VAR in Scottish Football

[VincentGuerin]

1 hour ago, Ric said:

You are absolutely right, VAR did it's job perfectly last night

Anyone who thinks the penalty decision last night was correct is clueless about the game and has obviously been watching for the last few years without paying attention. It's a terrible decision, completely conned by the attacker.

This is an internet fitba discussion board. There are entrenched biases and wind-ups everywhere. But that kind of decision is real bellwether stuff for me. If you can't see what's happened there, you don't understand what you're watching.

If you think a lengthy delay to award an incorrect decision is VAR doing its job perfectly, then I think this is the perfect demonstration of why your views on this can be filed in the bin.

Edited November 5, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[Ric]

6 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

...

All you have done is demonstrate my point perfectly. You agree with me that the referees are making an absolute hash of things, but you still want to berate the system set up that has allowed us to see how bad they are.

You are effectively blaming cameras and TV monitors for the decisions made by referees, which is a crazy position to find yourself in.

 

[Illgresi]

13 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Anyone who thinks the penalty decision last night was correct is clueless about the game and has obviously been watching for the last few years without paying attention. It's a terrible decision, completely conned by the attacker.

This is an internet fitba discussion board. There are entrenched biases and wind-ups everywhere. But that kind of decision is real bellwether stuff for me. If you can't see what's happened there, you don't understand what you're watching.

If you think a lengthy delay to award an incorrect decision is VAR doing its job perfectly, then I think this is the perfect demonstration of why your views on this can be filed in the bin.

So the referee (upon rewatching the incident), and the VAR team determine that it was indeed a penalty. However, because you have your own 'entrenched biases' (anti-VAR, not pro-Hibs), you've decided that you are correct with all your years of experience in officiating football matches...?

Righto.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Illgresi

[ropy]

I didn’t watch the game and have only seen a clip posted on Twitter by an aggrieved supporter but I don’t think that anything that Marshall did affected what the attacker did.

[Leith Green]

3 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Anyone who thinks the penalty decision last night was correct is clueless about the game and has obviously been watching for the last few years without paying attention. It's a terrible decision, completely conned by the attacker.

If you think a lengthy delay to award an incorrect decision is VAR doing its job perfectly, then I think this is the perfect demonstration of why your views on this can be filed in the bin.

Yep.

I actually think the length of time to make the decisions - even a couple of weeks in to VAR - is becoming a real issue, particularly when there is nothing being relayed to fans to understand whats going on.

In rugby (not a sport I follow, but I have seen the odd Scotland match) when the TMO gets involved, it feels that the onfield ref has a load more control, asking the TMO to wind back the picture and look at different angles - and all of this while miked up and allowing everyone to understand what the thinking is.

They then appear to discuss and come to a decision - all of this while the incident is on the screens and a lot quicker than that pen decision last night.

I understand that all grounds dont have screens, but they are already mic'd up so it shouldnt be a big issue.

I dont think we are any better off now, look at the Watt red card - yes it has now been rescinded but not til days after the event - mental.

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

All you have done is demonstrate my point perfectly. You agree with me that the referees are making an absolute hash of things, but you still want to berate the system set up that has allowed us to see how bad they are.

You are effectively blaming cameras and TV monitors for the decisions made by referees, which is a crazy position to find yourself in.

 

No. As usual, you're just havering complete pish.

You have this thing where you think it's a really smart line of argument to say that VAR is not the issue, but the people using it are. This is a close relative of the US gun lobby saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

As long as you have guns, people will use them to shoot each other. As long as you have VAR, it will slow down football but (as we see everywhere it is used) it will still lead to big decision being incorrect, like it did last night.

I won't be engaging with you any further, frankly, because I can't be bothered. You'll come back with some pedantic point about the standard of referees, or Old Firm bias, or some other pish. But the fact is referees are always going to be fallible, and decisions are always going to be subjective, because that's how people work.

Duk cheated to get Aberdeen a penalty last night. But there'll be Aberdeen fans who will look at it and be absolutely sure it's a penalty, because humans work like that and can often see things we want to see. Humans do not see the same things in the same way.

Your daft pedantic arguments don't take this into account. You seem to think there is some raft of perfect referees out there who will come in and make VAR work beautifully. No country in the world has found them yet. VAR is shite, and you are talking shite.

[VincentGuerin]

9 minutes ago, Illgresi said:

So the referee (upon rewatching the incident), and the VAR team determine that it was indeed a penalty. However, because you have your own 'entrenched biases' (anti-VAR, not pro-Hibs), you've decided that you are correct with all your years of experience in officiating football matches...?

