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

37 minutes ago, Antiochas III said:

Yeah but introduction of VAR hasn't stopped that.

It has really, imagine the magnification of the hibs fan rage had VAR not been in operation at the weekend

Or better yet, look at the fans using inaccurate pitch lines and a squint tv angle to try determine the offside or onside goals in the motherwell v rangers game, 

VAR corrected or confirmed more decisions than it fucked up at the weekend, surely thats a win no? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, craigkillie said:


Attempting to appease the childlike minds who think like this is exactly what got us into this sort of situation in the first place.

However, with the proposed rule I suggested, the "blame" for this decision not being given would be directly aimed at the players/manager of that team for not identifying it and asking for a review.

You might think its childlike but they have a point when one week they are penalised for a foul that the game before they didnt get for whatever reason

Consistency is the main thing, if VAR brings about a level of consistency players, fans, managers etc cannot moan about being cheats, hard done to etc etc 

Its just up to the officials and the VAR ones to make sure they are consistent, thats the big issue

Saying players have to make the claims etc is once again shifting the blame from the officials for not being consistent, and you'll have players just claiming everything eventually 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gannonball said:

 

Then make it like tennis where you are only allowed X amount of checks (and you keep them if you are right) You will be probably  soon find players will stop acting like incredulent fannies as much if they know a foul really wasn't committed.

This was what I hoped for when we realised it was inevitable a few years back.

Others did say that you could say get 5 reviews. What if you use 5 reviews correctly and then there's a 6th bad decision that you can't review.

IMO you'd then have to question the quality of referee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With any review based system in any sport I've seen it used in, if your review is successful then you get to keep it. So you have two reviews, for example, and you would only lose one if you reviewed something incorrectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

With any review based system in any sport I've seen it used in, if your review is successful then you get to keep it. So you have two reviews, for example, and you would only lose one if you reviewed something incorrectly.

It's a terrible option, and there's a reason no football competition is using it.  We're conflating issues with global-led VAR, and specific issues that Scottish football is working its way through.

If you remove the teething issues (slower implementation due to familiarity of the processes by literally everyone involved), Scottish-specific issues (stadiums without screens) then we're left with exactly the same issues that literally every competition has.

VAR exists to ensure that Key Match Incidents have the best possible and acceptable chance of being correct.  The inescapable problem that VAR has to manage around but cannot ever overcome is the element of subjectivity that is inherent in football.  In any given situation, VAR has to decide if a 'clear error' has been made.  Fans, coaches, and pundits get into contortions trying to apply their layperson interpretation of what "clear" or "obvious" means to them.

Ultimately, even if we are all entirely agreed on what constitutes clear or obvious, we'll still disagree on a decision-by-decision basis.  The Guardian article shared yesterday shows that a room full of the highest paid, coached, and capable referees in world football are split approximately 50:50 on whether VAR gets involved in some decisions.

You will always have 'edge' cases that are impossible to square.  Scottish football needs to find a way of stop being so insular, and bemoaning the aspects of VAR that is seems to think are somehow unique to Scotland.  That doesn't do well for column inches or radio time though - much better to wrongly moan about handballs, and suggest we need to pay for full-time referees when some clubs can't pay transfer fees.

Edited by HuttonDressedAsLahm
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

It's a terrible option, and there's a reason no football competition is using it.  We're conflating issues with global-led VAR, and specific issues that Scottish football is working its way through.

If you remove the teething issues (slower implementation due to familiarity of the processes by literally everyone involved), Scottish-specific issues (stadiums without screens) then we're left with exactly the same issues that literally every competition has.

VAR exists to ensure that Key Match Incidents have the best possible and acceptable change of being correct.  The inescapable problem that VAR has to manage around but cannot ever overcome is the element of subjectivity that is inherent in football.  In any given situation, VAR has to decide if a 'clear error' has been made.  Fans, coaches, and pundits get into contortions trying to apply their layperson interpretation of what "clear" or "obvious" means to them.

Ultimately, even if we are all entirely agreed on what constitutes clear or obvious, we'll still disagree on a decision-by-decision basis.  The Guardian article shared yesterday shows that a room full of the highest paid, coached, and capable referees in world football are split approximately 50:50 on whether VAR gets involved in some decisions.

