54_and_counting
-
Posts
7,417 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by 54_and_counting
-
-
5 minutes ago, The Master said:
Because in the moment, the referee doesn’t know that.
They can be confident that it’s a free kick. So confident that they subsequently give it. But allowing play to continue affords the opportunity to make sure, should a potentially game-changing incident unfold.
So he wasn't certain it was a foul, being "confident" isn't the same as certain
And again, by awarding the free kick before the penalty pretty much ruled out any chance of the penalty being awarded because VAR would never see his free kick award as a clear and obvious error
0 -
11 minutes ago, AJF said:
If he believes it was a foul on Johnston he was 100% correct to award that foul rather than award the penalty.
So why not just blow right away, its certainly not going to come under the clear and obvious error category
Imo it just makes the system look worse than it is, the only time the play should continue like that did is if the ref isnt sure
0 -
What @RandomGuy.Is saying i think is that Robertson should have awarded the penalty but asked for a check on the free kick at the same time (would have happened anyway)
By awarding the free kick, there was absolutely no chance it was being overturned as it wouldnt come close to a clear and obvious error so VAR would just go with refs initial decision
2 -
1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:
And yet again, I ask for an example of them doing this in the past. I've never once seen a VAR review for an aerial challenge, given as a foul, overturned, either in St Johnstone games or in the few Sportscenes I watch.
In any game not involving Celtic (or Rangers), the referee either blows for a foul straight away, or blows for the penalty and pulls it back for the foul after reviewing the play.
To me it's just another example of how things are refereed differently when those two are involved with things weighted towards them in the decision making.
Thats what I was trying to say last night,
The foul on johnston is debatable, but Robertson clearly didn't think so hence the immediate award of the free kick when hoilett went down,
He chose not to blow straight away but instead give the free kick when aberdeen wanted the penalty, and that sequence of events just makes it look way worse
If Robertson had any doubts in his mind about the foul, he rightly plays on but surely he awards the penalty and not the free kick and then asks VAR to check the potential free kick
2 -
Just now, The Master said:
No, the whole reason for delaying was so VAR could review the free-kick should a game-changing event (penalty or goal) occur.
At the moment the whistle went to award the free kick, it was still possible for a VAR intervention to lead to a penalty for Aberdeen.
The delay was so that if a game-changing event subsequently occurred, VAR could review the award of the free-kick.
So you believe when robertson awarded the free kick, VAR checked back to the free kick incident and in a split second checked all the angles and agreed with him?
Your last paragraph is correct, only issue is robertson didn't award the game changing event decision, what should have happened is
Robertson sees potential foul on johnston, but allows play to continue
Robertson sees vickers foul hoilett, awards penalty but indicates to VAR that johnston might have been foul (VAR will check back anyway as per its procedure)
Free kick is spotted after a VAR delay and robertson indicates celtic free kick
But he never once awarded the penalty
0 -
Just now, The Master said:
As I've said, the fact people are debating whether or not it was even a foul indicates the referee was right to delay.
What do you mean "allowed VAR to check for a foul in the build up"? VAR absolutely will have checked for a foul in the build-up - the foul that the referee originally gave.
As for the timing of the whistle, I'd have thought that was obvious. The referee believed it could be a penalty, and so awarded the original free-kick (in the same way it would have been awarded if a goal had been scored).
VAR wont have checked for any foul as robertson gave the free kick, the minute he blew hos whistle and awarded the free kick VAR became redundant in that situation
As for the last paragraph, if the ref believed it was a penalty so awarded the original free kick, why let play go on, just award the free kick as it happened
0 -
25 minutes ago, The Master said:
Yes it is. The VAR protocol make specific reference to assistants delaying flags and referees delaying their decisions.
The very fact there was a potential penalty demonstrates precisely why the delay was correct.
