Jump to content

VAR in Scottish Football


VAR in Scottish Football  

409 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Feltcrayfish said:

I am a journalism student at Glasgow Clyde college, and I need to create some UGC for an assessment. I would be very grateful if you fine P&B posters did my survey on VAR in Scottish football.

Thank you very much

https://take.supersurvey.com/poll4544234x0f77476F-142

Failing anyone doing your survey you could read through this thread and get the general feeling of fans opinions on VAR.:thumbsdown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, AJF said:

I think the argument around deliberate handball has to be more than just a case of the above example and that's why you then have debates around unnatural arm positions.

Players attempting to block a ball may not make a deliberate movement towards the ball when it's in flight to block it, but if they rush at an attacked with arms spread out or held above their head before the ball is struck and it subsequently hits their arm, then by it's nature they have deliberately made their body bigger in an attempt to block the balls path even if they don't make a movement towards the ball after it is struck or in flight.

Of course though, this is very subjective because I often feel players attempting to block will always have a natural arm swing due to their momentum and I think these types of offences are penalised too often.

Yep and then you also get players making themselves smaller with their arms tucked in behind their backs and turning away because they're paranoid of having a hand ball given against them, playing like that also restricts their movement going in for a tackle/block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/10/2022 at 12:55, tarapoa said:

The current handball rule is a joke, dreamt up by IFAB delegates who had one brandy too many.

There's an easy way of simpifying it.  If it's deliberate - direct free kick/penalty.  If not, ignore it.

A compromise would be an indirect free kick if it's not deemed deliberate.

Surely only ~5% of handball offences are deliberate.

Not a VAR issue as such - but VAR just seems to exacerbate the nonsense, and fans are now trained to scream handball at anything. It is so outwith the spirit of the rules to penalise this so harshly, particularly when in the box and it leads to a game-changing decision such as a penalty.

Been saying this for ages. Make it an indirect free kick for everything bar deliberate saves or catches. It would immediately improve the game for players, referees and fans.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Failing anyone doing your survey you could read through this thread and get the general feeling of fans opinions on VAR.:thumbsdown

Ok, so I'm going to go on a little rant here. It's nothing to do with VAR, so I'll stick it in a spoiler.

Spoiler

This is my bug bear with requests like this. New users appear, make a post asking users to help then f**k off never to be heard from again. Generally people like this have made no attempt to get involved in the discussion. They expect you to do all the work for them, rather than actually studying the content that is available, that's too much hard work. What isn't hard work is creating a survey, on a 3rd party site that will use your data (after all the survey is free to set up and operate, how do they make their profit?), dropping that link into a post and just leaving it hoping people are more charitable then they were in regard to their free time and personal information. I totally understand why these people make such posts, it's such an easy thing to do, but it's also lazy and counter intuitive.

I can only presume it's part of the coursework to go and find information online, but these people should realise they are joining a community only to take, not to give. What's more in terms of research, anonymous polls are literally the bottom of the barrel. As quantitive data, it's unreliable, and as it's anonymous it can't be qualitative. No professor worth their salt would accept this sort of data as anything other than a correlation as any point you wish to make cannot be supported by an anonymous survey in isolation, and the level of trust in the answers given is not of a high enough standard for that to be the case.

This seems like a long rant over someone just wanting to get a bit of help with their uni course, and I am absolutely not gatekeeping anyone for helping this user out. In fact doing so shows you can rise above such concerns and fair play to you. Just bear in mind the results are of limited value, and the person you are doing the favour for certainly didn't care about your opinions enough to get involved in this discussion. If anyone is wondering, yes, I have had to do both qualitative and quantitive research for my courses, as have many people on here, they know the argument I'm making, and they know it's a valid one.

 

As for VAR, I see a lot of managers complaining they've been unlucky. Conte after the Spurs game being an example. I can understand why, when it comes to a judgement decision; for example a handball is clearly seen but the decision is about 'position and intent' rather than the binary 'did it touch their hand', they can say they've been unlucky. I wouldn't necessarily agree with them but there is clear debate and wiggle room beyond the visual evidence. However, when it comes to things like offside, VAR is spot on. You might not like the offside rules, and I certainly dislike the late flagging that goes on these days, but it's a binary, yes or no, and it's measured to much finer detail than any official is capable of, even with replays. So, when a manager says they've been unlucky with VAR and offside, the luck they should be referring to is the offside player's "luck" with his positioning and not the "luck" of electronics giving very precise data.