You will always have 'edge' cases that are impossible to square.  Scottish football needs to find a way of stop being so insular, and bemoaning the aspects of VAR that is seems to think are somehow unique to Scotland.  That doesn't do well for column inches or radio time though - much better to wrongly moan about handballs, and suggest we need to pay for full-time referees when some clubs can't pay transfer fees.

This, the challenge system that tennis for example, uses is black or white, you challenge a call you are either right or wrong, there is no differing of opinion

One week in football a tackle a ref feels is good, next week the same tackle viewed by another ref is a foul, 

VAR, like officials, gets way more right than wrong, however the wrong will always be focused on before all the correct 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pete the Jakey said:

Yip bang on.  Depending when the lines are drawn (first contact with boot versus ball leaving boot) can make all the difference.  I would like to see extremely marginal calls like that given given a "not proven" or "inconclusive" decision and goals to stand. 

Aye, and that brings in the frame rate thing which I’ve posted about a couple of time.
 

However, after hearing the explanation of Rangers third goal at the weekend I think  they’ve tried to address that by allowing goals to stand if the offside lines are touching, even if the attackers line is further forward? 
 

Seems reasonable to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In cricket (I know, I await the deluge of complaints) there are three options for some decisions - in, out and umpire's call. Something like that could work in football. If the referee gives a subjective decision and the other team uses a challenge, then there are three options - VAR sees evidence that supports the original decision, VAR sees evidence that would overturn the original decision, and VAR can't see either way so we stick with the on-field decision. In the second and third cases, you'd keep your challenge; in the first you'd use one up. It would make referees and assistants go back to having to actually make decisions rather than hoping VAR will bail them out, will hopefully only overturn obvious errors (dives, handball when it hits the chest, etc) and means that not every incident is looked at, only the ones that the opposition coach/captain/whomever deems worth checking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, CoF said:

Aye, and that brings in the frame rate thing which I’ve posted about a couple of time.
 

However, after hearing the explanation of Rangers third goal at the weekend I think  they’ve tried to address that by allowing goals to stand if the offside lines are touching, even if the attackers line is further forward? 
 

Seems reasonable to me. 

Yip agreed. The next issue is how thick do you make the lines.

48 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

In cricket (I know, I await the deluge of complaints) there are three options for some decisions - in, out and umpire's call. Something like that could work in football. If the referee gives a subjective decision and the other team uses a challenge, then there are three options - VAR sees evidence that supports the original decision, VAR sees evidence that would overturn the original decision, and VAR can't see either way so we stick with the on-field decision. In the second and third cases, you'd keep your challenge; in the first you'd use one up. It would make referees and assistants go back to having to actually make decisions rather than hoping VAR will bail them out, will hopefully only overturn obvious errors (dives, handball when it hits the chest, etc) and means that not every incident is looked at, only the ones that the opposition coach/captain/whomever deems worth checking. 

It is also the captains decision whether to appeal or not. That would be fun if introduced in football. The cricket decisions are very very quick compared to football, especially in T20. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We simply cannot use how VAR is used in other sports as a basis for how football is used

Rugby is the closest we can use and even then some of their VAR decisions last ages

Cricket and tennis the calls are black and white, ball in our out, batsman ran out or not

Footballer goes down in penalty area, the call is barely ever black and white

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

We simply cannot use how VAR is used in other sports as a basis for how football is used

Rugby is the closest we can use and even then some of their VAR decisions last ages

Cricket and tennis the calls are black and white, ball in our out, batsman ran out or not

Footballer goes down in penalty area, the call is barely ever black and white

At least with Rugby though you are shown the replays of the incident at the game usually though. You can even hear the ref discussing the incident with his colleagues sometimes as to how they have come to the conclusion. Even when you might not totally agree with it you get to understand their decision making. At CP we have big screens and they just say that the VAR is being investigated and you hang about for a few mins not knowing wtf is going on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

We simply cannot use how VAR is used in other sports as a basis for how football is used

Rugby is the closest we can use and even then some of their VAR decisions last ages

Cricket and tennis the calls are black and white, ball in our out, batsman ran out or not

Footballer goes down in penalty area, the call is barely ever black and white

Tennis yes, but cricket no. The ball tracking isn't saying whether the ball does something, just if the ball would have done something (hence the need for umpire's call - it takes into account some uncertainty). There's also the caught or not (if it's close to the ground and may have bounced first) where the umpire gives a "soft signal" (their original decision) and only if the evidence is clear that there was a mistake is it overturned - if it's inconclusive then the soft decision stands.

