Ric

The VAR discussion ended up going the way it thought, and while I have sympathy for those saying, "VAR isn't giving us the sorts of equality and accountability that we were told it would", the simple fact is that VAR is here to stay. With that in mind, do you continue to fight a Sisyphean battle or pivot to working on making it the accountability tool it really should be? I'm not here to convince anyone, just laying out the 'reality' as Eddie asked me to do. While I would like to move on from this (the VAR thread is more than capable of holding any number of nuanced positions where this thread should be St Mirren specific) I do want to press on this being a "good thing" that the SFA admitted their error. It won't retrospectively change our points, but the only reason they felt the need to come out and admit that is because VAR is in place. Previously they had the excuse "the referee didn't get a complete look at it", whereas that deniability is no longer valid. Human error once again. With that, I'll not try and not drag this topic on any more.

...anyway... Onto the up coming game, is it just me who has the fear with this. I'd much rather Aberdeen had suffered a meek goal-less draw against the farmers.

Deary me. If your point was valid, you wouldn't stoop to ad hominem.

You are entitled to your opinion, even if some of that opinion simply backs up my point. Still, no need to expand on this as I said my piece in the VAR thread and we don't need the conversation spilling over into this one. As it is, I think you'll join me in agreeing that referees admitting it was a mistake not to use VAR "properly" is a good thing.

This latest incident simply supports the position I've always taken with VAR. The technology is not the issue, in fact it is a benefit, it is the referees and their human fallibilities that are the direct cause of bad decisions. Removing VAR won't solve the issue of refereeing competency, and it's that we should be focusing on. As for the Aberdeen game, I don't particularly like Aberdeen as a place, I don't particularly like their fanbase and I really don't like Warnock. All that combined with the embarrassing showing against the farmers and the "they are getting relegated"/"Warnock is out of his depth" chat, it looks like a massive banana skin. We've beaten them recently (handsomely too), in fact they have only won 1 of the last 5 meetings, so I shouldn't be worried, but I am...

I am going to finish here, I am sure some people would just love to read my comments... I just wanted to highlight Johnny's post, as I think it is 100% correct. For me VAR is a natural step, one that has been taken all across different sports, but has been handled so badly that it's understandable there is so much backlash. Hopefully this last post shows I am not some evangelist, dismissing valid concerns, and with that I think I'm out..

Someone was using a logical fallacy, albeit they admitted as such a few posts later so no harm, no foul, that's why I mentioned it. Asking people how many changes they would roll back when discussing rolling back the most recent change seems entirely within context and in no way qualifies as a fallacy.

I'm happy to discuss it, everyone knows my viewpoint by now anyway. I fully accept that VAR has issues my point is that those could be fixed, and the result would be much less disruption but an increased level of accuracy (and to a non-OF supporter, consistency must come into that). You are contradicting yourself with that answer. ...my point is "wrong" to suggest that people are against something because they think it "ruins the game". yet... ...but your point is "right" because people are complaining something was introduced as they think it "ruins the game". When you say, "we are living through this", all I see is a massive red flag for observer bias. Do you think when substitutes were first included in the game, that those "living throught it" at the time didn't feel as connected to the issue as some here do with VAR? I would wager they were. Edit: I probably need to add a caveat here, although it should be obvious I will be explicit in pointing out "disliking VAR" and "being a Luddite" are not mutually inclusive, with the reverse being true. You can be against technology but think VAR is fine, and equally you can pro-change yet dislike VAR. I am not claiming that everyone here has an irrational dislike for the system, although I do believe some would never back the system even if it's perfect, somehow thinking that questionable and inconsistent decisions are somehow a throwback to the halcyon days of football.

Deary fucking me, for crying out loud, you are getting as bad as that Dundee idiot that just randomly makes shit up or posts stuff wildly out of context. Sometimes, this forum..

The fact people don't get this point is bewildering to me, it is very very simple. If people complain about a new technology being used, it is because they got used to a time when that technology was not present. Extend that to the developing rules of football. If you asked someone before the introduction of substitutes to a game they would probably parrot some of the talking points here, that it's going to "ruin" the game that they are used to. It really is a very simply point, and the fact that several people having misunderstood it is quite surprising, if not a little revealing.

I'm not the one throwing out insults, bud, or twisting their words. Of course I accept that people have different views, that's the point of the forum.

"yur pure ragin" ..to add to the pile. Classic.

