Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
FIFA World Cup - Qatar 2022
Comments
-
se9addick said:What a “defensive line break”?
Something that happens in rugby football. Have they got a commentator from last week's Rugby League World Cup?
0 -
Hard to define line breaking passes concisely. Here’s a good article on the topic… https://www.statsperform.com/resource/how-impactful-are-line-breaking-passes/
0 -
Callumcafc said:
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.soapboxsam said:Callumcafc said: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.
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.1 -
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
4 -
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.AddicksAddict said:Callumcafc said:
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.soapboxsam said:Callumcafc said: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.
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.
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!2 -
Another nervy game, both teams struggling to carve out chances.0
-
I’ve been impressed with Morocco but agree that it would be nice to see some more clear cut chances in the second half.1
-
Nice mention of Morocco beating Scotland at a previous WC0
-
Modric has now committed at least four fouls, anyone else would have got booked by now .. referee being very kind to the elderly
2 -
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 😩🤦🏻♀️🤷♀️7 -
Sponsored links:
-
I'm sure that goes for a large proportion of the British publicKBslittlesis said: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 😩🤦🏻♀️🤷♀️
1 -
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.1
-
Brzovic too and a few Morrocans. surprised only just given first booking and he had a few fouls before.Lincsaddick said:Modric has now committed at least four fouls, anyone else would have got booked by now .. referee being very kind to the elderly
I have a double of Brzovic (spelling?) and Amrabat1 -
don't know how the WC grabs me, but in no other world would I be sitting glued to Croatia V Morocco (and many of the other games)
I absolutely love it, I know it's only a few days in but it's been brilliant so far and it's barely begun7 -
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 😈.0
-
I've watched three 0-0s in a row, (missed the France game).Elthamaddick said:don't know how the WC grabs me, but in no other world would I be sitting glued to Croatia V Morocco (and many of the other games)
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!3 -
Have all three 0-0’s been on ITV?5
-
Not minding all these draws (Unless England get involved), as its making the Groups really interesting0
-
A few teams look desperate not to lose the first game. Hopefully it will open up a bit more when teams have to win.
1 -
Mate at work said last week gonna put fivers on No Goalscorer on the first games for each country
Not sure how many would have to come in to make a profit though0 -
Sponsored links:
-
No, the Mexico Poland game was on the BBC.se9addick said:Have all three 0-0’s been on ITV?
Hartson can only be blamed for 2 of them!1 -
Maybe just me but the Croatian and Moroccan players swapping shirts at the end and then using the swapped shirt to wipe their mouth and face, gross?2
-
Two on ITV, one on the BBCse9addick said:Have all three 0-0’s been on ITV?0 -
I took the day off to watch the football (have holiday I need to use up before 31/12) so I don’t want any more 0-0’s thanks!ForeverAddickted said:Not minding all these draws (Unless England get involved), as its making the Groups really interesting2 -
It would be a major surprise if Germany, Spain and Belgium fail to score today!se9addick said:
I took the day off to watch the football (have holiday I need to use up before 31/12) so I don’t want any more 0-0’s thanks!ForeverAddickted said:Not minding all these draws (Unless England get involved), as its making the Groups really interesting0 -
No more nil nils please! Like @Chris_from_Sidcup I missed the France game so sat through three nil nils back to back now!Although I wouldn’t mind watching the Germans struggle. Perhaps a 0-1 or 1-2 to Japan.0
-
Callumcafc said:
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.AddicksAddict said:Callumcafc said:
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.soapboxsam said:Callumcafc said: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.
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.
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).
0 -
You'll be pleased that ITV have three of the four games today then lol!se9addick said:
I took the day off to watch the football (have holiday I need to use up before 31/12) so I don’t want any more 0-0’s thanks!ForeverAddickted said:Not minding all these draws (Unless England get involved), as its making the Groups really interesting1 -
Germany Japan aint gonna be goalless!1
-
Ok I suppose it’s possible? I haven’t looked at the inner working of this automated system to tell you exactly how it works and determines where it draws the offside line.AddicksAddict said:Callumcafc said:
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.AddicksAddict said:Callumcafc said:
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.soapboxsam said:Callumcafc said: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.
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.
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).However I’d be shocked if it wasn’t one of the first edge cases that they tested. It wasn’t a particular complicated situation for a computer to handle…
Where I could see the technology cocking up is a situation like the offside in the Ecuador match. There were a lot of odd variables involved in that particular incident.But for something as straight forward as picking up which defender is actually the closest to their own goal line, the technology wouldn’t be fit for purpose if it failed at that first huddle.
Sorry my vocab isn’t up to scratch.1
