why does it have to be examined? What is the point? Football is already the lowest scoring sport in the world and they are trying to take away even more. Bonkers!
albionalex
Well-known member
Even if the Tomkins was the last man and the line was correct, from that angle how can you even be sure it's 100% offside?
Some of these VAR calls are so marginal, I don't think it's possible to be 100% sure.
Some of these VAR calls are so marginal, I don't think it's possible to be 100% sure.
Seagull58
In the Algarve
I understand what you're saying but 1. Tompkins was clearly not the last man and 2. drawing the line from Tomkins he's well offside but 3. Guelhi was at least a metre nearer the goal than Tomkins from any angle you choose. I really don't think incompetence is a logical explanation.
There is something rotten in the state of PGMOL.
Blues Guitarist
Well-known member
Many mistakes that could cost your clients millions of pounds would result in firing. VAR making a mistake isn't like a referee or a lino making a mistake. They can check it out in slow motion, from multiple camera angles, and there is a team of staff to check the analysis. If they still get it wrong - that's not a mistake.