Standard of officiating

[Monkey Tennis]

12 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Some executive at BT Sport - perhaps looking to stir: after all they recently lost Scottish football rights after next season - tweeted that they could pay for VAR at their televised games.

That's clearly not an acceptable solution: some clubs (particularly OF) appear on TV disproportionately. You could have identical controversies in 3 games and one is resolved by VAR because it's on BT, another isn't because it's on another channel, and the third isn't because it's not on TV. That's simply to highlight the clear inequity with using it for some games, but not all, and so without debating the merits or otherwise of VAR.

No-one would suggest playing some Scottish Premiership games with linesmen and some not, or some the old offside rule and some the new, or some the old "penalty + red" rule and some the new. "Selective" use of VAR would, unsurprisingly, introduce fundamentally different officiating and decision-making in "select" games.

I get the point, but precedent of a sort exists.

In recent years, outside the top flight, there were 4th officials only for TV games - basically Rangers ones.  This wouldn't have been significant had that official confined himself to holding up the added time board, or being a substitute ref if required. 

Instead though, he did things like intervene at Palmerston to get Derek Lyle sent off for an incident non existent enough to see the decision later overturned.

In other words, decisions with a material impact on the field could be made, simply by virtue of the match being governed differently on account of being televised.

[7-2]

10 hours ago, Ginaro said:

At least VAR in the televised games against Celtic and Rangers would give the other teams a level playing field against them.

VAR may be technology but it still has to be worked by humans, SFA appointed decision making humans. It's Scottish football. There will never, ever be a level playing field. 

[Dons_1988]

I get the point, but precedent of a sort exists.
In recent years, outside the top flight, there were 4th officials only for TV games - basically Rangers ones.  This wouldn't have been significant had that official confined himself to holding up the added time board, or being a substitute ref if required. 
Instead though, he did things like intervene at Palmerston to get Derek Lyle sent of for an incident non existent enough to see the decision later overturned.
In other words, decisions with a material impact on the field could be made, simply by virtue of the match being governed differently on account of being televised.

Doesn’t make it right.

Second to obviously getting the decisions right, the priority should be consistency across the board. That is clearly impossible if the matches are officiated differently based on whether it’s on tv.

[Monkey Tennis]

6 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

 

Doesn’t make it right.

Second to obviously getting the decisions right, the priority should be consistency across the board. That is clearly impossible if the matches are officiated differently based on whether it’s on tv.

 

Of course it doesn't make it right.

It just challenges the idea that we couldn't have matches in the same competition officiated differently on the basis of TV coverage, because we have in fact had that before.

[stu2910]

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!

[Dons_1988]

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!

Using good referees/bad referees is not comparable to a uniform technology being used across the board.

[IrishBhoy]

If a St. Johnstone player gets red carded in a Non-VAR game, and it’s accepted after the game that it was a refereeing mistake, St. Johnstone still have to play the rest of the game with 10 men. 

If a Celtic player gets wrongly red carded in a game with VAR, and the referee is able to overturn the decision on the pitch and Celtic continue with 11 men, how can that be fair? One team is being officiated to a much lower margin of error, while the other has to accept the referees poor decision. Either the full league has VAR or none at all imo. 

[stu2910]

If a St. Johnstone player gets red carded in a Non-VAR game, and it’s accepted after the game that it was a refereeing mistake, St. Johnstone still have to play the rest of the game with 10 men.  If a Celtic player gets wrongly red carded in a game with VAR, and the referee is able to overturn the decision on the pitch and Celtic continue with 11 men, how can that be fair? One team is being officiated to a much lower margin of error, while the other has to accept the referees poor decision. Either the full league has VAR or none at all imo. 

 

But there are 2 teams in the Celtic game and it could easily be the other team that gets the benefit.

 

If people believe in west coast bias it should benefit the other teams more as the referee can no longer hide behind “not seeing it”.

 

Different referees are at different standards anyway. By your logic, every single game should be officiated by the same person.