Righto.

This is what I've just mentioned in my post to Ric.

It's simply never a penalty. Watch the movement of Duk's leg. He basically chucks it off Marshall in a really unnatural move.

If you watch French football, for example, you'll see this pretty much every week. It's a common thing on the continent, and we're seeing it more here.

I'm delighted it happened to Hibs, and we can now go ahead of them this weekend. Lovely. But it's simply never a penalty kick.

We can all convince ourselves that any decision for our team is right, but you're wrong on this one. And the referees have bought the con.

Also, the bold section seems to imply you think no non-referee can ever point out that a referee has made a mistake?

Edited November 5, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[Ranaldo Bairn]

2 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

This is what I've just mentioned in my post to Ric.

It's simply never a penalty. Watch the movement of Duk's leg. He basically chucks it off Marshall in a really unnatural move.

If you watch French football, for example, you'll see this pretty much every week. It's a common thing on the continent, and we're seeing it more here.

I'm delighted it happened to Hibs, and we can now go ahead of them this weekend. Lovely. But it's simply never a penalty kick.

We can all convince ourselves that any decision for our team is right, but you're wrong on this one. And the referees have bought the con.

Also, the bold section seems to imply you think no non-referee can ever point out that a referee has made a mistake?

Are we talking about the Ashley Young flick of the leg here? (Not seen last night's highlights yet)

[VincentGuerin]

4 minutes ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

Are we talking about the Ashley Young flick of the leg here? (Not seen last night's highlights yet)

Aye, pretty much. He makes sure his leg goes into Marshall, then propels himself through the air.

Incredible the naivety of a set of referees looking at it and buying it.

It's one of these where the violence of the way his body jerks makes it quite obvious he's at least exaggerated the impact (same as his dive at Ibrox last week), but you could maybe forgive it being given at full speed. On the replay it's completely obvious though. He should have been booked.

Edited November 5, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[Illgresi]

1 minute ago, VincentGuerin said:

This is what I've just mentioned in my post to Ric.

It's simply never a penalty. Watch the movement of Duk's leg. He basically chucks it off Marshall in a really unnatural move.

If you watch French football, for example, you'll see this pretty much every week. It's a common thing on the continent, and we're seeing it more here.

I'm delighted it happened to Hibs, and we can now go ahead of them this weekend. Lovely. But it's simply never a penalty kick.

We can all convince ourselves that any decision for our team is right, but you're wrong on this one. And the referees have bought the con.

I'd accept your position a lot more readily if the referee hadn't had the benefit of a replay. Or say had given the penalty in the moment, and reversed the decision upon seeing a replay. The fact the opposite was actually the case, suggests instead that it was, in-fact, a penalty per the rules of the game.

Say what you like about our referees, I'm willing to bet they'd vastly outperform anyone on here in a test about the rules of the game.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

1 minute ago, VincentGuerin said:

Aye, pretty much. He makes sure his leg goes into Marshall, then propels himself through the air.

Incredible the naivety of a set of referees looking at it and buying it.

That sort of thing just utterly enrages me. The fucking cheat forward, compounded by complete incompetence from the officials. I don't give a monkey's about Aberdeen or Hibs but that sort of thing makes me want to bin the whole sport. What's the point.

[VincentGuerin]

8 minutes ago, Illgresi said:

I'd accept your position a lot more readily if the referee hadn't had the benefit of a replay. Or say had given the penalty in the moment, and reversed the decision upon seeing a replay. The fact the opposite was actually the case, suggests instead that it was, in-fact, a penalty per the rules of the game.

Say what you like about our referees, I'm willing to bet they'd vastly outperform anyone on here in a test about the rules of the game.

Look, forget about the referee. Just go and watch it yourself and look at how Duk moves his leg.

It's completely obvious.

This is an exact example of what I mentioned above. You're trying to talk yourself into believing something is right, when just using your eyes tells you it's wrong. Read the rules, watch the incident. It's not a foul.

The fact that Duk doesn't even seem bothered about where he kicks the ball (he just boots it out for a goal kick) tells you all you need to know. He knew exactly what he was doing, and the refs fell for it.

Edited November 5, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[rainbowrising]

That was a dive for the pen. It's a Ronaldo-style fake foul where he drags himself to catch the keeper and of course the "contact". To watch it so clearly on replay and award it takes some doing.

Ain't a Don's or Hibee fan, so no seethe here. Never a pen. 

