VAR in Scottish Football

[Crùbag]

VAR is a good thing. It's just an extra set of eyes with added hindsight.

The problem is who is operating it.

Both Celtic and Rangers got decisions in their favour despite VAR - CCV fouling Youan to get him sent off and then diving for a pen and Cuntwell for Rangers cheating to get a fellow professional sent off. The problem here patently isn't the availibility of a camera to revew the incidents, it's the officials and the cheating players.

[54_and_counting]

1 minute ago, Crùbag said:

VAR is a good thing. It's just an extra set of eyes with added hindsight.

The problem is who is operating it.

Both Celtic and Rangers got decisions in their favour despite VAR - CCV fouling Youan to get him sent off and then diving for a pen and Cuntwell for Rangers cheating to get a fellow professional sent off. The problem here patently isn't the availibility of a camera to revew the incidents, it's the officials and the cheating players.

Both sending offs VAR cannot intervene as ita a second yellow so your complaints about it here seem fucking ridiculous 

[tree house tam]

Just now, Crùbag said:

VAR is a good thing. It's just an extra set of eyes with added hindsight.

The problem is who is operating it.

This is it. If the rules are clear and everyone operating VAR sticks to them it works. Until this happens it will be a shitshow.

[Crùbag]

8 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

Both sending offs VAR cannot intervene as ita a second yellow so your complaints about it here seem fucking ridiculous 

Oh, a bitter Orange?

You are right re the second yellows but my points concern the human making the judgement.

[The Master]

2 hours ago, IrishBhoy said:

I understand that parallel lines will always converge to a point the further they travel, but should that really be the case over a distance of 70 odd yards? A train track disappearing into the distance over the space of a mile or so, sure. But a noticeable difference from one side of a football pitch to the other? Nah. Surely the amount of convergence would be negligible, especially when viewing the lines from the angle shown in the screenshot from Fir Park.

It’s not “70 odd yards”. What you’re looking at is “70 odd yards scaled down”. That means you lose detail and definition. If you scale down the screenshot, the vanishing point appears to get closer to the middle of the pitch.

It’s also something of a misnomer to say the lines are “drawn”. “Placed” would be a more accurate term. In grossly over-simplified terms, the VAR clicks somewhere on the pitch and a line that’s been calibrated as parallel with the goal-line appears. 

Obviously it’s more complicated than that, especially when positions of limbs are projected down onto the pitch. But the lines you see are never actually “drawn”. 

Now, you could argue that the system has been incorrectly calibrated. But to what end? It would be incorrect for both teams for the whole game. 

Edited March 19, 2023 by The Master

[CoF]

2 hours ago, IrishBhoy said:

I understand that parallel lines will always converge to a point the further they travel, but should that really be the case over a distance of 70 odd yards? A train track disappearing into the distance over the space of a mile or so, sure. But a noticeable difference from one side of a football pitch to the other? Nah. Surely the amount of convergence would be negligible, especially when viewing the lines from the angle shown in the screenshot from Fir Park.
 

I’m not saying that the cut of the grass should be taken as any kind of authority when deciding offside decisions, but to my eye the line drawn by the VAR officials from the back of Goldson along to Johnston looked a little bit iffy. As I said I think it was extremely tight, and the Primary School graphics drawn by the officials had Johnston just onside, which I think was the correct decision when there’s literally a few millimetres in it either way. The cameras used by VAR don’t have a frame rate that even allows them to accurately determine the exact moment the ball is played forward, which makes the prolonged offside decisions and drawing of lines to rule out a goal where the attackers knee is a quarter of an inch infront of the second last defender a bit of a joke. Far more leeway should be given to the attacking team in order to compensate for the undeniable fact that the VAR officials are working with technology that isn’t up to the job of calling such tight and important decisions that can change depending on which frame they decide use. 

Totally agree with your point about frame rate. That seems like quite a glaring issue when VAR is making these millimetre calls. 
 

On your bit about the squinty line (sorry if I’ve not totally understood your point here), the VAR official doesn’t get to set the near and far point of the line at each offside call. It’s all calibrated pre-match based on the goal lines and a digital framework of the pitch is made. The offside line is then just dragged up and down those permanently fixed near and far points. The only way the line would be squint is if the initial calibration was off.

I suppose you could question the accuracy of the initial calibration, or even go a further step back and question how accurately the pitch markings are. I might bring a protractor to the next game… 
 

 

[Zamora Fan]

Sportscene is an impossible watch these days. Chat after every game is just nonsense VAR calls.

This quote from Steven Thompson last night shows the shit for brains he and all the pundit class have: “we were all desperate for [VAR] to come in because it was going to improve things and we thought we weren’t going to get any poor decisions”

Who is the WE he’s talking about here? There was almost ZERO clamour for VAR from fans, with the exception of the straight line truther weirdos who support the old firm from their arm chairs. 