Edited by Ric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ric said:

Ok, so I'm going to go on a little rant here. It's nothing to do with VAR, so I'll stick it in a spoiler.

  Hide contents

This is my bug bear with requests like this. New users appear, make a post asking users to help then f**k off never to be heard from again. Generally people like this have made no attempt to get involved in the discussion. They expect you to do all the work for them, rather than actually studying the content that is available, that's too much hard work. What isn't hard work is creating a survey, on a 3rd party site that will use your data (after all the survey is free to set up and operate, how do they make their profit?), dropping that link into a post and just leaving it hoping people are more charitable then they were in regard to their free time and personal information. I totally understand why these people make such posts, it's such an easy thing to do, but it's also lazy and counter intuitive.

I can only presume it's part of the coursework to go and find information online, but these people should realise they are joining a community only to take, not to give. What's more in terms of research, anonymous polls are literally the bottom of the barrel. As quantitive data, it's unreliable, and as it's anonymous it can't be qualitative. No professor worth their salt would accept this sort of data as anything other than a correlation as any point you wish to make cannot be supported by an anonymous survey in isolation, and the level of trust in the answers given is not of a high enough standard for that to be the case.

This seems like a long rant over someone just wanting to get a bit of help with their uni course, and I am absolutely not gatekeeping anyone for helping this user out. In fact doing so shows you can rise above such concerns and fair play to you. Just bear in mind the results are of limited value, and the person you are doing the favour for certainly didn't care about your opinions enough to get involved in this discussion. If anyone is wondering, yes, I have had to do both qualitative and quantitive research for my courses, as have many people on here, they know the argument I'm making, and they know it's a valid one.

 

However, when it comes to things like offside, VAR is spot on. You might not like the offside rules, and I certainly dislike the late flagging that goes on these days, but it's a binary, yes or no,

It doesn't have to be though. There's no need for it whatsoever.

The offside rule has changed plenty over the years, it's not some sacred inviolable text.

It used to be that you could be offside anywhere on the pitch. Then only in the attacking half. Initially you needed three players between the attacker and the goal. Then two. Then in-line was offside, then in-line was onside. It's changed quite a lot.

When you consider what the point of the offside rules is (to stop poaching and give the game a viable tactical shape) there's no reason for it to be a set binary thing. Easy to change the rule to some thing like 'when the ball is kicked there must be two defenders between the attacker and the ball, however if this is unclear it shall be considered no material advantage has been gained by the attacker and play continues'.

This would leave the decision to the officials, not really change anything much about the actual game, but avoid the need for replays and stupid lines across a pitch that aren't even accurate enough anyway given how quickly things happen in real life.

You might want offside to be this necessarily binary thing, but the game would be much improved if it were not.

Edited by VincentGuerin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

When you consider what the point of the offside rules is (to stop poaching and give the game a viable tactical shape) there's no reason for it to be a set binary thing. Easy to change the rule to some thing like 'when the ball is kicked there must be two defenders between the attacker and the ball, however if this is unclear it shall be considered no material advantage has been gained by the attacker and play continues'.

Yep, I posted something similar on here the other week. I don’t think the way it’s applied now is true to the purpose of the offside law. ‘Clear and obvious’ and something about gaining an advantage should be applied. 

Speaking of clear and obvious, if anyone can explain what’s going on here that would be great cheers. Is Kane meant to be ahead of the ball? 
 

*edit - aye he is. 

 

3D05FD2A-4CCF-4E91-AD01-EEE8B7C65BF0.jpeg

Edited by CoF
Penny dropped
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

You might want offside to be this necessarily binary thing, but the game would be much improved if it were not.

That's a different argument to the one I was making though. I'm saying managers can't complain they are lucky when there is no luck involved.

I don't think the game would be improved at all, much or otherwise, if you were to somehow make offsides a less precise valuation. At what point do we stop, when it's clearly offside, or when it's sort of offside but it's OK because it's a home game for the OF and the fans will complain if I call it? 