9 minutes ago, gannonball said:

At least with Rugby though you are shown the replays of the incident at the game usually though. You can even hear the ref discussing the incident with his colleagues sometimes as to how they have come to the conclusion. Even when you might not totally agree with it you get to understand their decision making. At CP we have big screens and they just say that the VAR is being investigated and you hang about for a few mins not knowing wtf is going on. 

That would be carnage in football  especially at the two big grounds. Already in rugby we see slow motion replays and the crowd will try to influence the ref (and often seems to be successful). An innocuous looking challenge when slowed down might still not too bad but when you then get 40,000 folk oohing and aahing, booing and making it out as if it's a horror challenge the ref can be swayed. Same goes for checking the grounding - even if it looks like the player didn't score a try, fans will cheer as if to say to the ref "see, it's a try". Playing any sort of 50/50 (hell, even a 70/30) at Ibrix or Parkhead and you'll get howls of derision, chants of "off, off, off" or whatever and you know how spineless our refs are already at standing up to the atmosphere at those places. There's a reason football decided early on not to show replays of conventional incidents (and it predates VAR by a great number of years by the way).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

It's a terrible option, and there's a reason no football competition is using it.  We're conflating issues with global-led VAR, and specific issues that Scottish football is working its way through.

If you remove the teething issues (slower implementation due to familiarity of the processes by literally everyone involved), Scottish-specific issues (stadiums without screens) then we're left with exactly the same issues that literally every competition has.

VAR exists to ensure that Key Match Incidents have the best possible and acceptable chance of being correct.  The inescapable problem that VAR has to manage around but cannot ever overcome is the element of subjectivity that is inherent in football.  In any given situation, VAR has to decide if a 'clear error' has been made.  Fans, coaches, and pundits get into contortions trying to apply their layperson interpretation of what "clear" or "obvious" means to them.

Ultimately, even if we are all entirely agreed on what constitutes clear or obvious, we'll still disagree on a decision-by-decision basis.  The Guardian article shared yesterday shows that a room full of the highest paid, coached, and capable referees in world football are split approximately 50:50 on whether VAR gets involved in some decisions.

You will always have 'edge' cases that are impossible to square.  Scottish football needs to find a way of stop being so insular, and bemoaning the aspects of VAR that is seems to think are somehow unique to Scotland.  That doesn't do well for column inches or radio time though - much better to wrongly moan about handballs, and suggest we need to pay for full-time referees when some clubs can't pay transfer fees.

 

The reason no football competition is using it is that there is a single set of laws for VAR in football. The way it is being used is the only way it is allowed to be used. There are similar challenge-based systems in place in other sports with subjectivity involved - the NFL is the obvious one, but there are others.

My preference is for no VAR whatsoever, but my second preference is that, if we must have VAR, we should take the heat off the referees and make the decision about whether an incident is reviewed lie squarely with the cry-babies that moaned and lobbied until it was introduced in the first place.

My comments are not purely based on Scottish football, but on all football. It has made football worse in every single competition that has introduced it

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

 

The reason no football competition is using it is that there is a single set of laws for VAR in football. The way it is being used is the only way it is allowed to be used. There are similar challenge-based systems in place in other sports with subjectivity involved - the NFL is the obvious one, but there are others.

My preference is for no VAR whatsoever, but my second preference is that, if we must have VAR, we should take the heat off the referees and make the decision about whether an incident is reviewed lie squarely with the cry-babies that moaned and lobbied until it was introduced in the first place.

My comments are not purely based on Scottish football, but on all football. It has made football worse in every single competition that has introduced it

 

Isn't this just a situation where "being right is not enough"?  Like, so many moral/philosophical positions would be just brilliant if people behaved well/correctly/sensibly/rationally?

The reality is that they don't, so we accept that, and we adjust our parameters around not what is theoretically possible, but what is actually plausible.

VAR has full scope to see everything because to do otherwise would be to create unacceptable outcomes.  If VAR can see a clear red card offence but a coach who hasn't thrown his yellow hankerchief in the air, we just accept that as missed?  That's complete unsatisfactory, and a solution devised to limit intervention for the sake of limiting intervention, not to actually make the game better.

And back to point one, it's an entirely academic point because it's simply not going to happen, just as we're never going to get rid of subjective decisions, or fans that cannot be objective.

