Gunnersaurus
-
Posts
1,289 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Gunnersaurus
-
-
3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:
I’m pretty confident pretty much anyone still on our forum or discord could be one of the best VAR officials in the UK, if not the best.
OK well I seriously doubt that
-
39 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:
I know you didn't mean to be rude, but are you really going to say that after video and audio evidence confirmed that the most competent person involved with that VAR decision was the "least qualified" person to make any decision about officiating a football match? I think considering that evidence, the system doesn't allow the best to go to the top.
Maybe the problem is they're not paid enough and don't face consequences for serious errors enough. I get paid more than they do, but I also know that just 1 serious mistake could cost me my job - so I take the idea of what the minimal competence required to be considered good at my job very seriously. They get a decent wage and I think we should be asking more of them considering there's people with more important jobs that are paid far less than them because they're not part of a billion pound industry... but maybe the issue is they don't take it seriously enough because they know what they make in football is fucking peanuts compared to the money in the sport. And it's very, very, very hard for any of them to lose their jobs.
And obviously what I do is very different to what officials do on the pitch. But if you're telling me that the talent pool in the UK is so low for officials that these are the best we've got, I absolutely disagree with you and will once again refer you to the replay operator who is not an official yet demonstrated infinitely more competence than the VAR officials. That was a guy who's not even close to a referee, he's a software engineer - yet there he was, demonstrating he was better at their jobs than they were. And he's probably making less money than them too, despite having a career in something actually useful.
I've said on quite a few occasions that they may not be the best. Like is said. referee's can only get promoted 1 season at a time. So you could have better referees in lower divisions. And you seem to think they don't take their job seriously again I would disagree. There are consequences. Referees get reviewed every week. They get bonuses, they get paid more for high profile games, if they do badly they get less of these.
I've also said repeatedly it was a very bad error. But people do make very bad errors. Doesn't mean they are bad at their job because of one very bad error. Maybe they should of been sacked. However they decided not to sack them. And also I'm not just talking about that game I'm talking about in general.
People don't get paid 100 grand a year if anyone can do their job. I just pointing out it's clearly not as easy as people think or they wouldn't pay someone so much to do it.
Are you seriously suggesting that anyone could be a var official? That's all I'm asking. I don't know if they are good or bad compared to other countries. But I'm fairly certain it's not an easy job because as I said. You don't pay someone that much for an easy job.
Also I would point out that if you are paid over 100 grand a year then you are a more competent person than average. Perhaps you are over estimating the average competency level
-
2 hours ago, Michael said:
It looks like Slovenia and Denmark will qualify from this group. It will be great to see Slovenia back competing in a big competition. Their last major tournament was the 2010 World Cup.
For some reason I like Slovenia. Sometimes you just like certain teams. I'd imagine they are over achievers?
I've actually seen their men's and womens team play England
-
12 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:
I think people moaned because there was video review elsewhere in sport and it was used well, so people thought "why accept human error when we have things to prevent against human error?" Now we see them use VAR to get to the wrong decision in about 12 seconds, even though they somehow go through the process correctly and still come to the wrong decision, or spent something like 5 minutes reviewing things that are clear as day.
I agree with you that the system doesn't allow the best to go straight to the top. But that's because the system is an old boys club and they're rewarding their mates. Systems can be improved upon, but it's only going to happen if enough people demand it and there's public will for it.
It's clear the public doesn't have the will for it, though, so there's no point in hoping for better officiating tbh.
You still to get errors in other sports. And also in other sports they are allowed to advice the referee more. In football they have to be absolutely certain. I think they should be able to say what they think is more likely. I don't mean to be be rude but you seem to have a bit of a I could do better attitude. I'd be fairly certain that you couldn't. The system doesn't allow for the best to go to the top as fast as they could but it does allow for the best to go to the top.
-
36 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:
I just don't buy the argument that these are the best people to be officiating matches in a billion pound industry. It's statistically improbable that there's no good referee in London, the UK's most populated city, that could make their way up to refereeing in the premier league. Look at how many of the officials there are that are from right around the same area. To me... that looks like an "old boys club" - it's hard to get membership if you're not mates with the people already in the club. And the least qualified person in the audio of what was going on during the VAR seemed to be the only person that was actually paying attention to anything going on... so it's even harder to convince me that PMGOL's selected the best possible candidates to officiate matches.
He somehow ended up looking like the most qualified official involved in the match. And he wasn't even an official. Referee mistakes were just more forgivable before VAR and hawkeye and all of that shite. Now they've got so much help and they're still making mistakes that shouldn't have been made, I've got no sympathy for them. If the media thinks the referee spectacle encourages viewers, I think they're pretty wrong. I've watched 1 football match since the incident, I didn't really enjoy it, probably my mistake for watching the league match instead of the Europa League
- I've enjoyed the international break because it's been some time off from me caring about football.
My interest in the league would probably have been rekindled a bit if PMGOL decided to clean up it's act a bit. Perhaps Howard Webb could do with a swift Constantine Hatzidakis elbow to the head.