I appreciate not everyone wants such direct clarity, they prefer a bit of 'rough around the edges' when it comes to making calls, a bit 'old-school' that rolls with the idea that everything evens itself out in the end. Me? I think that has been shown to directly affect the smaller teams. Let's be honest here, you would not have gotten that penalty if VAR didn't exist, and it was a clear penalty. Obviously we have to add in the "Walsh Factor".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CoF said:

Speaking of clear and obvious, if anyone can explain what’s going on here that would be great cheers. Is Kane meant to be ahead of the ball? 

 

3D05FD2A-4CCF-4E91-AD01-EEE8B7C65BF0.jpeg

It seems so. The blue line is drawn from the head making contact with the ball, the red line is Kane's knee which is ahead of the ball and 2nd last defending player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ric said:

That's a different argument to the one I was making though. I'm saying managers can't complain they are lucky when there is no luck involved.

I don't think the game would be improved at all, much or otherwise, if you were to somehow make offsides a less precise valuation. At what point do we stop, when it's clearly offside, or when it's sort of offside but it's OK because it's a home game for the OF and the fans will complain if I call it? 

I appreciate not everyone wants such direct clarity, they prefer a bit of 'rough around the edges' when it comes to making calls, a bit 'old-school' that rolls with the idea that everything evens itself out in the end. Me? I think that has been shown to directly affect the smaller teams. Let's be honest here, you would not have gotten that penalty if VAR didn't exist, and it was a clear penalty. Obviously we have to add in the "Walsh Factor".

It's the balance between clarity and a watchable sport.

We're all different, but if you're telling me you're happy for the game to stop for lengthy checks to see if someone is the tiniest distance offside, a distance that makes no real difference to anything, then we simply don't want the same kind of sport.

I honestly couldn't give a f**k if someone's foot is partially offside. I'd be perfectly happy with the offside rule to basically be 'is it really obvious or not?'.  Because that's what the rule is for. It was never meant to be like this, but it's become this way because of cry-baby coaches and fans, and the creeping influence of tv.

If that's what you like, then we just want different things from the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CoF said:

Yep, I posted something similar on here the other week. I don’t think the way it’s applied now is true to the purpose of the offside law. ‘Clear and obvious’ and something about gaining an advantage should be applied. 

Speaking of clear and obvious, if anyone can explain what’s going on here that would be great cheers. Is Kane meant to be ahead of the ball? 
 

*edit - aye he is. 

 

3D05FD2A-4CCF-4E91-AD01-EEE8B7C65BF0.jpeg

Imagine someone watching fitba for the first time being subjected to shite like this? f**k me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

It's the balance between clarity and a watchable sport.

We're all different, but if you're telling me you're happy for the game to stop for lengthy checks to see if someone is the tiniest distance offside, a distance that makes no real difference to anything, then we simply don't want the same kind of sport.

You are using "the rules" to berate VAR, VAR doesn't choose the rules, FIFA or whichever body does. The delays are not the fault of VAR, that is a human factor. If you wish to watch a sport that is ambiguous regarding its implementation of rules, then that's not really a fair sport is it? Clarity is not the issue here, clarity is not stopping it being watchable, the human factor is.

 

25 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

I honestly couldn't give a f**k if someone's foot is partially offside. I'd be perfectly happy with the offside rule to basically be 'is it really obvious or not?'.  Because that's what the rule is for. It was never meant to be like this, but it's become this way because of cry-baby coaches and fans, and the creeping influence of tv.

Then, albeit tongue in cheek, perhaps a rules based sport is not going to suit your requirements. You say you don't care if someone's foot is "partially" offside, but where do we draw the line? A "whole" foot, perhaps it needs to be a leg, or perhaps a torso? Why stop there, maybe we should allow a "social distancing unit" of 6 feet offside before it's being called. While that is taking it to the extreme, it's literally the Pandora's Box that was opened when offside was introduced. You have the choice, to either be precise down to the millimetre, simply because the technology you are using is capable of that, or you have some vague judgement made by an official who we regularly see make mistakes at that very judgement.

 

25 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

If that's what you like, then we just want different things from the game.

I just want the rules to apply. If you wish to argue for the removal or amendment of those rules, then in general I have no issue with that.

