Excellent article. Yet again people from afar making decisions based on technology while ignoring the experience of the individual with real life knowledge of the situation, it never ends well. Technology has its place but it is to help man not take over and replace the hard earned human experience that no machine will ever really know and understand. From that experience comes change, growth and innovation, it always has, if the human experience is ignored we will stagnate and regress.
I enjoyed this piece immensely. On a personal level it made me feel less alone, as I'd thought a similar thing (although not as well expressed of course). So thank you for that!
A recurrent theme from pundits discussing VAR is 'all anyone wants is the correct decision,' and this point is nodded through as though it's obvious. I don't think it's true. I think all anyone wants is a 'fair' decision, which is a slightly, yet fundamentally different thing. Fairness is a human idea, complex, nebulous, but exceptionally well understood on an instinctive human level. Fairness is a holistic sense of the rights and wrongs of a situation, not a technical binary calculation. So, using the toenail offside example, the question should be 'is the attacker clearly in front of the defender and thereby gaining an unfair advantage?' If, on a quick replay from a revelvant angle, the answer is not clear then the answer should automatically be no. The technicality of a toenail or kneecap offside is not the point and the benefit of the doubt should go to the attacking side. Football fans understand this. Technocrats don't.
In a recent podcast Mary Harrington referred to continuous attempts to "technologise human nature," which always fail. It's a good way of describing it. VAR is a relatively frivolous, but instructive example.
Thank you, Simon, for your considered response. By highlighting the distinction between ‘fair’ and ‘correct’ you eloquently convey the essence of my argument.
Football as a whole has been spoilt for the common man by big money which has made it a business. It is used to swill money around and launder it.
It distracts and divides young men and now it drives them and their parents nuts through the omnipresent Big Brother technology.
Football is a reflection of the social engineering and squandering of resources in society as a whole. It's not as if British players have a first touch that justifies all the attention!
An excellent piece. My husband who shares your love of the beautiful game has raised himself from his seat to applaud you without waiting for VAR to verify his enthusiasm.
No doubt you'll be at a certain football match as I write this!! :)
Good, carefully considered article, as ever. My question is 'off at a tangent' but what was the reason that VAR was introduced for use at football matches? I'm guessing something to do with bets placed on one team or another? Thus big money involved?
Who knows the real reasons for its implementation. There was a degree of pressure from the ultra-rich clubs who were claiming that referees’ errors were costing them dearly!
Excellent article. Yet again people from afar making decisions based on technology while ignoring the experience of the individual with real life knowledge of the situation, it never ends well. Technology has its place but it is to help man not take over and replace the hard earned human experience that no machine will ever really know and understand. From that experience comes change, growth and innovation, it always has, if the human experience is ignored we will stagnate and regress.
Thank you, Amat. Totally agree.
I enjoyed this piece immensely. On a personal level it made me feel less alone, as I'd thought a similar thing (although not as well expressed of course). So thank you for that!
A recurrent theme from pundits discussing VAR is 'all anyone wants is the correct decision,' and this point is nodded through as though it's obvious. I don't think it's true. I think all anyone wants is a 'fair' decision, which is a slightly, yet fundamentally different thing. Fairness is a human idea, complex, nebulous, but exceptionally well understood on an instinctive human level. Fairness is a holistic sense of the rights and wrongs of a situation, not a technical binary calculation. So, using the toenail offside example, the question should be 'is the attacker clearly in front of the defender and thereby gaining an unfair advantage?' If, on a quick replay from a revelvant angle, the answer is not clear then the answer should automatically be no. The technicality of a toenail or kneecap offside is not the point and the benefit of the doubt should go to the attacking side. Football fans understand this. Technocrats don't.
In a recent podcast Mary Harrington referred to continuous attempts to "technologise human nature," which always fail. It's a good way of describing it. VAR is a relatively frivolous, but instructive example.
Thank you, Simon, for your considered response. By highlighting the distinction between ‘fair’ and ‘correct’ you eloquently convey the essence of my argument.
Football as a whole has been spoilt for the common man by big money which has made it a business. It is used to swill money around and launder it.
It distracts and divides young men and now it drives them and their parents nuts through the omnipresent Big Brother technology.
Football is a reflection of the social engineering and squandering of resources in society as a whole. It's not as if British players have a first touch that justifies all the attention!
😂😂
An excellent piece. My husband who shares your love of the beautiful game has raised himself from his seat to applaud you without waiting for VAR to verify his enthusiasm.
😂😂 Clearly your husband is on the same wavelength about VAR.
He definitely is but thankfully he’s also on the same wavelength with all the comparisons you’ve so accurately highlighted.
No doubt you'll be at a certain football match as I write this!! :)
Good, carefully considered article, as ever. My question is 'off at a tangent' but what was the reason that VAR was introduced for use at football matches? I'm guessing something to do with bets placed on one team or another? Thus big money involved?
Who knows the real reasons for its implementation. There was a degree of pressure from the ultra-rich clubs who were claiming that referees’ errors were costing them dearly!
That does suggest that money was the reason, I'm thinking.