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

Having just seen the Vassell red, it’s a completely innocuous incident. Nobody in the stadium thinks there’s anything amiss, none of the players want a harsher sanction. The VAR is sticking his oar in where it isn’t needed. Cabraja is perfectly entitled to attack that ball with his head but ultimately he creates all the force in that challenge because he’s the one moving at speed. Vassell is trying to control the ball and tries to pull out of it when the opponent arrives at speed. The level of contact is minimal. Get on with the game FFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, craigkillie said:

If we're going to have VAR at all, then it should be only intervening on decisions that the referee hasn't seen, not on changing the colours of cards when the referee has already seen the challenge live and made his decision.

Not sure I agree with that. Our game yesterday had a player two footing the keeper which the ref only gave yellow to. It was correct of VAR to go, you sure about that, and get the referee to upgrade it.

Beaton had this opportunity to go to the screen and say, I am happy with a yellow, but we know that in Scotland they pretty much never go against the VAR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's in England but MOTD was on in the pub so I saw it, yellow on Saturday for the wildly more dangerous head kick on César Azpilicueta.  I don't really follow English football so I don't have much scope on chat surrounding it other than what I can search on Google, doesn't seem to me to be any chat in news or that about it being a red.  

Kilmarnock should get that overturned it's a really bad call and all the worse given the referee got it right in the first place.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, craigkillie said:


Within the first three paragraphs of the introduction of the Laws of the Game say is the line "as many situations are subjective and match officials are human, some decisions will inevitably be wrong or cause debate and discussion". This is not a black and white situation of a referee choosing not to give a throw-in when the ball goes out the park, or letting a team have 12 players on the pitch for a laugh, it is a subjective decision. You think it is "dangerous", others don't.

The referee's match report does not require a detailed discussion of every single decision they have made. His justification for the yellow card would have been to tick the box that said "unsporting behaviour - commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence", and that would have been it.

Ex ref explaining why it was a red, why the onus is on someone lifting their foot that high and also how, if Beaton had given a yellow, he'd be told that it should have been a red.  Pretty much everything I stated.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/64703758L

It's not like I'm making up the laws guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Loonytoons said:

Ex ref explaining why it was a red, why the onus is on someone lifting their foot that high and also how, if Beaton had given a yellow, he'd be told that it should have been a red.  Pretty much everything I stated.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/64703758L

It's not like I'm making up the laws guys.

He never goes against VAR and the ref though, never. Even when he disagrees he'll start fudging it and backtracking till he's agreeing with the ref's action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

He never goes against VAR and the ref though, never. Even when he disagrees he'll start fudging it and backtracking till he's agreeing with the ref's action.

But what he says is still correct regarding the incident though.  He explained clearly each step of why it was a red and why Beaton would have been wrong to keep it yellow.  Which part do you disagree with?

Ex ref and a current ref at my work said exactly the same.  It might be harsh and it's pretty universally agreed there was no malice but the guy got a face full of studs and that's dangerous play.  

Are Kilmarnock challenging it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Loonytoons said:

But what he says is still correct regarding the incident though.  He explained clearly each step of why it was a red and why Beaton would have been wrong to keep it yellow.  Which part do you disagree with?

Ex ref and a current ref at my work said exactly the same.  It might be harsh and it's pretty universally agreed there was no malice but the guy got a face full of studs and that's dangerous play.  

Are Kilmarnock challenging it?

 

 

He'd do the same if it went the other way though, and use the rules interpreted in whatever way suited the ref's decision. The red card that got rescinded on appeal he argued was still the correct decision by the ref to give the red card, and just wouldn't listen to why it was the wrong decision. Kept saying it was for contact by the wrong leg, when it was clear the actual contact was by an accidental knocking of knees when the two players landed on one another, which is why the card was rescinded on appeal.

Dougal is never going to go against the match official's decision, and will cite rules and manipulate them to suit.

Edited by LIVIFOREVER
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Loonytoons said:

But what he says is still correct regarding the incident though.  He explained clearly each step of why it was a red and why Beaton would have been wrong to keep it yellow.  Which part do you disagree with?

Ex ref and a current ref at my work said exactly the same.  It might be harsh and it's pretty universally agreed there was no malice but the guy got a face full of studs and that's dangerous play.  

Are Kilmarnock challenging it?

 

 

Yes, and rightly so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No blame in a red card challenge is ever appointed to the victim, if a player is favourite to win the ball but by the time he kicks it his opponent has planted his foot the other side of the ball then the follow through will make contact.  The victim is at least partly culpable.

A similar argument could be made about the boy coming into the boot with his head down although I haven’t had a good look at that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I was thinking last night during Inverness-Killie that complaining about refereeing decisions is just (even more) trivial now. One or two people made a mistake in the heat of the moment... who cares?

When you've paid to bring in an unnecessary system which has had a detrimental impact on the spectacle/experience yet is still resulting in mistakes and nonsense every week in Scotland or England, getting angry about a real-time decision made by some daft referee or assistant seems a bit petty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, accies1874 said:

I was thinking last night during Inverness-Killie that complaining about refereeing decisions is just (even more) trivial now. One or two people made a mistake in the heat of the moment... who cares?

When you've paid to bring in an unnecessary system which has had a detrimental impact on the spectacle/experience yet is still resulting in mistakes and nonsense every week in Scotland or England, getting angry about a real-time decision made by some daft referee or assistant seems a bit petty. 

Not to mention that the vast majority of decisions don't actually decide games.

As I've said before, refs don't miss sitters. Refs don't miss penalties. Refs don't lose their man at set pieces. Refs don't let in howlers. Refs don't play a shite pass that gifts possession. Refs don't make stupid challenges that give away penalties or free kicks. Refs don't make the wrong pass in an attacking move. Refs don't make the wrong subs. Refs don't make the wrong tactical changes, or indeed the right ones. Refs don't shite out of a challenge. Refs don't over or under hit a pass. Refs don't take shite corners. Refs don't take shite free kicks. Refs don't take shite throw ins. Refs don't miss a tackle. Refs don't stand off a player and let them shoot. And so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, C4mmy31 said:

VAR was some laugh at Rugby Park this afternoon. A complete joke.

It wasnt VAR, its the handball rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, C4mmy31 said:

Aye, nae bother....

 

 

 

Because another angle shows that major ball movement is from the Killie player. 

I think it was a handball and a penalty FWIW, but it wasnt obvious via the replays i seen.

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...