VAR in Scottish Football

[Zamora Fan]

Our manager is saying VAR would've had Davidson offside before the pen incident happened.
 
To quote the Dunfermline poster, everything after that pen goal changes if the pen and goal doesn't happen.

Looks level to me. Even if Martindale’s seen a better angle that shows one of Davidson’s locks are an inch offside, considering it’s in the first minute it’s a pretty flimsy excuse for 1) not finding a way to beat or even draw with one of the worst sides in the league and 2) worsening the experience of match going fans.

[SuperSaints1877]

VAR is for Tory voting cricket, rugby and tennis supporting twats. 
 

GET IT TAE FECK!

[10menwent2mow]

Var will do absolutely nothing to improve Scottish football. I've said for God knows how long, it's the little 50/50's that go against you (especially in Glasgow) that tend to cause the most ire. If it should be a goal kick, but a corner is given and said corner is scored from, Var can't intervene in that. If the ball goes out for a throw to the away team and it's given to the home team and they score from it, var can't intervene in that. If a soft free kick is given and a goal is scored from the free kick, var can't intervene in that. 

What it can do is look for tedious excuses not to give otherwise perfectly good goals. Take out Rangers and Celtic and I'd hazard a guess we don't average much over 2 goals a game, we don't need to look for excuses to chop goals off, then again, we might end up with 3 pens every game. 

It's going to be done on the cheap, poorly implemented, there will be more cameras at live games/bigger grounds, fans won't have a clue what's happening and there will still be the favouritism towards the big 2. Get it in the bin. 

[kingjoey]

10 hours ago, Hoose Rice said:

I want the amount of dodgy, uncontested decisions Celtic and Rangers get in their favour every single week to cease.   If a year or two after VAR is introduced there is still the same shit happening then I hope the clubs then decide against it.  But unless it happens we will never know. 

 

If you think that once it's introduced and it turns into the sort of shambles that we see in England there is any possibility that it will then be removed, you're living in cloud cuckooland. It's not going to be a trial, if it comes in it stays. 

[Ray Patterson]

The Vote is tomorrow, really looking forward to some heads gone regardless of the outcome.

[kingjoey]

4 hours ago, Ray Patterson said:

The Vote is tomorrow, really looking forward to some heads gone regardless of the outcome.

We all know that, in all likelihood, it will be voted in, as most clubs see it as a natural progression to be aligned with the bigger leagues in Europe. I am 100% against it, but realistic enough to grasp the reality of the situation. No idea why there should be any “heads gone” as it won’t be a surprise.

[Orbix]

2 hours ago, kingjoey said:

We all know that, in all likelihood, it will be voted in, as most clubs see it as a natural progression to be aligned with the bigger leagues in Europe. I am 100% against it, but realistic enough to grasp the reality of the situation. No idea why there should be any “heads gone” as it won’t be a surprise.

Think it’s now practically ‘all’ leagues rather than bigger. 

[kingjoey]

14 minutes ago, Orbix said:

Think it’s now practically ‘all’ leagues rather than bigger. 

It would be good to be different.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Another nail in the coffin of football as entertainment. 
 

Fantastic news for boring stattos and “letter of the law” followers though.

[Alert Mongoose]

My guess is we will be the last to take up VAR and then be the last to bin it once everyone realises it's a pointless drain on resources. Would it not just have been cheaper to have two refs - one in each half. Whether we have enough officials is debatable right enough.

[kingjoey]

The question the VAR will ask is not "has the right decision been reached?" but "has the referee or his assistant made an obvious error?" and/or "has the referee missed a serious incident?".

 

This is what I don’t understand. Why is the VAR not asking, has the right decision been reached? Surely if you’re going to have the system, it has to be used to get to the right decision and not to try to determine whether or not the officials have made an obvious error. And what is considered to be a serious incident? No wonder it’s a f*ck*ng shambles.

[kingjoey]

4 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

My guess is we will be the last to take up VAR and then be the last to bin it once everyone realises it's a pointless drain on resources. Would it not just have been cheaper to have two refs - one in each half. Whether we have enough officials is debatable right enough.

Less officials required for your suggestion than for VAR.

[craigkillie]

The question the VAR will ask is not "has the right decision been reached?" but "has the referee or his assistant made an obvious error?" and/or "has the referee missed a serious incident?".
 
This is what I don’t understand. Why is the VAR not asking, has the right decision been reached? Surely if you’re going to have the system, it has to be used to get to the right decision and not to try to determine whether or not the officials have made an obvious error. And what is considered to be a serious incident? No wonder it’s a f*ck*ng shambles.

Because in most cases there is no such thing as a "right decision". The vast majority of laws in football are opinion-based and people disagree about whether things are fouls.

[Alert Mongoose]

16 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

Less officials required for your suggestion than for VAR.

Retired refs can be used for VAR though presumably. Is Les Mottram still strutting about? 

[Donathan]

On 10/04/2022 at 18:18, craigkillie said:

The people most keen on VAR are usually the ones with the least emotional investment in the teams involved.

Disagree with this. I’ve been watching football for over a quarter of a century and nothing quite depresses me about it more than the feeling that you should have taken something out of a game but a bad penalty/red card/offside decision went against you costing you the points.

 

You post on the TA forum as I do so I’d appeal to you to think back to the Israel game at Hampden a few months back. We are 2-1 down and Lyndon Dykes scores a perfectly good goal which the referee chalks off because and books Dykes for high feet. In a no VAR world, we remain 2-1 down and Dykes is wrongfully suspended for our trip to the Faroe Islands (a game in which he scored the only goal). Che Adams was also injured so we’d have been forced to start Kevin Nisbet.

 

In the VAR world, the ref takes a minute to check and realises his mistake, the goal is reinstated and Hampden goes wild for the second time, Dykes gets his booking cancelled and can play in the Faroes, and we on to win both games and eventually finish second.

 
Mistakes such as the one made by the referee that evening are the single biggest problem in football and the fact that VAR is helping us move away from them is an incredibly positive step. 

 

 

[Donathan]

29 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

My guess is we will be the last to take up VAR and then be the last to bin it once everyone realises it's a pointless drain on resources. Would it not just have been cheaper to have two refs - one in each half. Whether we have enough officials is debatable right enough.

VAR is going absolutely nowhere in other countries. 

[kingjoey]

15 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

Retired refs can be used for VAR though presumably. Is Les Mottram still strutting about? 

Not so sure that's the case.

[kingjoey]

28 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Because in most cases there is no such thing as a "right decision". The vast majority of laws in football are opinion-based and people disagree about whether things are fouls.

I think that you are being a wee bit argumentative for the sake of it here. I would argue that in the things that the VAR actually looks at, in most cases there is a "right decision".

Edited April 19, 2022 by kingjoey

[Dons_1988]

Just now, kingjoey said:

I think that you are being a wee bit argumentative for the sake of it here. I would argue that in the things that the VAR actually looks at, I most cases there is a "right decision".

No, he’s right. There’s loads of decisions, particularly ones like handball that are a judgement call. 

I wouldn’t have it at all, but if VAR came in I would take the rule further and say VAR can only see each camera angle once and if they can’t determine a mistake then play should be restarted and you go with the refs decision.  

[craigkillie]

I think that you are being a wee bit argumentative for the sake of it here. I would argue that in the things that the VAR actually looks at, in most cases there is a "right decision".

That would make it a "clear and obvious error" if it wasn't given then. The point is that if there's a contentious decision, for example a lunging tackle that some people think is a red and others think is a yellow, then VAR shouldn't be getting involved.