Jump to content

VAR in Scottish Football


VAR in Scottish Football  

329 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

On 30/10/2022 at 18:40, craigkillie said:

 

The SFA had no say in the matter, it was an SPFL vote, and it wasn't 22-20 against, it was 41-1 in favour. The clubs wanted this, nobody has since come out and said they voted for it because they thought it was going to happen anyway, they've more or less unanimously said it's what they want. The SPFL board mainly consists of members from these very clubs, voted in by these very clubs, so who do you think are these nefarious unseen hands who are controlling everything?

The costs come out of prize money, so I'm not really sure why turnover would have much to do with it. Do Motherwell (or Killie) request less prize money than other Premiership clubs because we have a smaller turnover than them?

Jesus, you really have no idea how the world works eh? Or the concept that the use of "if" precedes a hypothetical or gets someone to consider a concept. I'll reiterate no club wanted to be an outlier on this.

The general consensus of ordinary fans on P&B to me seemed to be 60-40 in favour before adopting VAR to swing the other way since. However among football club/management it's 98% in favour. So what does that tell us and how can it be explained and why does it not mirror that general consensus?

No doubt a compelling case was made by the SFA. Despite your protestations the SFA are the employers of the referees and they need to resource it. They would have no doubt given presentations to the SPFL board and then clubs on how it would work and be implemented unless you think the 41 "aye's" showed up with a "f**k it, it'll be a laugh" without being furnished with pro's outweighing con's, otherwise surely ownership of half the clubs would have voted no to follow society.

So what could swayed them? Certainly not financial as less money ends up in a clubs coffers at the end of the season. An insignificant amount to all but the OF. Clubs such as Celtic would be in favour because despite the financial gulf and dominance former players such as Hartson only last week and Tom Boyd in a rid neck of a youtube video claim a refereeing bias they combat at every outing. You'll have progressive management such as Burrows at my own club and Lasley at St Mirren, realists at a few that while they're not 100% in favour it is inevitable, American influence at Hibs and Dundee United where video checking has been part of their sport for years. So that leaves peer pressure or something else.

In addition to presenting facts I'm pretty sure SFA would be actively lobbying clubs for it because they knew that Scottish referee's would not be exposed to UEFA and FIFA competitions going forward.

If costs come out of prize money it means that less ends up in each clubs bank balance. I suggested it would be fairer and maybe offset the gulf in our game if costs of VAR implementation were based on turnover as the burden would be shared equally as a percentage. To draw a comparison to prize money is just being obtuse for the sake of it.

It's cute you wish to be such an advocate for the OF retaining as much cash as possible. However your own club has previous of being an outlier, voting against letting Sevco rightfully die 10 years ago.

Edited by Kapowzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Kapowzer said:

The general consensus of ordinary fans on P&B to me seemed to be 60-40 in favour before adopting VAR to swing the other way since.

The vote on this thread, which may indicate a consensus, is 35.59% in favour, 64.41% against, presently. Other than that I agree with much of your post.

The implementation is a mess, as many predicted: it will drive more supporters away from watching live football in Scotland, when we should be looking at ways to get more fans to attend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Kapowzer said:

Jesus, you really have no idea how the world works eh? Or the concept that the use of "if" precedes a hypothetical or gets someone to consider a concept. I'll reiterate no club wanted to be an outlier on this.

The general consensus of ordinary fans on P&B to me seemed to be 60-40 in favour before adopting VAR to swing the other way since. However among football club/management it's 98% in favour. So what does that tell us and how can it be explained and why does it not mirror that general consensus?

No doubt a compelling case was made by the SFA. Despite your protestations the SFA are the employers of the referees and they need to resource it. They would have no doubt given presentations to the SPFL board and then clubs on how it would work and be implemented unless you think the 41 "aye's" showed up with a "f**k it, it'll be a laugh" without being furnished with pro's outweighing con's, otherwise surely ownership of half the clubs would have voted no to follow society.

So what could swayed them? Certainly not financial as less money ends up in a clubs coffers at the end of the season. An insignificant amount to all but the OF. Clubs such as Celtic would be in favour because despite the financial gulf and dominance former players such as Hartson only last week and Tom Boyd in a rid neck of a youtube video claim a refereeing bias they combat at every outing. You'll have progressive management such as Burrows at my own club and Lasley at St Mirren, realists at a few that while they're not 100% in favour it is inevitable, American influence at Hibs and Dundee United where video checking has been part of their sport for years. So that leaves peer pressure or something else.

In addition to presenting facts I'm pretty sure SFA would be actively lobbying clubs for it because they knew that Scottish referee's would not be exposed to UEFA and FIFA competitions going forward.

If costs come out of prize money it means that less ends up in each clubs bank balance. I suggested it would be fairer and maybe offset the gulf in our game if costs of VAR implementation were based on turnover as the burden would be shared equally as a percentage. To draw a comparison to prize money is just being obtuse for the sake of it.

It's cute you wish to be such an advocate for the OF retaining as much cash as possible. However your own club has previous of being an outlier, voting against letting Sevco rightfully die 10 years ago.


A lot of words to say very little here. The clubs did vote for the package on offer, they were obviously happy with it or they wouldn't have done so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dundee Hibernian said:

The vote on this thread, which may indicate a consensus, is 35.59% in favour, 64.41% against, presently. Other than that I agree with much of your post.

The implementation is a mess, as many predicted: it will drive more supporters away from watching live football in Scotland, when we should be looking at ways to get more fans to attend.

