thomas

he's the spanish ameobi. the upside to persisting with him is 1/10th that of Shelvey

perezzzz

If we could find a way of hooking it up to a turbine we could all be off fossil fuels tomorrow

Aye and you are totally missing the point. If he only posts negative things when NUFC have an obviously hideous and negative result, is he ever wrong? No but he's a cunt. No, I get it. I've been around long enough to know his shtick. I'm just not arsed about it anymore my man. That leopard isn't changing its spots.

tbf to Crumplestiltskin it was fairly rancid like

Shame about that Kenedy miss. Would have been so good

it's like tuxedos for your feet.

Think of it as another, better form of referee. The expectation is already there that as you climb the league pyramid the quality of officiating improves. This is just the next step of improvement. Boom. Cognitive dissonance settled.

The conservative anti-piss-drinking element here is worrying. Just because it wasn't done at all levels of the forum pyramid doesn't mean the creme de la creme can't benefit from these advances in wager making technology.

As long as people are authoritatively stating as FACT their OPINION that it would slow the game to a crawl as every decision would be challenged, I'm going to state my opinion as fact that it would be used judiciously and wisely and be a benefit to the game.

I'm not even that actively hyped about getting in place as soon as possible or anything. I just remain unconvinced as to its destructive capabilities.

if you'd tolt the oldtimers of football's beginnings that one day a magic motion picture box could reduce the error of officiating to under 1%, their well lubricated monocles would have comically flown off their faces so hard they'd still be in orbit

Agreed, a good and pure technological improvement would definitely worsen the game if it was misapplied in a heavy handed manner that no one is advocating for

Not perfection no, but that % is far too high to even consider slowing our game down even slightly, imo. this is another thing. football is hardly the non-stop cyclone of action everyone wants to pretend it is. there are so many stoppages that exist today it would hardly be noticed imo

Says you. If you demand perfection from it before it's used then I think that's foolish.

Would be interested to see what data they are using to calculate that. But that’s not the point I was and still am making. The error rate of the referee still fucking up and changing the decision incorrectly is 16%, which is ridiculous and adds to the point I made a few weeks ago where the referee on the pitch is influenced by the VAR referee as soon as they tell them to check a decision. It's not, though. The error rate goes down to 0.98% over 6.05% - even though there still is an error percentage in the decisions they make using VAR. The numbers they'll have used will be the decisions where VAR has been used vs decisions where VAR has not been used, clearly. I'm not a fan at all of VAR in the form it is currently being used, but I'll still not argue against it clearly being more correct than refs usually are. It's just used wrong and slows down games unnecessarily. A random stat on Reddit could be based on the square root of fuck all like As I said, if someone presents me with some random numbers, I’d like to see the actual data behind them. The difference between those %s could be based on 1000 decisions or 10 decisions, massively altering the impact. Stats on their own are worthless at times, without being put into context. I could tell you that Mitrovic has been our most successful striker this season with some stats and %’s, which doesn’t actually tell you the true story. Wrongfully changing 17 out of 105 decisions is shameful and further evidence that VAR should fuck off, imo. The only way I would ever accept it is if decisions were instant and there was a near enough 100% success rate in making a decision with it. Why slow the game down at all if there still remains a relatively high error rate with decisions made. It's not the overall error rate though VAR was USED TO CHECK A DECISION 1735 times 1631 out of 1735 it agreed (93.95%) 105 out of 1735 it overturned it (6.05%) 17 out of 105 (or 16% of 6%) were overturned incorrectly. Overall 17/1735 (0.98%) were overturned incorrectly.

105 decisions changed and 17 of them were wrongfully changed? Even after watching it over and over again? So 16% of VAR decisions are wrong? No? :lol:

It's all very sensational I think someone was just having some fun with the title. Breathe

sounds like VAR is cool and good ya'll. it's going to happen. imo it doesn't have to be utterly faultless to be used, just better than bobby madley. incremental improvements and the like.

Everyone needs a dude named "Garfield White" in their crew.

best part of the radio are Ando's ridiculously loud "YAAHH"'s when he starts to respond

I love klaus' future rage appearing minutes before i get upset

Out tacticed by proud english lion 'husky' Sam Allardyce. for shame. for shame.