While it's not an exact parallel probably the biggest change to the game in the last 30 years is when the goalkeeper passback was abolished, in 1992. At the time we had the same sorts of arguments about how rules were ruining the game, yet I honestly do not see a single person advocating for the return of the passback now. Not like for like, of course, but echoes the anti-VAR argument in places.

 

Ultimately VAR is only a technology, it doesn't change the game, humans change the game. Don't blame VAR for doing precisely (and importantly, without bias) what it was designed to do.

Edited by Ric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Arch Stanton said:

It seems so. The blue line is drawn from the head making contact with the ball, the red line is Kane's knee which is ahead of the ball and 2nd last defending player.

Yeah, I was totally distracted by the grey line drawn across the 6 yard box there. I think the blue line is the outer edge of the ball though, not the head making contact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, craigkillie said:

The Video Assistant Referee is a human.

...and this, I suppose, comes down to how people see VAR implementation.

Yes, it's reviewed by humans, but to me VAR is more the implementation of technology to allow the human to make a more informed decision. We already had a 4th official that was able to make judgements based on their real time reading of the game, and to pass those judgements onto the referee who will then take action despite possibly not seeing the actual event itself. That was pre-VAR, post-VAR to me is the technology not the decision making.

The remit is an important thing to nail down, as we see @VincentGuerin looks at this more holistically, the speed of the game or the impact that precise decisions may have. I don't. I see it purely as a tool in the same way a referee's whistle is a tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ric said:

1) You are using "the rules" to berate VAR, VAR doesn't choose the rules, FIFA or whichever body does. The delays are not the fault of VAR, that is a human factor. If you wish to watch a sport that is ambiguous regarding its implementation of rules, then that's not really a fair sport is it? Clarity is not the issue here, clarity is not stopping it being watchable, the human factor is.

 

Then, albeit tongue in cheek, perhaps a rules based sport is not going to suit your requirements. You say you don't care if someone's foot is "partially" offside, but where do we draw the line? A "whole" foot, perhaps it needs to be a leg, or perhaps a torso? Why stop there, maybe we should allow a "social distancing unit" of 6 feet offside before it's being called. While that is taking it to the extreme, it's literally the Pandora's Box that was opened when offside was introduced. You have the choice, to either be precise down to the millimetre, simply because the technology you are using is capable of that, or you have some vague judgement made by an official who we regularly see make mistakes at that very judgement.

 

I just want the rules to apply. If you wish to argue for the removal or amendment of those rules, then in general I have no issue with that.

While it's not an exact parallel probably the biggest change to the game in the last 30 years is when the goalkeeper passback was abolished, in 1992. At the time we had the same sorts of arguments about how rules were ruining the game, yet I honestly do not see a single person advocating for the return of the passback now. Not like for like, of course, but echoes the anti-VAR argument in places.

 

Ultimately VAR is only a technology, it doesn't change the game, humans change the game. Don't blame VAR for doing precisely (and importantly, without bias) what it was designed to do.

The problem with offside is really caused by VAR. If VAR didn't exist, we'd just have what we used to have, which was officials doing their best and generally doing a reasonable enough job. You don't seem to accept what the point of the offside rule is in football.

I've mentioned this in previous discussion with you, but you seem to have a very black/white view of how football should work in terms of the rules. But football is a fast-paced contact sport where there will always be ambiguity about certain things. I understand (but do not share) your view that the rules should just be applied and that's that. But that leads to an absolutely shite sport.

Let's turn your question round on you. Where do you draw the line? Should we be VARing every throw-in decision? Afterall, if we don't, then we don't have a fair sport. Should we be VARing every goal-kick/corner decision? If not then where is the fairness?

Doing this, I think even you would agree, would lead to a completely unwatchable spectacle. 'I just want the rules to apply' as an attitude would completely ruin the sport. You need to accept ambiguity. The laws of the game exist to make it watchable, not as a scientific exercise.

Your comparison with the old passback rule is flawed for two reasons. Firstly, the rule was introduced to speed the game up, while VAR necessarily slows it down. Secondly, while goalkeepers hated it, the passback rule was quickly very popular as pretty much everyone agreed it improved the sport. You cannot say the same about VAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...