But we are now at the point where refs wont blow for fouls they clearly see, its not a potential slight contact, ref might not have the best angle etc
The aberdeen boy jumped, missed the ball along with johnston, but jumped into him, some refs give that some wont, robertson obviously does so just fucking blow the whistle
And he didnt do the procedure correctly either, when hoilett went down he immediately gave the free kick, if he's delaying then what for, its not like he allowed VAR to check for a foul in the build up, hoilett went down and he immediately gave the foul on johnston
0 -
25 minutes ago, craigkillie said:
I actually thought it was different to those types of ones, I thought it was a genuine overstretch for the ball from Hoilett rather than an attempt to buy the contact.As much as i hate saying it, i dont think it should be a penalty anyway, vickers is in the act of clearing the ball and hoilett plants his foot in front of vickers before playing the ball, theres a strong argument that he is impeding vickers from playing the ball
Switch the roles around, say the ball is rolling along the 6 yard line, striker has an empty net to tap it into, as he goes to strike the ball a defender plants a leg in front of him, not touching the ball and stopping the strikers leg from making contact with the ball and the chance is missed, imo thats a penalty as the striker is impeded while attempting to play the ball
2 -
Just now, stressball said:
Because there’s a foul on Celtic before it even happens.
And Hoilett impedes CCV who is in the action of playing the ball. If Hoilett actually touches the ball before CCV makes contact it is then a penalty.
Celtic fans claimed ref bias against them against livi for exactly the same thing when kyogo done it
0 -
Just now, Jives Miguel said:
I know people are desperate for Celtic to lose, but you can't just stick your leg in front of someone in the action of kicking the ball and claim it's a foul. Hoilett is one initiating the contact, if anyone is making a foul there its him.
Didn't the celtic fans want a penalty away to livi when kyogo did the same?
0 -
21 hours ago, tinkerbelle said:
My baby crossed the bridge today. Knew it was coming so my grief has already been spent.
Sorry somehow doesn't feel enough when we lose a pet, they form such a massive part of you
Hope you and the family are doing as well as can be
0 -
Decided to binge this last few days, might seem daft but I wanted long enough between playing the game and watching this so i didnt automatically nit pick at changes made for the show (i took ages before i went to play TLOU game)
It was fucking fantastic viewing, normally im quite easily tuned out by the slow moments, but even in this you watched every minute, it just kept you hooked
Sam's death (which I remembered obviously) still hit like a truck, just an unbelievably set out scene, all the way to ellies message to him on his trace pad
Onto fallout now
1 -
6 hours ago, Hoose Rice said:
Hard to believe with Peter Grant and Pakkie Bonner kicking about the beeb weekly, Simon Donnelly too.
Super Scoreboard actively advertise at celtc park.
That would be the same BBC who Rangers have been at loggerheads with for years over its journalists reporting of us
Yup defo a rangers fanzine
0 -
1 hour ago, gannonball said:
It's probably that bad most sensible types wouldn't dare phone in as they wouldn't want be put into the same boat as them as well. Tbf you get the same sort of roasters on talk sport and the like so it's not really an old firm thing that someone was alluding to earlier.
These shows know that listeners wont tune in to someone phoning about the current issues with grassroot football across the country, and how sport needs to move with the times blah blah blah
They want absolute rockets phoning up complaining about f**k all and making a scene from nothing so everyone talks about it
And thats any phone in across the UK no doubt
1 -
1 hour ago, gannonball said:
I tune in at 7 the odd time for beat the pundit and then back in 25 past for the full time teaser when waiting for an 8 O'clock game to start. The people who phone in though are almost exclusively angry/paranoid/ bed wetting arseholes that the producer should really be vetting more. Imagine actually being wound up by a doddering old c**t like like Hugh Kevin's?
ETA must add Gordon Duncan is far too good for that show and I'm glad to see him getting on the TV more he should really be an anchor for Scottish football for BBC/Sky .