Once it became clear that VAR was being imposed anyway, there was a split among fans about whether this could be a good thing, something with pros and cons or an altogether bad thing. From people I know, social media and on here I reckon most split between the pros and cons and bad thing altogether category - I fucking hated the idea altogether personally. 
 

What there wasn’t though was any “we were all desperate for it to come in” because even those who could see the positives knew it was going to be a complete practical shambles in Scotland. The rest of us knew it was going to have a hugely detrimental impact on the overall match-day product and entertainment, while probably not “improving things” or meaning there are “no poor decisions”. Football pundits in Scotland are a bunch of total losers and as this shambles continues they will try to frame it this way - “everyone wanted it but right now it just isn’t working well and that’s why there’s fan anger!!!”. 
 

I watched the Killie game yesterday from home on a laptop - where you’d think VAR would be less frustrating since you can tell what’s going on. Some truly insane VAR calls went our way and boiled the piss of Killie fans, Derek McInnes etc and I didn’t even enjoy it. There used to be nothing better than when an inexplicable ref call goes your way and you can enjoy piss being boiled but there’s no spontaneous joy about these things anymore. All the things I personally love about football are being slowly ruined. Even if the people running the VAR were less incompetent I still think that would be true.

[IrishBhoy]

28 minutes ago, The Master said:

It’s not “70 odd yards”. What you’re looking at is “70 odd yards scaled down”. That means you lose detail and definition. If you scale down the screenshot, the vanishing point appears to get closer to the middle of the pitch.

It’s also something of a misnomer to say the lines are “drawn”. “Placed” would be a more accurate term. In grossly over-simplified terms, the VAR clicks somewhere on the pitch and a line that’s been calibrated as parallel with the goal-line appears. 

Obviously it’s more complicated than that, especially when positions of limbs are projected down onto the pitch. But the lines you see are never actually “drawn”. 

Now, you could argue that the system has been incorrectly calibrated. But to what end? It would be incorrect for both teams for the whole game. 

Even 70 yards scaled down its not like your following the lines to a vanishing point, over that distance it should be quite clear to the human eye that the lines are parallel with either the goal line or the half way line. 
 

Anyway I think we are debating a nothing issue here, you’re correct ‘drawn’ was probably the wrong word. I imagine it’s more dragged from the goal line on some sort of programme that has the scale and dimensions of the pitch calibrated from each camera position. I’m not saying the line drawn for Motherwells first goal was wrong, but watching it at the time it just looked slightly off to my eye. The camera angle provided wasn’t the best but as I said, I’m glad it was found in favour of the Motherwell player because there was millimetres in it either way. 

[Dons_1988]

1 hour ago, Crùbag said:

VAR is a good thing. It's just an extra set of eyes with added hindsight.

The problem is who is operating it.

Both Celtic and Rangers got decisions in their favour despite VAR - CCV fouling Youan to get him sent off and then diving for a pen and Cuntwell for Rangers cheating to get a fellow professional sent off. The problem here patently isn't the availibility of a camera to revew the incidents, it's the officials and the cheating players.

This just isn’t true. If you’re waiting for the right individual to come along to make VAR work fine then I have some bad news. 

[54_and_counting]

1 hour ago, Crùbag said:

Oh, a bitter Orange?

You are right re the second yellows but my points concern the human making the judgement.

Imagine being sectarian because your post was rightly called out as fucking ridiculous

Fucking clown

[IrishBhoy]

16 minutes ago, CoF said:

Totally agree with your point about frame rate. That seems like quite a glaring issue when VAR is making these millimetre calls. 
 

On your bit about the squinty line (sorry if I’ve not totally understood your point here), the VAR official doesn’t get to set the near and far point of the line at each offside call. It’s all calibrated pre-match based on the goal lines and a digital framework of the pitch is made. The offside line is then just dragged up and down those permanently fixed near and far points. The only way the line would be squint is if the initial calibration was off.

I suppose you could question the accuracy of the initial calibration, or even go a further step back and question how accurately the pitch markings are. I might bring a protractor to the next game… 
 

 

Yeah I will maybe row back on the squinty line issue I only seen it on Sky just after the goal, but I’ve had a closer look at a screenshot on Twitter and it’s not noticeably far away from running parallel with the half way line. 

[coprolite]

2 hours ago, 54_and_counting said:

And the aim of the defenders is to stop the goals and catching opposing players offside is one of they ways, a millimeter or a yard makes no difference, the rules state if your offside your offside

They simply shouldnt be penalised because we want to see more goals, 

Defenders have had every advantage removed over the years, prime example is the celtic game yesterday, twice defenders penalised for pulling strikers in the box, how often do you see an attacker penalised for man handling a defender out the way to get to the ball in the box (i know both penalties are fouls, im more insinuating that strikers get away with more) 

The offside rule is to stop goal- hanging. There's no physical possibility of  the human senses and brain being able to detect someone being Milimetres offside. We just can't focus on both the offside line and judge when the ball is leaving the attacker's foot at the same time. There's always going to be tenths of a second between seeing one and the other. And the technology doesn't have high enough resolution, both picture quality and timewise, to determine it.

