My go-to reporter for all things VAR is Dale Johnson. He’s used the word “meaningless” to describe the above still.
He is suggesting that the image is effectively ~fake news~ as it’s been created retrospectively with a less than perfect camera angle on a marginal decision, compared to FIFA who are paying millions to have this done with artificial intelligence.
His point of view is that the semi-automated technology used is completely free of human decision making, including understanding which defender is the last defender. And this the system is going to be more reliable than someone drawing some lines on a dodgy still image after the fact.
The computer said NO. Welcome to CL, David Walliams. So you don't think there can be mistakes with technology?
That goal being given offside is a joke and makes a mockery of football. Anyone who watched that in real time on TV knows the only person offside was Messi. The positive from the 'offside' was the drama of the two good goals from Saudi Arabia and the shock victory.
Argentina will still get to 6 points and Qualify so no real harm done plus it gave us an exciting match.
The ‘computer’ in this instance has gone through rigorous testing and used in trials at other tournaments prior to being rolled out here in the World Cup.
To assume the system somehow missed the defender on the near side is almost insulting to the mega-intelligent people behind the technology.
It’s been retweeted as fact so many times on Twitter at this point that it would almost be nice to have an official statement released. But the chances of that are little to none.
Anyway, go ahead and let your confirmation bias run riot. It’s absolutely conclusively offside from a dodgy snapshot and some hand drawn lines.
Anyone who thinks anything but the simplest computer programme, e.g. one that adds 2 and 2, can't have errors and is infallible is delusional. Just ask those sub-post office managers.
I'm not saying this programme isn't good but no amount of rigorous testing makes it perfect.
I had a call schedule with a customer in Saudi for later today but had this message waiting for me when I got in this morning.
"Lastday
Saudi team win football match against Argentina,as royal decree made
proud and gave holiday for all public & private sector. Will continue tomorrow the same time as we discussed." and this picture
My go-to reporter for all things VAR is Dale Johnson. He’s used the word “meaningless” to describe the above still.
He is suggesting that the image is effectively ~fake news~ as it’s been created retrospectively with a less than perfect camera angle on a marginal decision, compared to FIFA who are paying millions to have this done with artificial intelligence.
His point of view is that the semi-automated technology used is completely free of human decision making, including understanding which defender is the last defender. And this the system is going to be more reliable than someone drawing some lines on a dodgy still image after the fact.
The computer said NO. Welcome to CL, David Walliams. So you don't think there can be mistakes with technology?
That goal being given offside is a joke and makes a mockery of football. Anyone who watched that in real time on TV knows the only person offside was Messi. The positive from the 'offside' was the drama of the two good goals from Saudi Arabia and the shock victory.
Argentina will still get to 6 points and Qualify so no real harm done plus it gave us an exciting match.
The ‘computer’ in this instance has gone through rigorous testing and used in trials at other tournaments prior to being rolled out here in the World Cup.
To assume the system somehow missed the defender on the near side is almost insulting to the mega-intelligent people behind the technology.
It’s been retweeted as fact so many times on Twitter at this point that it would almost be nice to have an official statement released. But the chances of that are little to none.
Anyway, go ahead and let your confirmation bias run riot. It’s absolutely conclusively offside from a dodgy snapshot and some hand drawn lines.
Anyone who thinks anything but the simplest computer programme, e.g. one that adds 2 and 2, can't have errors and is infallible is delusional. Just ask those sub-post office managers.
I'm not saying this programme isn't good but no amount of rigorous testing makes it perfect.
Of course it’s not 100%, nothing ever is, but it’s going to be very very close. Or they would’ve thrown this out in favour of sticking with having the video officials drawing the lines manually as before.
Computers are not perfect and can throw up errors, but we’re not comparing computers to 100%, we’re comparing them to humans.
When the alternative is human error, I think I know which is going to be correct more often over time!