As the poll is no a snapshot of before and after but from when the thread was created, so it isn't easy to quantify using this thread alone.  Plus while this isn't as partizan or wild as a dedicated fans forum, home of many a moon howler or "the world is nigh", the vote is an indication and not a true reflection.

Regardless "60-40 in favour before adopting VAR to swing the other way since" isn't far of 35-65 wouldn't you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kapowzer said:

As the poll is no a snapshot of before and after but from when the thread was created, so it isn't easy to quantify using this thread alone.  Plus while this isn't as partizan or wild as a dedicated fans forum, home of many a moon howler or "the world is nigh", the vote is an indication and not a true reflection.

Regardless "60-40 in favour before adopting VAR to swing the other way since" isn't far of 35-65 wouldn't you agree?

The poll on this thread has been heavily against the implementation of the VAR system since going on here. Nothing has changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kapowzer said:

As the poll is no a snapshot of before and after but from when the thread was created, so it isn't easy to quantify using this thread alone.  Plus while this isn't as partizan or wild as a dedicated fans forum, home of many a moon howler or "the world is nigh", the vote is an indication and not a true reflection.

Regardless "60-40 in favour before adopting VAR to swing the other way since" isn't far of 35-65 wouldn't you agree?

No, I think there's a considerable difference between assuming 60% of people are in favour to 65% being against. 

But, as the football authorities have shown us, it doesn't matter what the fans think, therefore guesses and polls don't have any influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dundee Hibernian said:

No, I think there's a considerable difference between assuming 60% of people are in favour to 65% being against. 

But, as the football authorities have shown us, it doesn't matter what the fans think, therefore guesses and polls don't have any influence.

Don't you get 60-40 "swings the other way" to be ....... 40-60? You're arguing over 5% here of a poll in a thread started 13 months ago.

I'm suggesting any optimism to VAR's implementation may well have diminished in the past fortnight, thats' all.

But human nature is to resist change. VAR is here to stay but its launch did not have to be the mess it has been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kapowzer said:

Don't you get 60-40 "swings the other way" to be ....... 40-60? You're arguing over 5% here of a poll in a thread started 13 months ago.

I'm suggesting any optimism to VAR's implementation may well have diminished in the past fortnight, thats' all.

But human nature is to resist change. VAR is here to stay but its launch did not have to be the mess it has been.

I must be misunderstanding what and how you are expressing this: but as I say, it doesn't matter, we're stuck with VAR, another nail in football's coffin for the attending supporters. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Kapowzer said:

Don't you get 60-40 "swings the other way" to be ....... 40-60? You're arguing over 5% here of a poll in a thread started 13 months ago.

I'm suggesting any optimism to VAR's implementation may well have diminished in the past fortnight, thats' all.

But human nature is to resist change. VAR is here to stay but its launch did not have to be the mess it has been.

It looks a lot like you're suggesting a swing from 60:40 to 35:65 is only 5%. 

Incidentally, you can see when the votes were cast by clicking on the poll. There have only been 9 votes cast since VAR was implemented - 3 in favour, 6 against. That's broadly in line with a 35:65 split.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

When people post things that are blatantly wrong it shouldn't be a surprise to see disagreement.

Like saying the SFA have nothing to do with VAR or the vote? Anyway, we all thought you tapped out of this thread because your wee fingers got sore or you were hit with something you couldn't try and deflect.

Seems odd since you spent a lot of effort whole day a fortnight ago trying to draw false equivalence between Slattery and Lafferty on here and Twitter which involved you contradicting yourself and making it clear you had an agenda and axe to grind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Kapowzer said:

Seems odd since you spent a lot of effort whole day a fortnight ago trying to draw false equivalence between Slattery and Lafferty on here and Twitter which involved you contradicting yourself and making it clear you had an agenda and axe to grind.

Hope the VAR cameras were there for that day so we can get the definitive answer on the matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, craigkillie said:

There's your Tony Watt red card overturned on appeal. Money well spent on VAR.

This is a bit of a mind boggling thing - presumably it was overturned on the basis of some footage that wasn't available to the Referee or VAR at the time (as that is what Utd said they were going to present). It begs the question on whether they would use all available footage or just what was presented by the appealing club - because the Motherwell footage that @Div shared on the P&B twitter feed was the most damning angle that I've seen - but no-one is going to present that as (other than attempting to prove that Goss wasn't "cheating") it's nothing to do with Motherwell.

Probably the worst thing that could happen for VAR is to have a VAR-aided decision overturned on appeal within the first couple of weeks - credibility of the system undermined early on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's almost a wrong decision compounding another wrong decision.

The VAR should never have intervened on the original tackle, because although it was quite bad, and some people could definitely have argued it was a red, there definitely wasn't enough evidence to say that it was an obvious error not to send him off (though how the f**k he didn't give a foul and a yellow, I have no idea). However, I'd actually say that after the decision of a red card has been made on the day, it's hard to argue there's enough evidence to say that this decision was clearly wrong, which is the basis on which the appeal panel is supposed to work.

Edited by craigkillie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't recall if I posted at the time of P&B's apology to Sean Goss, but one of the points I'd argue is that a video clip, while better than a still image, can still be very deceiving, as it is a view in 2D. The point about multiple cameras being used is probably that a fuller 'all round' picture of what took place.

Whether you take the view that Watt was guilty or not, and that will perhaps depend on your allegiances, VAR has made a right arse of that whole incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to see that (apparently) the Swedish league has just had 9 of their 16 topflight clubs vote against the introduction of VAR. Not entirely sure of the detail, just wondering why there would be such a contrast in the number of clubs supporting it compared to us.

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   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...