People moaned just as much before VAR. I don't doubt there are better referees. Like I said the system doesn't allow for the best to go straight to the top. We're never going to agree so no point in continuing.
-
-
1 hour ago, Reluctant Striker said:
Satisfying to see them take the win that was there for the taking.
I do just feel if & when this England come up against a France, or host Germany, or whoever emerges, at some later stage, that Bellingham can be 1 to help control the game from a little deeper. I think he's one of those who could play any position & be 1 of the best around.
Was it there for the taking? I missed most of it but from what I heard Italy played very well but we played one of the best games we have in a while.
I think France look like the best team. I'd like to see if England could beat a big team in a knockout. I think they might have had they played one in the world cup but they came up against France who were to good. I think they might have beaten anyone else apart from Argentina in the world cup.
-
13 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:
No but typically you don't pay someone that much when they demonstrate they can't really do the job either.
That was a one of mistake though they don't do that every game. My point is though if they could get anyone to replace them they wouldn't pay them that much. You have to remember a lot of the decisions are open to interpretation. The clearly wrong decisions are much less common. We're probably never going to agree on this though. I want the standards to improve but I don't think the abuse referees get it is right. And I think the media make it worse because they always make everything out to be a disaster because it sells more papers and attracts more viewers
-
2 hours ago, Michael said:
Sesko's goal is cancelled by the referee though, so it's still 0-1 to Slovenia.
Northern Ireland 1-0 Slovenia
Ha ha I think you need to check that post mate
-
1 hour ago, Stan said:
San Marino equalise against Denmark!!
2.1 win for Denmark is a poor result. Even conceding a goal against San Marino requires an inquest.
I really think San Marino need to find someway to play teams around their level. The nations league will help but a lot teams around their level are to far away. I do think they could do with playing international b sides. They do it in other sports
-
@Michael are you likely to get a playoff place?
-
Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:
Yeah it's a bit of a joke though. Or the officials will put it, a good process.
I'm not sure it warrants sacking mate. I mean didn't you say the var officials earn 100 grand a year? You don't pay someone that much money if you can get anyone to do the job. I know you don't like officials mate. But you have to be able to get better people to replace them with if you sack them. I think that is a possibility. Apparently in England refrees can only go up one league at a time. So if they stand out they can't go from league 1 straight to the Premier league which is an issue.
Despite what some people may think I'm not trying to be contrarian. I just think how I would feel if I was in their situation
-
8 hours ago, Lucas said:
I wouldn't say no chance, we could win it ugly. But they are overwhelming favourites.
It's actually about time we beat South Africa in the World Cup. They have beaten us in two finals and knocked us out of a Quarter Final in '99.
We do owe them one.
And the 36.0 in the pool stage in 2007. We did beat them in 2003 though. But you always have a chance in a cup game. If we perform ar our best and they don't we have a chance.
If they play like they did against France will it just be a case of they will have to much for us or could we still beat them?
-
1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/67133660
well done boys, good process
I mean they have been suspended for two games. Obviously who ever is in charge decided it wasn't a sackable offence.
-
@Dr. Gonzo I mean within about a minute you should realise its not for kids, and definitely within two
-
1
-
-
@Danny great qualifying campaign. Of course southgate is still Englands worst ever manager
-
-
On 25/11/2017 at 17:27, Stan said:
It got taken away because some images uploaded were quite large in size and there's no way to put a limit on them. And it was pushing the server size to its limits.
Any further issues can be sent to @Rab. If you send me nudes of your girlfriends/wives, I will post his address on here so you can send him hate mail.
What if @MUFC sends you pictures of women's feet that he took with his hidden camera?
-
5 hours ago, Lucas said:
France v South Africa will go down as one of the best games in history such was the quality on show.
Our game next week against South Africa will be a very niggly one. It might suit us.
I didn't watch the France v South Africa game but someone told me we have no chance of beating them
-
9 minutes ago, Bluebird Hewitt said:
I think so long as we match Croatia's results, we qualify regardless. Winning both games guarantee it I believe as we have a better head to head against Croatia.
Yeah looked it up. Turkey have already qualified which could help Wales. Its a bit confusing but if you win your remaining games and so do Croatia you will all have 16 points but Croatia would have the worst head to head record between the 3 as they only beat Turkey. Where as Turkey beat Wales and Croatia and you would of beaten Croatia and Turkey. So Croatia would miss out. I think to win the group you would have to win by 3 goals or more because you would have to have a better head to head. If you win 2.0 it would go to goal difference which Turkey are a head on.
That has given me a headache thinking about that
-
@ScoRoss @CaaC (John) didn't realise you had qualified.
Congratulations hopefully see you in the group stage
-
@Bluebird Hewitt Great win last night. Would you probably qualify if you win all your remaining games?
-
@Bluebird Hewitt my friend is going to the match tonight. She just ran into robbie savage. I asked her to tell him to tell steve McManamon to stop doing commentary as I have to put it on mute every time
-
1
-
-
Longest you gone without taking a shit?
in The Pub
Posted
That's German efficiency for you