They do vet them, and they do want the absolute moonhowlers on it because one leads to another 50 trying to counter the point or agree with the point and has people talking about said moonhowlers and posting links to the moonhowlers segments
0 -
Nothing beats the comfort of knowing your pal absolutely loves sleeping right up next to you, the minute i get home from work he's like my shadow, and i fucking love every minute of it, my last dog was like this as a puppy too
6 -
9 hours ago, gannonball said:
True, Collum looks the sort of guy who gets pished off half a shandy.
You think? Mind he's a teacher, all they do is drink and smoke weed
0 -
18 minutes ago, gannonball said:
I thought that was the entrance exam to be a category 1 ref?
You think the lodge would make it that difficult?
1 -
4 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:
Any contact is minimal and happens after Silva is already going to ground. Certainly not enough to warrant a foul.
Also worth highlighting that Johnston clearly withdraws his foot in an attempt to avoid contact (he still does make contact despite that though).
The goldson handball was as minimal as they come and it was a deflection up onto him very very close by
But unfortunately for us thats the rules now, and unfortunately for celtic the rules are johnston made contact with silva, theatrics or not
All 3 VAR decisions today were soft but correct
0 -
7 minutes ago, gannonball said:
That 'foul' looks even worse on sportscene, VAR was speeding play up for the interception then slowing it down for the contact on the player, you can't blame Beaton really for that though as all he was really shown was the contact bizarrely.
That i can understand, the interception is clearly obvious, you see the ball moving differently, theres no debate on that
The debate on the contact is likely why it's slowed down, the ref has to be sure there's contact or not, and using slow motion is obviously better for that
The only time slow motion really distorts VAR is when a ref is asked about a tackle possibly being a straight red card id say
0 -
13 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:
Ok so it’s possible in your opinion for VAR to be used multiple times in the same match and the referee still come to the wrong decision in some instances and not in others?
It has happened yes but today it didn't and in fact out of the 5 VAR decisions at Ibrox in OF games this season imo all 5 were eventually the correct calls
As for the ref coming to the wrong decision after looking at VAR, then the bigger concern is that two refs not one, have came to the wrong decision
So, after the revelation that celtic have had 80% of the VAR decisions at ibrox in OF games go their way, do you still not have faith in it?
0 -
2 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:
I can only assume that you believe all of those decisions were clear and obvious errors?
Nope i believe the 4 against my team weren't clear and obvious errors, and that we have been shafted in OF games this season (isnt that the answer im supposed to give)
Its hard to describe, everyone has a different opinion on C&OE but there's an argument that if a team concedes a goal or is denied a goal/penalty because the ref misses a foul then while its not 100% clear and obvious (all 3 decisions today for example) they are still reasons enough for VAR to get involved
If VAR wasn't used today and celtic never won and the goldson handball was spotted post match, would you sit back and say "ach well its a tough one to spot"
0 -
3 hours ago, Jinky67 said:
For that be a fair assessment we had to win that game today and even then it’s a bit of a stretch, much like your opinion on Rangers penalty today. If that’s given against you I guarantee you are mental
It’s not about having faith in my team it’s that I don’t have is faith in VAR based on some of the mental decisions I’ve seen in these games this season.
I find it fucking tremendous how you dont have faith in VAR when literally twice at ibrox now VAR has ruled out 3 Rangers goals that were given by the onfield officials and gave celtic a penalty that the onfield officials missed
VAR has been used 5 times in Ibrox OF games this season, 4 times to the benefit of celtic,
Yet you don't have faith in it, fucking hell
And even better, the one decision you funnily enough think VAR made a poor call on is the only one that went against celtic
4 -
3 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:
Pretty sure I just gave you my opinion, not sure why you need me to repeat it.
Just because several incidents may be looked at as clear and obvious errors it doesn’t mean that mistakes still aren’t made does it?
Simply wondering why one decision isnt clear and obvious while the other is, when both times the onfield ref never seen the foul
1
Semi Final: Rangers vs Hearts
in Domestic Cup Football
Posted
Not defending him, but surely you can switch that about
If you are diving then you'll put your hands out knowing your gonna hit the deck, if you are fouled you wont have time to throw your arms out to brace your fall