Sadly not everyone agrees with you on that one (though I’m mostly on your side here). I’ve seen plenty of people argue ‘Oh the refs should’ve seen that’ despite being all the way across the field or ‘Oh the judges really should know what the cards do’ in a TCG with literally tens of thousands of cards in print, or ‘the ump should have called that a strike, look it’s catching the corner’ as if they don’t realize that the graphics they see on TV are not actually visible above the plate, or other similarly-ludicrous takes. Honestly it’s a little scary how infallible the ‘deciders’ are meant to be in these situations and I believe that giving them as many tools as they can reasonably use is an overall positive thing (as long as the humans are still the ones making the final decision, I feel like I should point that out). Though yeah, I agree that that one particular offsides call you’re referring to was egregious and the humans in charge should’ve stepped in and ruled it fair; like I said at the beginning, they’re not perfect yet (and probably never will be, but that’s a whole other matter)
Comment on Their entire strategy was to win was force a foul and take a penalty kick
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 week agoI’m not a football hooligan or whatever the preferred term is, but IMO there’s nothing wrong with good humans making the occasional mistake. Use video for verifying red cards when someone’s pretending they’ve just been stabbed, but for stuff the human on the field should be expected to see, a little disagreeable calls because they’re human feels better than disagreeable calls because the computer said they were 1 inch offsides.
TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world 1 week ago
running_ragged@lemmy.world 1 week ago
The problem the becomes are the bad or missed calls because they are human, or because the fix is in? That same worry happens with VAR. But it’s reviewable and so bad calls are more easily noticed, and identifying trends is easier.