You'd need 10 refs to decide if it's a clear and obvious error in your system. We have 1 var and 1 avar.
You'd need 10 refs to decide if it's a clear and obvious error in your system. We have 1 var and 1 avar.
The numbers were to show a general consensus, not how many people we would literally need in the VAR booth.You'd need 10 refs to decide if it's a clear and obvious error in your system. We have 1 var and 1 avar.
The system is sh*t. It's sh*t for fans, players and refs. We should be aiming for better. There's many other better systems in different sports that work well (field hockey in particular).The numbers were to show a general consensus, not how many people we would literally need in the VAR booth.
But I’ve given you my (and others in here) definition of C&O. But you haven’t been able to define who decides what football is expects. It isn’t the fans, so who else is it?
But what are those solutions? This is what I was asking you earlier.The system is sh*t. It's sh*t for fans, players and refs. We should be aiming for better. There's many other better systems in different sports that work well (field hockey in particular).
The field hockey system is a solution.But what are those solutions? This is what I was asking you earlier.
If people are going to say they can do better and/or criticise ,show how it can be done better. I have absolutely no knowledge of field hockey, so I don’t know what their process it.
So that answers one question, but you still haven’t answered what does football expect mean and who decides what it expects.The field hockey system is a solution.
Challenges are a solution.
Football expects isn't easy to define, obviously.So that answers one question, but you still haven’t answered what does football expect mean and who decides what it expects.
Not just throwing this question as you, throwing it at anyone who vaguely throws it out there during a discussion. Of which, it happens a lot here!
That’s fair enough. I don’t necessarily agree with it (the phrase) but fair play for providing an interpretationFootball expects isn't easy to define, obviously.
As I mentioned at the start, the 'most' right decision is how I see it. That'll give you, more often than not, a decision that football expects.
Clearly have to be scenarios where lotg supercedes all of that mind
How would that work though? We regularly see on here that we are split 50/50 on decisions, it isn't 50/50 for this incident but some, myself included, think it should have been red. Granted I would never have been anywhere near a VAR booth, but Peter Walton would have been and he thought it was red.Ditch the "Clear and obvious" standard.
It's so ambiguous and varies from person to person.
The objective should simply be "Make the right decision".
In the few occasions it could go either way just get the referee to the monitor! I don't care if it takes 2 minutes to get a RC decision right!
Much easier to stomach than the current VAR lottery.