You are rifling through the logical fallacies today aren't you big chap?

In reply, I honestly think most people are doing this...

You can sound salty all you want, but the simple fact is VAR is showing players with a toe over the line, and thus technically offside, and others are blaming VAR for that. It's not VAR's fault, that is the fault of the legislation surrounding offside.

Ah, the mote and bailey tactic.

They may have been changed but the changes do not reflect the specificity that VAR provides.

That's just an argument for VAR. A decision taken at the time that live footage on the television shows was incorrect but we need to accept that the referee was entirely right, despite clearly being wrong?

(1) The laws of the game were broadly fine, pre VAR. Post VAR they are not. (2) Where do you stop that argument? On one side technology cannot be uninvented, and on the other do you roll back everything? Let's stop subsitutions, or throw ins, after all they were not plat of the game to begin with, or are you prescribing the benchmark to be specifically in the timeline you live in? (3) Somewhat self defeating argument really, VAR is not used for every call, and without doing a similar process as VAR you are unable to justify whether "the vast majority were correct". To do so, you would literally have to go through video evidence, presumably many hours/days/weeks after the event, whereas VAR can recall those incidents in real time.

It absolutely failed to address the question because the poster decided to change the context and somehow make out that VAR needs to be introduced because Sportscene complains about it. That is a fundamental misunderstanding, and I feel intentional because they are trying to hyperbole their response. My point wasn't to appease those who complain, but why have a 5 hour delay on the decision. In that sense, it they failed to answer the question.

If that is the argument you took from my post then it's clear you did not understand my point at all.

Great rebuttal, you really nailed all the reasons why that was "complete nonsense". That is word salad, and doesn't at all address the point I raised. I presume you have never gotten over the introduction of the Spinning Jenny.

After some time, I think the answer is clear. VAR is fine, the problem is we are still using the laws of the pre-VAR game, and that is a fundamental failure of those who set the rules. There are definitely problems to be sorted, and let me be clear here it is not as if we are going from a 100% reliability to something less with VAR. The simple fact is we are seeing more correct decisions being made, and obvious errors being addressed. That can only be a good thing. However when someone suggests that "He was only a toe over the line, how is that offside" then blames VAR, what they should be doing is blaming the rules that state the binary nature of the offside rule. That rule was put in place when it was nothing more than human judgement, not known for it's consistency and reliability, not when lasers can detect in centimetres rather than whether you can see one player's socks ahead of the others. Aside the officials trying to abide by the rules which were revised for the VAR era, the time is a major issue and one that I don't understand why it's not been addressed by now. The time taken to sort out problems is far, far too long, and it now seems to have been shrouded in a cloud of conspiracy. That needs to be changed, decisions on whether VAR should be reviewed by the ref should be taken within 10 seconds of seeing a replay. VAR shouldn't tell the ref there is a foul, VAR officials should say based on their experience that the ref could have a second look at it. The VAR officials shouldn't be reviewing and reviewing before handing it over to the ref, taking up to 4 or 5 minutes, it should be immediately obvious whether the ref should have a second look, you don't need to spend minutes figuring out an answer for that ref, that is their job let them do it. All in all, if those who want to remove VAR, what do you want to go back to? Remember all we had before were slow motion replays on Sportscene, the ONLY difference VAR has done is allowed those videos to be shown immediately rather than with a 4 hour delay where, if an error is spotted, it is impossible to fix because the game is over. "Un-inventing VAR" is not really an option.

I didn't take much notice of him while at Motherwell, so perhaps that's just the way he is, but he seemed to lack sharpness, I was watching a stream so I didn't really get a chance to see much of his movement off the ball. I wouldn't read too much into it, just a first impression. It could be that the player is not a particularly fast or sharp player, perhaps he's more a "time on the ball/cultured foot".

A narrow loss, where we played pretty well in one half and ok in the other, no injuries or suspensions, all the while losing only one goal at the same time those around us in the league could only draw? That is a pretty successful old firm visit to be honest. Though Bwomomo looked good, Scott looked unfit, and Kwon continues to look a very decent addition. All three will benefit from game time, but at this moment you have to say our transfer policy has been broadly successful this winter. We have strengthened at the front, the middle and the back. Be a shame for Nahmani to go without him really getting a chance, but we don't see what is going on behind the scenes. Wouldn't like to see him rock up at a competitor, but that is less about "coming back to haunt us" and more "if another team down the road can get him settled and playing, why couldn't we?"