Standard of officiating

[kingjoey]

2 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

On 08/12/2018 at 23:56, Ranaldo Bairn said:

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.

This “as seen in the Workd Cup” irks me. Because maybe, what, 5% of VAR decisions are still wrong, does that mean we don’t want a system that corrects, or confirms, that 95% of referred decisions are corrected?

[Salvo Montalbano]

This “as seen in the Workd Cup” irks me. Because maybe, what, 5% of VAR decisions are still wrong, does that mean we don’t want a system that corrects, or confirms, that 95% of referred decisions are corrected?

No, it means that the idea that VAR is some kind of panacea is nonsense as there will still be mistakes and there will still be different interpretations of the laws of the game. If that's the case, why bother having a system that has so many other problems (communication, stopping the game, inequality of provision, etc)? It's interesting to me that the Germans don't like it and the Italians aren't keen either. Countries who have it don't seem to like it, but countries that don't seem to want it. Maybe the grass isn't actually greener when seen through a VAR screen?

[Ranaldo Bairn]

4 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

This “as seen in the Workd Cup” irks me. Because maybe, what, 5% of VAR decisions are still wrong, does that mean we don’t want a system that corrects, or confirms, that 95% of referred decisions are corrected?

Exactly. Nobody, but nobody, is saying that VAR is perfect. I was pretty much against it before I saw how well it worked at the WC.

The "pressure from the crowd" argument does not wash. What would he do at the moment? Shrug his shoulders and wave play on for the Falkirk chance, and award a goal for Rangers. We've all seen it 10,000 times.

I'm convinced VAR would reduce those inequalities within individual games.

Inequalities between matches though, that's a point worth debating. And the stop/start nature of it is another issue. Doesn't mean it's not worth trialling.

[kingjoey]

12 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

15 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

This “as seen in the Workd Cup” irks me. Because maybe, what, 5% of VAR decisions are still wrong, does that mean we don’t want a system that corrects, or confirms, that 95% of referred decisions are corrected?

No, it means that the idea that VAR is some kind of panacea is nonsense as there will still be mistakes and there will still be different interpretations of the laws of the game. If that's the case, why bother having a system that has so many other problems (communication, stopping the game, inequality of provision, etc)? It's interesting to me that the Germans don't like it and the Italians aren't keen either. Countries who have it don't seem to like it, but countries that don't seem to want it. Maybe the grass isn't actually greener when seen through a VAR screen?

Of course there will still be mistakes. But why would anyone with an ounce of common sense not want a system that reduces mistakes by, let’s say to err on the low side 75%, not want to use that? Ok, if we can’t afford it, we can’t afford it, but I for one would have it in a shot if it was feasible.

[weegienative]

50 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

On 08/12/2018 at 23:56, Ranaldo Bairn said:

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.

Football will always be littered with errors due to the pace of play and levels of interpretation within the laws. 

If introduced in Scotland I can see controversy arising from certain incidents being reviewed and others not, feeding the conspiracy theories.

[wastecoatwilly]

The solidarity payment could pay for VAR. for me this idea clubs can't pay for it is an excuse.
Refs need as much help as possible the naked eye isn't good enough any more.

[weegienative]

1 hour ago, wastecoatwilly said:

The solidarity payment could pay for VAR. for me this idea clubs can't pay for it is an excuse.
Refs need as much help as possible the naked eye isn't good enough any more.

They were giving lack of finance as a reason for not having a multi ball system a while back. Scottish football will always be stuck in the dark ages because most club's fans outwith the Glasgow and Edinburgh teams only come out for cup finals.

[kingjoey]

7 hours ago, weegienative said:

They were giving lack of finance as a reason for not having a multi ball system a while back. Scottish football will always be stuck in the dark ages because most club's fans outwith the Glasgow and Edinburgh teams only come out for cup finals.

I see what you did there.

[weegienative]

1 hour ago, kingjoey said:

I see what you did there.

Did i say anything which isn't true?

It was a commentary on the week to week attendances rather than a specific dig at Aberdeen over their semi final attendance btw.

[Florentine_Pogen]

VAR: Scotland risks 'backwater' standing without referee technology - Kenny Clark

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46513479

And Cockwomble gets his tuppence worth in .......

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45567928

 

Sent from my iPad

 

 

[craigkillie]

10 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:

The solidarity payment could pay for VAR. for me this idea clubs can't pay for it is an excuse.
Refs need as much help as possible the naked eye isn't good enough any more.

The solidarity payment has to be used for youth development.

[killiekranky]

11 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:

The solidarity payment could pay for VAR. for me this idea clubs can't pay for it is an excuse.
Refs need as much help as possible the naked eye isn't good enough any more.

How much would it cost each club to set up and run ? 

[wastecoatwilly]

3 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The solidarity payment has to be used for youth development.

I know that but does it?
Do clubs have to prove where the dosh is spent?
I'm sure there would be guidelines in place but how strict.
 

 

2 hours ago, killiekranky said:

How much would it cost each club to set up and run ? 

Goal-line system costs £250.000,the VAR system seems to be more cloak and dagger but my best guess to cover all games in the top league in Scotland for a season would cost £4 to £6 million.

[killiekranky]

9 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

The solidarity payment could pay for VAR. for me this idea clubs can't pay for it is an excuse.
Refs need as much help as possible the naked eye isn't good enough any more.

 

Goal-line system costs £250.000,the VAR system seems to be more cloak and dagger but my best guess to cover all games in the top league in Scotland for a season would cost £4 to £6 million.

To say that clubs are using cost as an excuse and to then admit you have no idea how much it costs sounds like sevco financial standards !

[The_Judge]

9 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

I know that but does it?
Do clubs have to prove where the dosh is spent?
I'm sure there would be guidelines in place but how strict.

Are you advocating 'expense fiddling'?

[7-2]

If a club is putting eg £200k into its youth system and suddenly gets £100k as handout towards it they aren't going to spend £300k on the youths. They'll use the £100k 'saved' on other areas, more than likely the first team. Any accounting restriction is basically useless as a any half decent accountant will soon get round it.

[FuzzyBear]

1 minute ago, 7-2 said:

If a club is putting eg £200k into its youth system and suddenly gets £100k as handout towards it they aren't going to spend £300k on the youths. They'll use the £100k 'saved' on other areas, more than likely the first team. Any accounting restriction is basically useless as a any half decent accountant will soon get round it.

Please let Accies know where to find one of them. 

[wastecoatwilly]

3 minutes ago, killiekranky said:

To say that clubs are using cost as an excuse and to then admit you have no idea how much it costs sounds like sevco financial standards !

Based on what I've red across all different leagues across the world I would say the figure is accurate. 
I would also say it would increase the season book.

[DA Baracus]

3 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Based on what I've red across all different leagues across the world I would say the figure is accurate. 
I would also say it would increase the season book.

Do you mean it would increase the cost of season tickets?

Might be a fair point.

[wastecoatwilly]

10 minutes ago, The_Judge said:

Are you advocating 'expense fiddling'?

Come on I'm not saying that, money is moved about all the time.