Var to be scrapped??

[S-Clarke]

1 hour ago, Charlie Wayman said:

Nonsense. The "frame rate" of the human eye is only around 10 fps, so VAR's 50 fps is way better than human eye capability.

No it's not, most humans can see a frame rate of 60fps. Impossible to measure accurately as it's not really what human vision is based on, but if our frame rate of the human eye was 10fps then I'm not sure many would function.

 

[derry]

Interestingly the human vision is estimated to be between 30-60fps however it is thought that there are individuals who can see better than this.

[S-Clarke]

Just now, derry said:

Interestingly the human vision is estimated to be between 30-60fps however it is thought that there are individuals who can see better than this.

It has been said that fighter pilots can see 120+fps, but still a bit hard to prove! But i think we can at least be certain we all see more than 10fps!

[trousers]

1 hour ago, Charlie Wayman said:

Nonsense. The "frame rate" of the human eye is only around 10 fps, so VAR's 50 fps is way better than human eye capability.

I never claimed it was, you numpty.  (No offence). Try reading what people actually say. (Or get one of your consortium members to do it for you)

#missingthepointentirely

Edited 16 May, 2024 by trousers

[S-Clarke]

Just now, trousers said:

I never claimed it was, you numpty.  (No offence). Try reading what people actually say. (Or get one of your consortium members to do it for you)

Never thought I'd see Trousers call someone a numpty  

[trousers]

1 minute ago, S-Clarke said:

Never thought I'd see Trousers call someone a numpty  

It's as close to me getting off the fence as you're ever likely to see...

[Holmes_and_Watson]

42 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

It has been said that fighter pilots can see 120+fps, but still a bit hard to prove! But i think we can at least be certain we all see more than 10fps!

All this is a traumatising reminder of when I got my eyes swapped out for late '80s monitors in my cyberpunk phase. 🙂

[gallaghert366@yahoo.com]

On 15/05/2024 at 21:56, SaintsLoyal said:

Sky and their yank owners run PL football and i cant see them allowing it to go

Indeed, not a chance in hell of it being scrapped.

It will be 'tinkered with' though.

[East Kent Saint]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC535985/
 

I think this backs up the need for technology ! We now need seamless graphics like Hawkeye or snicko and ball trajectory .

I can’t work out who is manhandling the ref in the black and white photo , easy to recognise the Leeds players who would usually be hands on !

Edited 16 May, 2024 by East Kent Saint

[hypochondriac]

26 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The problem with linos flagging is it will result in legitimate goals being ruled out. So all VAR will do is disallow goals where the Lino has missed the offside or foul. It won’t allow play to continue when the Lino’s mistake is flagging when it wasnt a foul or offside. 

Yes but I consider that to be the lesser of two evils. I'd rather have a handful of legit goals ruled out than some autistic system that deems someone off side because a pubic hair is the wrong side of some imaginary line. I know some people love that sort of thing but it ruins it for me and I suspect many others. Removing the human element from officiating entirely just makes the game less interesting. It turns football into a series of MLG posts. 

[Whitey Grandad]

18 hours ago, Charlie Wayman said:

Nonsense. The "frame rate" of the human eye is only around 10 fps, so VAR's 50 fps is way better than human eye capability.

No, it doesn’t work like that.

50fps is just on the edge of flicker recognition for most people. That’s why films that were shot at 24fps are projected onto a screen using a Maltese Cross that shows the same frame twice.

The North American TV system uses (or used to) 30fps with each frame displayed as two successive fields at 60 fields per second. Many Americans complain that European TVs have a lot of flicker.

But all this is bye the bye. The Offside Law was never intended to be implemented to the accuracy of a toenail. It was to stop goal hanging.

Edited 17 May, 2024 by Whitey Grandad

[revolution saint]

Can someone clarify whether offside is calculated to the accuracy of a toenail or a pubic hair?  There seems to be a lot of conflicting reports.

[Whitey Grandad]

56 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

Can someone clarify whether offside is calculated to the accuracy of a toenail or a pubic hair?  There seems to be a lot of conflicting reports.

It’s whichever is closer to the opponent’s goal than any equivalent part of the second to last defender’s body.

My advice to any forward is to keep your toenails clipped and have a Brazilian regularly.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

On 15/05/2024 at 19:19, bpsaint said:

Fair play to wolves for triggering the vote. It’s a fantastic idea, being horrifically executed.

I agree the execution has been bad but I don't look forward to the big clubs getting all the decisions against us again

[Lighthouse]

If ever there was an advert for VAR it was that. Game could have gone very differently on another day.

[S-Clarke]

Everyone ready for VAR next Sunday?

[Patrick Bateman]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

If ever there was an advert for VAR it was that. Game could have gone very differently on another day.

How?

First penalty was a penalty, not given. Second penalty was not a penalty, given. You could argue the ref evened up his mistake, but that's football. VAR is slow, boring, clunky and just ruins the flow of a match. Fuck it.