Standard of officiating

[weegienative]

8 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Straying from the point here, but your reading of the incident in question is absurd.

One player ran thirty yards to thrust his head aggressively into that of another, who stood his ground.  The former met no sanction while the latter was sent from the field.  The ref was quite wrong, but he'd been misled by a 4th official keen to have a say.  The decision was overturned.

No, your interpretation is wrong, unsurprisingly.

Lyle stamps on zelalem, rangers players take exception, rob kiernan (I think) runs over and squares up. Him and lyle go head go head, both "adopting an aggressive attitude", both yellow cards (or nothing depending on the refs interpretation or tolerance levels in that game). Derek lyle then motions his head forward in a headbutt type thrust but with no real power behind it, petulant more than anything. This then set the precedent that for this to be a red card going forward it had to have some force or "brutality" behind it.

Incidentally, the fourth official in question, Edinburgh referee Crawford Allan. Makes a bit of a mockery of the "west coast bias" arguments going on in the hearts v rangers thread.

[IrishBhoy]

11 minutes ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

I genuinely don't think so. What was VAR's success rate in the World cup? 95, 98% or something? We simply must assume refs are honest (even if duff) and any chance we get to help them/make decisions more transparent should be taken. Even if for one game at a time.

You could be right. I think it just puts more spotlight on certain teams being refereed differently from others. Why give people the chance to jump on it. We’ve survived without VAR until now, I’m sure we can wait until all teams in the league are able to use it. 

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, weegienative said:

No, your interpretation is wrong, unsurprisingly.

Lyle stamps on zelalem, rangers players take exception, rob kiernan (I think) runs over and squares up. Him and lyle go head go head, both "adopting an aggressive attitude", both yellow cards (or nothing depending on the refs interpretation or tolerance levels in that game). Derek lyle then motions his head forward in a headbutt type thrust but with no real power behind it, petulant more than anything. This then set the precedent that for this to be a red card going forward it had to have some force or "brutality" behind it.

Incidentally, the fourth official in question, Edinburgh referee Crawford Allan. Makes a bit of a mockery of the "west coast bias" arguments going on in the hearts v rangers thread.

The "brutality" thing comes from the actual FIFA laws of the game, not the SFA's interpretation of an incident in a Scottish second tier fixture.

[weegienative]

6 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The "brutality" thing comes from the actual FIFA laws of the game, not the SFA's interpretation of an incident in a Scottish second tier fixture.

The SFA are 1/4 of IFAB.....

There was a big song n dance about it when it happened as there always is when rangers are on.the end of a favourable decision,  despite numerous identical examples going previously with little to no fuss. The justification for it being  overturned was that there was no force or chance of Kiernan being hurt. 

I played amateurs at the time and remember the ref rep meeting with all the league managers at the start of the next season explaining this and highlighting the Derek lyle incident as the driving force behind the change.

[Monkey Tennis]

9 hours ago, weegienative said:

No, your interpretation is wrong, unsurprisingly.

Lyle stamps on zelalem, rangers players take exception, rob kiernan (I think) runs over and squares up. Him and lyle go head go head, both "adopting an aggressive attitude", both yellow cards (or nothing depending on the refs interpretation or tolerance levels in that game). Derek lyle then motions his head forward in a headbutt type thrust but with no real power behind it, petulant more than anything. This then set the precedent that for this to be a red card going forward it had to have some force or "brutality" behind it.

Incidentally, the fourth official in question, Edinburgh referee Crawford Allan. Makes a bit of a mockery of the "west coast bias" arguments going on in the hearts v rangers thread.

Well I did say that an absurd reading of events was required in order to reach the conclusion that needed overturning, and you've helpfully provided one.

"Stamp" and "headbutt type thrust" were just two of my personal highlights.

Anyway, it's missing the point which is that we've already had matches in the same competition officiated differently due to TV coverage.

[weegienative]

3 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Well I did say that an absurd reading of events was required in order to reach the conclusion that needed overturning, and you've helpfully provided one.

"Stamp" and "headbutt type thrust" were just two of my personal highlights.

Anyway, it's missing the point which is that we've already had matches in the same competition officiated differently due to TV coverage.

Guy on internet forum gets more entrenched when his opinion is challenged using facts.... quelle surprise.

 

And I think the games should all be officiated the same in the same competition. The 4th official for t.v. matches is daft IMO.

[Monkey Tennis]

40 minutes ago, weegienative said:

Guy on internet forum gets more entrenched when his opinion is challenged using facts.... quelle surprise.

 

And I think the games should all be officiated the same in the same competition. The 4th official for t.v. matches is daft IMO.

Why, thank you for supporting my case with actual evidence.  

Clearly, there is no "stamp" although Lyle does stand on him in the aftermath of having fouled him.

Similarly, "head butt type thrust" represents a comical description of that which followed.

 

Glad you're not contesting that the 4th official's intervention was decisive though.  Probably wise.

[weegienative]

4 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Why, thank you for supporting my case with actual evidence.  

