I think currently the decision is right more like 95% of the time.
Iâm referring to the crucial decisions that VAR would come into play in, which are typically wrong (and important) decisions which are then reversed with an extremely high accuracy of getting it right. Probably more like 10-20% to 98% and youâre preferring to stick with the 10-20%, but yeah.
Also think 95% is a pretty high estimate for the accuracy of decisions in any given game but Iâm digressing.
Youâre just making numbers up now.
VAR if introduced will be used extensively. And it wonât reverse most decisions because for as much shit as we give refs and linos they get a large majority of the calls right.
The uses Iâve seen of it so far are on decisions which are most likely wrong (hence the 10-20%) and likely to be reversed. Anyways, I canât really make any sense of your stance regardless if we go into it further, except for âIâm an olâ git and I donât like technology and changes to my footballâ. And that comes from someone with the utmost respect for ol gittery.
1 Like
Thatâs nowhere near my stance and Iâve already said, in this thread, that I love the goal line tech because it removes ALL doubt.
Yes, because the nature of the beast makes it possible to do so. Itâs not possible to do so with all decisions, just possible to vastly increase the accuracy, but for some reason you donât like the idea of vastly increasing the accuracy unless itâs absolutely perfect. Like I said I canât make any sense of your stance. Consider yesterdayâs game for example, where we probably wouldâve seen VAR used 4 times-- for the 3 penalty decisions and for the offsides. In all likelihood, VAR wouldâve upheld the offsides and overturned the 3 penalty decisions, so youâre going from a 25% accuracy to a 100%, but for some reason you donât like that idea.
1 Like
Iâve said clearly, i donât think it will vastly increase anything (iâve only being talking about offsides btw). but yea weâre going round in circles here now.
I donât disagree with any of this except:
We did dominate the game, we did deserve to win, but it was definitely a poor performance. Our passing and build-up play was poor, and ridiculously over-direct at times, our intelligence in the final third (allo, Danny, HĂ©ctor!) was poor.
Yes we deserved to win but Stoke were a pretty poor opponent and I suspect all the other really quality teams will be walking away there with 3 pts, and wouldâve walked away there with 3 pts the other day despite all those things going against them. All of those decisions can go against us but still if we had better players in there than Welbeck, BellerĂn, etc. and of course, more importantly, a better style of play where we arenât so impatient, we wouldâve won despite it all.
Hence why I do think itâs fair for Wenger haters to use this game as evidence that they are right, because it was yet more evidence that weâre not going anywhere under Wenger. It wasnât a good performance and dominating a game/deserving to win and playing poor football are not mutually exclusive.
2 Likes