If we must have VAR, it is far better to improve how we communicate and educate, and control the controllables.  We're allowing the unskilled, unprepared, and unknowledgeable to commentate on VAR and its implementation while being wilfully ignorant of the Laws of the Game, the application of those Laws, and the basic fundamentals.

Football is one of the only pastimes where we give air time to people who have built careers on a subject they know very little to nothing about.  Would we listen to podcasts on law reviews and judicial decisions by people who had never studied or practiced law?

 

Edited by HuttonDressedAsLahm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

VAR has full scope to see everything because to do otherwise would be to create unacceptable outcomes.  If VAR can see a clear red card offence but a coach who hasn't thrown his yellow hankerchief in the air, we just accept that as missed?  That's complete unsatisfactory, and a solution devised to limit intervention for the sake of limiting intervention, not to actually make the game better.


Unacceptable to who?

The purpose of limiting intervention is twofold, firstly, and most importantly, to improve the experience for the supporters, and second to remove the pressure on an external referee to decide when to involve themselves, and instead put the onus on the people affected by the supposed injustice.

While I agree with you about the need to educate people on the laws of the game, the referees are not the only people affected by VAR decisions, and should not be the only people able to comment on them. If the "uneducated" fan doesn't like the impact VAR is having on the game, I don't see why they wouldn't be given the space to express that view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you prefer football since VAR has been introduced then for those in that camp, the need for things to be right outweighs the need to enjoy yourself.

I have been firmly against VAR from the outset. This was based on my experience of us using it in the Europa League prior to it's introduction in Scotland where I could tell I was far happier with no VAR (and accepting the potential for a higher number of officiating errors) if it meant my matchday experience wasn't impacted negatively.

We are seeing arguments where we are being told the football-watching population needs to adjust their behaviour to accommodate VAR. Why? If anyone is of the opinion that fan experience comes second to the necessity to get everything right, then I fear they are out of touch with the sport and effectively share the thoughts of many club owners who view fans as nothing more than an income.

And for those that believe we will be better off if VAR "teething issues" are sorted out, then I regret to inform you - these issues will not disappear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, craigkillie said:


Unacceptable to who?

The purpose of limiting intervention is twofold, firstly, and most importantly, to improve the experience for the supporters, and second to remove the pressure on an external referee to decide when to involve themselves, and instead put the onus on the people affected by the supposed injustice.

While I agree with you about the need to educate people on the laws of the game, the referees are not the only people affected by VAR decisions, and should not be the only people able to comment on them. If the "uneducated" fan doesn't like the impact VAR is having on the game, I don't see why they wouldn't be given the space to express that view.

An unacceptable outcome is a VAR system that can see a gross miscarriage of justice but has its hands tied by an arbitrary and unnecessary challenge system.

I have no issue with fans being frustrated by VAR, so long as they aren't conflating their issues with VAR with their lack of understanding of the game.  Long delays, having the experience affected due to non-celebration, and not knowing what's going on I can have sympathy with.  I can also understand those that don't want VAR at all.  I predicted exactly where we are (worldwide) when VAR was being planned for in 2017/2018.  I'm definitely not alone in that regard, but perhaps in the minority.

Many of the other issues so often repeated I have less time for, as they so often stem from ignorance and misdirected frustration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AJF said:

If you prefer football since VAR has been introduced then for those in that camp, the need for things to be right outweighs the need to enjoy yourself.

I have been firmly against VAR from the outset. This was based on my experience of us using it in the Europa League prior to it's introduction in Scotland where I could tell I was far happier with no VAR (and accepting the potential for a higher number of officiating errors) if it meant my matchday experience wasn't impacted negatively.

We are seeing arguments where we are being told the football-watching population needs to adjust their behaviour to accommodate VAR. Why? If anyone is of the opinion that fan experience comes second to the necessity to get everything right, then I fear they are out of touch with the sport and effectively share the thoughts of many club owners who view fans as nothing more than an income.

And for those that believe we will be better off if VAR "teething issues" are sorted out, then I regret to inform you - these issues will not disappear.

You know you can have correct things and enjoy it as well, 

If a fan leaves a stadium having won because an opponents late equaliser was ruled out for a foul in the build up, will they give a f**k about waiting around a bit, absolutely not

Fans only hate VAR when it doesn't go for them, which is the same as ref decisions except at least with VAR the decisions should be correct 

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...