Clearly, there is no "stamp" although Lyle does stand on him in the aftermath of having fouled him.

Similarly, "head butt type thrust" represents a comical description of that which followed.

 

Glad you're not contesting that the 4th official's intervention was decisive though.  Probably wise.

Ah so he "accidentally lands on him"? Is that the line you're going with on that one? Fine.

Define, in your words, what Derek lyle done at the end of the nose to nose? Since my words are not to your liking.

And yes, you are indeed the footballing guru by realising Crawford Allan told the ref to red card lyle. What gave it away? Him talking to Madden whilst pointing at lyle seconds before lyle's red card? I wish I had your insight to these things.

[Monkey Tennis]

5 minutes ago, weegienative said:

Ah so he "accidentally lands on him"? Is that the line you're going with on that one? Fine.

Define, in your words, what Derek lyle done at the end of the nose to nose? Since my words are not to your liking.

And yes, you are indeed the footballing guru by realising Crawford Allan told the ref to red card lyle. What gave it away? Him talking to Madden whilst pointing at lyle seconds before lyle's red card? I wish I had your insight to these things.

1. Why have you put something I didn't say in quotation marks?

2. You did actually say "done" there, hence the quotation marks and resultant laughter .

3. I'm glad we agree on the actual point of my initial post, given that you've since taken it in a direction whereby you plead on behalf of the club you dare not admit supporting.

[GordonS]

On 08/12/2018 at 11:24, stu2910 said:

The argument that VAR would be unfair if only used in certain games is possibly the most ridiculous reason not to use it.

Let’s assume all bad decisions are mistakes and let’s say on average our referees are correct 90% of the time (insert joke here). Then some amazingly talented young referee comes along who gets 99% of their decisions correct. Are we actually arguing that we can’t hire him for certain matches (usually involving the bigger teams) because it would be unfair on the teams not involved in those games?!

Surely having some of our games officiated properly is better than none, regardless of who is involved!

VAR doesn't just lead to more accurate decisions. It leads to more of certain kinds of decisions, and a different style of refereeing.

The World Cup showed that it gets more penalties. Given that the OF spend more time in their opponent's boxes than their opponents spend in theirs, there's a good chance VAR would lead to more goals for the OF. If you show pretty much every OF away match, but not Killie or Aberdeen or Hearts away at the same places, there's a serious risk of them being disadvantaged.

Also, with VAR referees are more likely to let play go on to see what happens, knowing they can call it back for a look at VAR. That's a fundamentally different style of refereeing and likely benefits attacking teams. 

18 hours ago, weegienative said:

Incidentally, the fourth official in question, Edinburgh referee Crawford Allan. Makes a bit of a mockery of the "west coast bias" arguments going on in the hearts v rangers thread.

Crawford is a nailed-on *** name.

10 hours ago, weegienative said:

The SFA are 1/4 of IFAB.....

1/8th. 

[weegienative]

27 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

1. Why have you put something I didn't say in quotation marks?

2. You did actually say "done" there, hence the quotation marks and resultant laughter .

3. I'm glad we agree on the actual point of my initial post, given that you've since taken it in a direction whereby you plead on behalf of the club you dare not admit supporting.

1. My bad, so he "stands on him" is that he line you're going with. Fine.

2. Grammar? Really? That's the best you've got?

3. A club I dare not admit supporting? Even though I've explicitly mentioned supporting rangers? 

[weegienative]

14 minutes ago, GordonS said:

VAR doesn't just lead to more accurate decisions. It leads to more of certain kinds of decisions, and a different style of refereeing.

The World Cup showed that it gets more penalties. Given that the OF spend more time in their opponent's boxes than their opponents spend in theirs, there's a good chance VAR would lead to more goals for the OF. If you show pretty much every OF away match, but not Killie or Aberdeen or Hearts away at the same places, there's a serious risk of them being disadvantaged.

Also, with VAR referees are more likely to let play go on to see what happens, knowing they can call it back for a look at VAR. That's a fundamentally different style of refereeing and likely benefits attacking teams. 

Crawford is a nailed-on *** name.

1/8th. 

So your initial point is that it would be unfair because the penalties that rangers and celtic should be getting would be found out more often? Really? I bet you thought that long winded point would come across more intelligent.

Even mentioning someone's name and what it sounds like is the behaviour of a c**t.

1/4

[peternapper]

On ‎08‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 00:28, D.A.F.C said:

Stephen Finnie is the only one I have an issue with. So much so I started a thread about it.

 

Refs seem to cop a lot of flack over nothing most weeks but Finnie actually tries to make it all about him. 

100% correct, I was well known on our forum for losing the plot at the mention of his name, strangely enough some of the comments about Dallas were part of Mr Finnies repertoire in that he was full of self importance & loved a good finger wag at players with no option of discussion 

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, weegienative said:

So your initial point is that it would be unfair because the penalties that rangers and celtic should be getting would be found out more often? Really? I bet you thought that long winded point would come across more intelligent.

Even mentioning someone's name and what it sounds like is the behaviour of a c**t.

