Nobody actually believes "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" but it's short for "I don't have the energy to deal with this when it's unlikely to actually create any consequences for me in particular"
> unlikely to actually create any consequences for me in particular
I was this play out in relation to rules/laws applied to those under age. Like harsher and harsher anti-drinking law. The same people who I know were drinking underage have suddenly seen the light and believe someone's life should be destroyed for also drinking underage.
Or drug testing. If using drugs is bad for some group of people, wouldn't it be even worse if the group overseeing them were to be using drugs? Start testing congress first.
Driving down the road past a police cruiser on the side with it's lights on is far from safe. The escalation of brightness makes them visible beyond anything else...like the road.
> I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is.
It is for offside. Offside calls were so egregiously bad it was painful to watch. Any time a defense got burned badly, the flag would go up.
Early 2000's someone watched an entire world cup and found that 25% of offside calls were obviously wrong.
I just rewatched the US v Germany match from 1998, and Kobi Jones was called offside on a breakaway when he was onside by 4 yards when the ball was kicked.
Also, goal line and maybe handball seems to be handled pretty well.
Then perhaps it’s the offsides rule that needs revision. Do you think the spirit of the rule is captured by foot position analysis? If two players bodies are in alignment and the attackers leg is just beyond the leg of the defender, does that really matter? The rule was designed to stop attackers from sitting deep between the defenders and the goalie.
Ok, I agree with this. The offside rule is just weird. A person with a wide stance would simultaneously be close to be both endlines. In any normal sense if one person is further south, the other person is further north -- not so with the offside rule.
It also used to be that "even with was onside". Now there is no such thing as even with.
At this point with this tech, they could view both torses and say an entire torso has to be clear.
None of this helps soccer below the level with VAR.
The rule was designed to keep attackers from being "offside". For practical purposes, the offside trap has turned into a right for the defense.
At least the current rule is deterministic, rather than erring on the side of the defense over and over.
The US has been asking that when they get a red card that Messi doesn't get. Or a handball on the goal line is ok for a UEFA company. Or a US goal called back when another UEFA team hauls multiple US players to the ground.
You see where I'm going with this? I just can't seem to get upset that a red card that isn't a red card for other teams is getting rescinded.
I've literally been watching for decades and nobody seemed to care before.
A ref got a call wrong and that's ok and should be doubled down on according to UEFA. Well, UEFA can just view this as the disciplinary committee getting it wrong and they can just live with that.
I love cycling and will cheer anything that moves. Right now, though, my go to is watching "norcal cycling" on youtube. The dude covers local/regional races and it's just fun.
Why? are you hiding something in your email?
reply