Well I can safely say I have watched every match so far. I knew as soon as it started I’d be hooked. I just love football too much. Life on hold for the foreseeable 😩🤦🏻♀️🤷♀️
Well I can safely say I have watched every match so far. I knew as soon as it started I’d be hooked. I just love football too much. Life on hold for the foreseeable 😩🤦🏻♀️🤷♀️
I'm sure that goes for a large proportion of the British public
We all complained about how long the VAR officials were taking to make decisions manually. So they automated it, and now we're complaining about that. Some things about football never change.
This ref is useless allowing blatant taking out of players with no intentions of playing the ball, not to mention all the simulation that’s been going on unchallenged. Bin him off for future games 😈.
My go-to reporter for all things VAR is Dale Johnson. He’s used the word “meaningless” to describe the above still.
He is suggesting that the image is effectively ~fake news~ as it’s been created retrospectively with a less than perfect camera angle on a marginal decision, compared to FIFA who are paying millions to have this done with artificial intelligence.
His point of view is that the semi-automated technology used is completely free of human decision making, including understanding which defender is the last defender. And this the system is going to be more reliable than someone drawing some lines on a dodgy still image after the fact.
The computer said NO. Welcome to CL, David Walliams. So you don't think there can be mistakes with technology?
That goal being given offside is a joke and makes a mockery of football. Anyone who watched that in real time on TV knows the only person offside was Messi. The positive from the 'offside' was the drama of the two good goals from Saudi Arabia and the shock victory.
Argentina will still get to 6 points and Qualify so no real harm done plus it gave us an exciting match.
The ‘computer’ in this instance has gone through rigorous testing and used in trials at other tournaments prior to being rolled out here in the World Cup.
To assume the system somehow missed the defender on the near side is almost insulting to the mega-intelligent people behind the technology.
It’s been retweeted as fact so many times on Twitter at this point that it would almost be nice to have an official statement released. But the chances of that are little to none.
Anyway, go ahead and let your confirmation bias run riot. It’s absolutely conclusively offside from a dodgy snapshot and some hand drawn lines.
Anyone who thinks anything but the simplest computer programme, e.g. one that adds 2 and 2, can't have errors and is infallible is delusional. Just ask those sub-post office managers.
I'm not saying this programme isn't good but no amount of rigorous testing makes it perfect.
Of course it’s not 100%, nothing ever is, but it’s going to be very very close. Or they would’ve thrown this out in favour of sticking with having the video officials drawing the lines manually as before.
Computers are not perfect and can throw up errors, but we’re not comparing computers to 100%, we’re comparing them to humans.
When the alternative is human error, I think I know which is going to be correct more often over time!
I was particularly responding to this "To assume the system somehow missed the defender on the near side is
almost insulting to the mega-intelligent people behind the technology.". To assume a programme couldn't miss the defender is hubris of the highest order on the part of the people behind the technology and, by extension, anyone who supports them uncritically because they're 'mega-intelligent' (which sounds like something Trump would come up with).
Comments
Something that happens in rugby football. Have they got a commentator from last week's Rugby League World Cup?
"Lastday Saudi team win football match against Argentina,as royal decree made proud and gave holiday for all public & private sector. Will continue tomorrow the same time as we discussed."
and this picture
Computers are not perfect and can throw up errors, but we’re not comparing computers to 100%, we’re comparing them to humans.
I knew as soon as it started I’d be hooked.
I just love football too much.
Life on hold for the foreseeable 😩🤦🏻♀️🤷♀️
I have a double of Brzovic (spelling?) and Amrabat
I absolutely love it, I know it's only a few days in but it's been brilliant so far and it's barely begun
Already looking forward to the next game though!
Not sure how many would have to come in to make a profit though
Hartson can only be blamed for 2 of them!
I was particularly responding to this "To assume the system somehow missed the defender on the near side is almost insulting to the mega-intelligent people behind the technology.". To assume a programme couldn't miss the defender is hubris of the highest order on the part of the people behind the technology and, by extension, anyone who supports them uncritically because they're 'mega-intelligent' (which sounds like something Trump would come up with).