So, you buy bloody expensive tickets to a game and drive through thick traffic to the stadium and park a 20 minute walk to your seats. You buy bloody expensive beer, sodas, popcorn. . .whatever, to see a live game of baseball. A game with non-human umpires (does anyone call them referees?) calling the shots. Why bother going to see it live? Soon there might be robot players, programmed to hit with power or to have speed or to throw sliders and change ups. There can be robotic fans that can actually boo or cheer. Then you can stay home and cheer for your team without any of the effort of actually watching the game live.
Replays, such as in football, make sense and they are doing that now. Live baseball usually means live humans as I understand it. Umpires are part of the game. Baseball's become too boring as it is without flawless calls by non-human assistant referees. (That sounds awful. Assistant umpires. Non-human assistant umpires.)
It depends on the speed, accuracy and intrusiveness of it. For example, the hawkeye in tennis seems to work pretty well, and is only engaged when a player requests it via challenge, etc, as far as I know. In rugby, however, the TMO system can be really detrimental to the flow of play. Also, it doesn't seem to have reduced controversial decisions as it, coupled with an insanely complicated rule book, is still subject to subjectivity.
I've learned not to spontaneously cheer or become despondent when a goal is scored because I know it will all be checked and might be overturned. The game is lived less in the moment. In some ways that is unfortunate.
Nonsense. It corrects over 100 wrong decisions per season in the Premier League. And those are all big decisions as VAR doesn't intervene in most minor infractions.
It has led to less for diving in the area for penalties since players know VAR can and will spot it and they will revceive a caution.
and it dramatically kills a game.
I haven't seen any game killed by it. Affected, yes. Killed, no.
Some people will find a way to whinge about anything though, even when it is proven to be effective.
VAR in Football, especially Premier League, is very bad. Its better at the World Cup and in Champions League, and much better in cricket, rugby, and American Football, so it is a Premier League problem.
Officiating and players' attitudes to officials are so much better in rugby than football, almost to the point where I am embarrassed to be a football fan. I don't even like rugby very much.
No! We're human and A certain level of randomness adds to the excitement. If everything is to be precise to the detail it feels less human and less fun.
16 Comments
Login to comment
Gene Hennigh
So, you buy bloody expensive tickets to a game and drive through thick traffic to the stadium and park a 20 minute walk to your seats. You buy bloody expensive beer, sodas, popcorn. . .whatever, to see a live game of baseball. A game with non-human umpires (does anyone call them referees?) calling the shots. Why bother going to see it live? Soon there might be robot players, programmed to hit with power or to have speed or to throw sliders and change ups. There can be robotic fans that can actually boo or cheer. Then you can stay home and cheer for your team without any of the effort of actually watching the game live.
Replays, such as in football, make sense and they are doing that now. Live baseball usually means live humans as I understand it. Umpires are part of the game. Baseball's become too boring as it is without flawless calls by non-human assistant referees. (That sounds awful. Assistant umpires. Non-human assistant umpires.)
Cephus
"Are you in favor of VAR (video assistant referees) in sports?"
Although at times, breaks the flow of the game. VAR, applied correctly minimizes human or refs errors.
wallace
There were some dreadful errors last season in the Premier League, and it was too time-consuming. It has been better so far this season.
Hawk
It depends on the speed, accuracy and intrusiveness of it. For example, the hawkeye in tennis seems to work pretty well, and is only engaged when a player requests it via challenge, etc, as far as I know. In rugby, however, the TMO system can be really detrimental to the flow of play. Also, it doesn't seem to have reduced controversial decisions as it, coupled with an insanely complicated rule book, is still subject to subjectivity.
carpslidy
In football
I hate the delays and marginal calls.
I would rather a goalstand than have it erased by a toenail offside.
Speed
It's working like a charm in MLB. Lots of bad calls being overturned.
Moonraker
I've learned not to spontaneously cheer or become despondent when a goal is scored because I know it will all be checked and might be overturned. The game is lived less in the moment. In some ways that is unfortunate.
Eastmann
yes.
for example in ice hockey.
spinningplates
Australian football has got it just about perfected.
Technology is only used for score reviews.
a human umpire makes an initial call, if video or ‘edge’ (goal post vibration sensors) show conclusively a wrong call it gets overturned.
if video is inconconclusive, the human umpire’s call stands.
robert maes
Of course not. It clearly solves nothing and it dramatically kills a game.
it only shifts the mistakes from the referee to the VAR officials.
honest referee mistakes are part of a game and it’s an illusion the var can change it
ClippetyClop
Nonsense. It corrects over 100 wrong decisions per season in the Premier League. And those are all big decisions as VAR doesn't intervene in most minor infractions.
It has led to less for diving in the area for penalties since players know VAR can and will spot it and they will revceive a caution.
I haven't seen any game killed by it. Affected, yes. Killed, no.
Some people will find a way to whinge about anything though, even when it is proven to be effective.
kohakuebisu
VAR in Football, especially Premier League, is very bad. Its better at the World Cup and in Champions League, and much better in cricket, rugby, and American Football, so it is a Premier League problem.
Officiating and players' attitudes to officials are so much better in rugby than football, almost to the point where I am embarrassed to be a football fan. I don't even like rugby very much.
Seigi
We might as well watch video assisted players...
nandakandamanda
If the ref has it as back-up, with the decision ultimately his or hers, it has to be a useful tool, giving different angles on an event.
CAPTAIN
No! We're human and A certain level of randomness adds to the excitement. If everything is to be precise to the detail it feels less human and less fun.
DanteKH
Absolutely. People make mistakes. VAR is straight forward there to help the referies.
Win-win situation for everybody.