1/4

You're not the sharpest tool in the box, are you?

The OF would get the penalties that they ought to be getting - but other teams would keep not getting them. Teams trying to compete with the OF at the top of the league would get fewer goals at places like Dens Park, so would lose and draw more there, as well as not getting the benefit to their goal difference. That's so obviously prejudicial a child could understand it.

Second thing was an obvious joke. I can appreciate how it went past you.

1/8. The IFAB is the four home nations plus FIFA, who have 50% of the vote. I don't know why anyone wouldn't avail themselves of the extraordinary resources afforded by the internet in order to avoid making a tumshie of themselves in public. Educate yourself: http://www.theifab.com/overview

[A96]

A few comments on refereeing in general:-

1. I don't think the standard is significantly worse than it's been ever since I started going to games , in the early 70's.  It seems worse because the amount of cameras , media coverage , fans forums etc is on an entirely different scale now.  Before the 1990's there was usually cameras at two Scottish games , one to be shown on Sportscene and the other on Scotsport. And most of the time  apart from big games like cup finals there was pretty much only one camera angle shown for each game.

2.  Every professional player and manager should be made to referee a certain amount of games at a low level (eg schools senior team/ amateurs).   Might at least make them appreciate more , just how difficult a job it is.  Could also help alleviate the shortage of refs available for these sort of games.  And some of them might even enjoy it enough to consider becoming a ref. when their playing days are over.  Call them out on the usual mantra that refs know the rules but don't know the game.

3. Change the rules for handball in the penalty box so that only clearly deliberate handball results in a penalty kick , and the punishment for all other all other handballs is an indirect free-kick. The latter already exists to some extent with the pass-back rule.

4. VAR should be used wherever possible , and whether any other game in the same league is subject to VAR or not.  The legal principle of using the best evidence available should be applicable to football matches too.  I reckon anyway that once VAR is introduced , even if only for the games that are being shown live on TV ,  it'll be shown to have reduced the overall number of refereeing errors and it won't be long before it becomes a requirement for all top-flight matches.

 

[DA Baracus]

1 hour ago, A96 said:

 

3. Change the rules for handball in the penalty box so that only clearly deliberate handball results in a penalty kick , and the punishment for all other all other handballs is an indirect free-kick. The latter already exists to some extent with the pass-back rule

This is the rule and has been for years

[kingjoey]

While listening to Sportsound tonight, I was thinking of the teams in the top division that have been dealt major problems by referees this season. Not for one second do,I think that referees in our game are biased, but do feel that they must be swayed by crowd pressure. So off the top of my head I can think of the following teams, some more than once, that have had awful decisions made against them. Rangers, Kilmarnock, Hearts, Aberdeen, Hibs, Motherwell and Dundee. Is this maybe the reason that Celtic are top of the league? I can’t remember a single occasion this season when they have been on the end of a potentially result changing decision.

[DA Baracus]

No. Celtic are top of the league because they have the best team.

[Salvo Montalbano]

The "using VAR only in OF matches is unfair" argument does not stack up.
Let's say Falkirk are playing at Ibrox. Jordan McGhee heads the ball from a corner, it hits the bar and bounces downwards. Nobody can really tell if it's gone over the line or not. No big crowd reaction; no goal awarded, let's be honest.
5 minutes to go, Rangers trailing 0-1, one of their big heifers heads the ball from a corner; it hits the bar and bounces downwards. Nobody can really tell if it went over the line or not. 49,000 Rangers fans go bananas, screaming for a goal. Ref goes "Fair enough" and awards it. I don't think this scenario is too far fetched.
If VAR is used, there's no hiding place for the ref/linesman for both these decisions. The honest goals/no goals are awarded.
I don't care if it's only used once a year in the Scottish Cup final. If it improves decision-making in even one game, get it done. End of story.

Well I'm that case it would be the "Goal-line Technology" using Hawkeye, which isn't open to interpretation (unless you're Jonathan Pearce) making the decision, which I'm happy to go with as the machine doesn't feel pressure. Let's say that instead of hitting the bar and going in/not that McGhee or whomever has a goalbound header that hits a Rangers* player on the arm. He doesn't see it, but he's told to look at it again by the VAR. So he goes to his monitor, where 50,000 Rangers fans are screaming abuse at him, Stevie Gerrard is right next to the screen he's using etc. Is he likely to say "aye, fair enough - penalty" or is he going to say "accidental/hit the shoulder - original decision stands"? Now let's go the other way, and it's a Morelos header that hits McGhee somewhere near the top of the arm/shoulder. What do you think the ref does when when it's referred for another look? There are many, many problems with VAR, but the biggest one is that referees are still making the decisions, are still under pressure (even more so when something they've missed is being looked at) and as seen at the World Cup, are still capable of fairly obvious errors.

[kingjoey]

43 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

No. Celtic are top of the league because they have the best team.

You have to go and spoil it. It was a sort of serious point though, unless I have forgotten something, Celtic have got off pretty lightly on the referee cock ups this season.