 

[IrishBhoy]

8 minutes ago, stu2910 said:

But there are 2 teams in the Celtic game and it could easily be the other team that gets the benefit.

 

If people believe in west coast bias it should benefit the other teams more as the referee can no longer hide behind “not seeing it”.

 

Different referees are at different standards anyway. By your logic, every single game should be officiated by the same person.

 

If the VAR is only going to be used in televised games, then almost every Old Firm away game will use it. So the other 10 teams in the league play majority of weeks at the mercy of a poor standard of official, players being suspended, penalties wrongly awarded. If VAR works as it should then the Old Firm would only be getting red cards for genuine red card offences, genuine penalty awards etc. 

If the referees in the non VAR games could be trusted not to be so incompetent then there wouldn’t be as big a problem, but unfortunately they are hopeless. In the interests of complete fairness across the board then it should be all teams using VAR or none. Only my opinion though and I can understand where you are coming from. 

[HibeeJibee]

12 hours ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

But the same rules are not applied differently. Offsides are still offsides which is not what you suggested.

You could have 2 identical "deliberate handball" shouts, one of which results in play-on and counter-attack, the other play stopped for VAR and either a penalty or a drop-ball restart. Beyond any human judgement/error, the provision of the facility directly alters the application of the rule and playing of the game.

[scoobles]

Any chance Sky will pay for it for the Glasgow derby?
Will be a bit strange if that's a game guaranteed not to have VAR if BT introduce it for all other live games

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

You could have 2 identical "deliberate handball" shouts, one of which results in play-on and counter-attack, the other play stopped for VAR and either a penalty or a drop-ball restart. Beyond any human judgement/error, the provision of the facility directly alters the application of the rule and playing of the game.

Yet we've had precedent whereby matches were officiated differently due to TV.   Because this was in the lower leagues however, nobody took any notice.

I fail to see how this would be any different.  You comically and hyperbolically used the example yourself of nobody accepting some matches having more officials than others; yet that's precisely what we had, for precisely the reason of TV coverage, and of course it was in games featuring part of the OF that we saw it.

This would not be the departure you're suggesting.

[weegienative]

4 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I get the point, but precedent of a sort exists.

In recent years, outside the top flight, there were 4th officials only for TV games - basically Rangers ones.  This wouldn't have been significant had that official confined himself to holding up the added time board, or being a substitute ref if required. 

Instead though, he did things like intervene at Palmerston to get Derek Lyle sent off for an incident non existent enough to see the decision later overturned.

In other words, decisions with a material impact on the field could be made, simply by virtue of the match being governed differently on account of being televised.

That Derek lyle incident was an interesting one as it set the precedent for the current rule which states that incidents of that kind must have some form of brutality. 

The ref was correct in sending him off but it was also correct that the rule was changed.

[Monkey Tennis]

32 minutes ago, weegienative said:

That Derek lyle incident was an interesting one as it set the precedent for the current rule which states that incidents of that kind must have some form of brutality. 

The ref was correct in sending him off but it was also correct that the rule was changed.

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.

[Daydream]

Probably the worst decision this season.
Just as well Thistle won.
 

That’s an absolute classic.

[DA Baracus]

As the saying goes, 'These things even themselves out', and today Partick very much got their 'evener';

I should add that it almost certainly didn't change the outcome of the game going by what fans at the game said (i.e. we were shite).

But it wasn't even close to being over the line.

[well_said]

Its normally Celtic that come out with this , when they get a dodgygoal/penalty in their favour.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

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.

[IrishBhoy]

15 minutes ago, 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.

I can see that point. I’m sure you are aware of the way Scottish football works by now that every single decision, wether it’s made with VAR or not, is going to be batted around the papers, radio and these forums and we are going to get mutants coming up with agendas against this team or that team. Surely just in the interest of absolute fairness, and to completely eradicate any suggestion of favour or bias, VAR is only introduced when it can be rolled out to the full league. If VAR is to be used in televised matches only, I can see it creating an even bigger stink around officials than we’ve had the last few weeks. 

[Ranaldo Bairn]

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.