The concept of being Milimetres offside is a nonsense. 

 

[houston_bud]

32 minutes ago, coprolite said:

The offside rule is to stop goal- hanging. There's no physical possibility of  the human senses and brain being able to detect someone being Milimetres offside. We just can't focus on both the offside line and judge when the ball is leaving the attacker's foot at the same time. There's always going to be tenths of a second between seeing one and the other. And the technology doesn't have high enough resolution, both picture quality and timewise, to determine it.

The concept of being Milimetres offside is a nonsense. 

 

Absolutely. VAR should look at it with the naked eye. If it's a clear and obvious error we'll be able to spot it. 

3, 4 mins or more looking at these lines is a joke.

[54_and_counting]

35 minutes ago, coprolite said:

The offside rule is to stop goal- hanging. There's no physical possibility of  the human senses and brain being able to detect someone being Milimetres offside. We just can't focus on both the offside line and judge when the ball is leaving the attacker's foot at the same time. There's always going to be tenths of a second between seeing one and the other. And the technology doesn't have high enough resolution, both picture quality and timewise, to determine it.

The concept of being Milimetres offside is a nonsense. 

 

The concept of millimetres being involved in any football decision is ridiculous, look at the Japanese goal iirc in the world cup where the ball hadnt crossed the line by literally one or two millimetres

But once you start using fine margins like that they have to be used across the board, you cant say to a defender "nah he's not offside because it was x amount of distance offside" but then give a penalty against the same defender for a foul millimetres inside the penalty box line (which happens now with VAR) 

FWIW i only think this way because defenders get a raw deal now imo, when you see a striker flicking their leg out to purposely make contact and win penalties then the games done for defending

[54_and_counting]

6 minutes ago, houston_bud said:

Absolutely. VAR should look at it with the naked eye. If it's a clear and obvious error we'll be able to spot it. 

3, 4 mins or more looking at these lines is a joke.

If VAR looks at offsides with a naked eye then it has to look at balls crossing the line, fouls inside or outside the box in the same manner

But they dont and never will

[houston_bud]

7 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

If VAR looks at offsides with a naked eye then it has to look at balls crossing the line, fouls inside or outside the box in the same manner

But they dont and never will

But they don't draw the lines for the other things you mentioned, do they?

[PB1994]

15 minutes ago, houston_bud said:

Absolutely. VAR should look at it with the naked eye. If it's a clear and obvious error we'll be able to spot it. 

3, 4 mins or more looking at these lines is a joke.

I agree with this but I suppose the argument is that if you are using VAR to look at offside the line always has to be drawn somewhere so you will always gets this very tight decisions.

[54_and_counting]

1 minute ago, houston_bud said:

But they don't draw the lines for the other things you mentioned, do they?

If the lines are spot on, which they should be when calibrated, then an offside by millimetres should count

If theres a potential issue with the offside lines being calibrated wrongly then thats completely different from giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt when the offside is millimetres 

[IrishBhoy]

21 minutes ago, houston_bud said:

Absolutely. VAR should look at it with the naked eye. If it's a clear and obvious error we'll be able to spot it. 

3, 4 mins or more looking at these lines is a joke.

The biggest issue for me is 3/4 minutes looking at where the line gets drawn on the furthest forward part of the attackers body, trying to pinpoint the sleeve line where the arm becomes body or a boot sticking out behind a defender etc. But don’t spend any time at all trying to find the moment the ball is played forward. A player could play the ball forward and his foot could be in contact with the ball for 3 separate frames; is it taken from the first frame that shows any foot to ball contact, is it taken when the foot is compressing the ball but before it has left the foot or is it taken at the closest point to when the ball has actually left the foot? I genuinely don’t know. There’s a few guys on here who are qualified referees or guys clued up on the laws of the game, does anyone know what Scottish VAR officials use to determine the point of contact when deciding an offside decision? 

Edited March 19, 2023 by IrishBhoy

[houston_bud]

Just now, 54_and_counting said:

If the lines are spot on, which they should be when calibrated, then an offside by millimetres should count

If theres a potential issue with the offside lines being calibrated wrongly then thats completely different from giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt when the offside is millimetres 

But the point I was agreeing with was saying that it's impossible to judge exactly when the ball leaves the foot of the player passing it. So the lines won't be 100% accurate. 

So spending the best part of 5 mins sometimes to do this, seems (at least to me) a bit daft.

It's not about giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt, it's about sticking with the onfield decision unless it is a 'clear and obvious' error. And getting on with the game.