 

 

[rainbowrising]

14 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

 

In rugby (not a sport I follow, but I have seen the odd Scotland match) when the TMO gets involved, it feels that the onfield ref has a load more control, asking the TMO to wind back the picture and look at different angles - and all of this while miked up and allowing everyone to understand what the thinking is.

They then appear to discuss and come to a decision - all of this while the incident is on the screens and a lot quicker than that pen decision last night.

 

Could you imagine our refs having to explain openly in a broadcast, as a rugby ref does, their decision making?! They would probably go on strike!

[Ric]

32 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

No. As usual, you're just havering complete pish.

Sure thing bud.

Tell me at what point when you've been convincingly shown to be a slavering idiot, you decide to down tools claiming you've had enough? It's what you did the last time, then the time before then... well, let's just say there is a pattern developing here.

 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Ric

[Jacksgranda]

11 hours ago, Frank Grimes said:

I, for one, took great joy from it tonight 

Crazy how long the decision took though 

Worth the wait 

VAR Dandies ✌

We will get our comeuppance.

But in the meantime 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Jacksgranda
Sleppnig

[VincentGuerin]

5 minutes ago, rainbowrising said:

Could you imagine our refs having to explain openly in a broadcast, as a rugby ref does, their decision making?! They would probably go on strike!

The culture's completely different. You'd need to stop all the screaming and swearing, and general bammy behaviour that is somehow accepted in football.

Also, I think refs would actually suffer more. They'd be picked up on every word the tone of everything they said for any hint of subliminal bias.

Imagine Celtic fans analysing the difference in vocabulary used by the same referee discussing a Celtic decision and a Rangers decision? Twitter would be awash with voice analysts and wordmaps.

[Illgresi]

5 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Look, forget about the referee. Just go and watch it yourself and look at how Duk moves his leg.

It's completely obvious.

This is an exact example of what I mentioned above. You're trying to talk yourself into believing something is right, when just using your eyes tells you it's wrong. Read the rules, watch the incident. It's not a foul.

I've seen it numerous times. I've watched it very closely. Intent absolutely is not part of determining whether a foul has been commited. It may have been that Duk intentionally made the keeper make contact by dragging his leg into him. That's incidental; it's a penalty because Duk beats Marshall to the ball, and Marshall brings him down through contact.

https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2022-23?l=en

Page 117

"A penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct free kick offence inside
their penalty area or off the field as part of play as outlined in Laws 12 and 13."

Page 97

"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following
offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force"

"Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when
making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction
is needed"

"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following
offences...impedes an opponent with contact"

Page 103

"attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have
been fouled (simulation)"

 

Those are the only relevent points to this decision. The quotes from pages 97 and 117 directly state that what occured last night was indeed a penalty, if the referee believes Marshall's actions were 'careless' (he clearly did). The only other possibility is that it was simulation, and the mere fact there was contact negates this (Schrödinger's penalty isn't a real thing).

[VincentGuerin]

19 minutes ago, Illgresi said:

I've seen it numerous times. I've watched it very closely. Intent absolutely is not part of determining whether a foul has been commited. It may have been that Duk intentionally made the keeper make contact by dragging his leg into him. That's incidental; it's a penalty because Duk beats Marshall to the ball, and Marshall brings him down through contact.

https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2022-23?l=en

Page 117

"A penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct free kick offence inside
their penalty area or off the field as part of play as outlined in Laws 12 and 13."

Page 97

"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following
offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force"

"Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when
making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction
is needed"

"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following
offences...impedes an opponent with contact"

Page 103

"attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have
been fouled (simulation)"

 

Those are the only relevent points to this decision. The quotes from pages 97 and 117 directly state that what occured last night was indeed a penalty, if the referee believes Marshall's actions were 'careless' (he clearly did). The only other possibility is that it was simulation, and the mere fact there was contact negates this (Schrödinger's penalty isn't a real thing).

He didn't impede him, though.

Duk caused the contact, intentionally, then exaggerated it. And in doing that, he kicked the ball out for a goal kick.

 

to impede -delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them; hinder.

"the sap causes swelling which can impede breathing"

 

Marshall didn't impede Duk. Duk had knocked the ball out for a goal kick, so there was nothing in the game he was impeded from doing, and he basically ran into Marshall to make himself fall over, so how can Marshall be blamed for his fall? There's pretty much no reading of the rules that will allow you to say that that's a foul. Marshall had the right to be where he was, and Duk chose to initiate the contact.

 

But like i said, football fans are subjective as f**k, and you are bending over backwards to try and justify a decision when it's obvious that the player cheated, and it's obvious how he cheated. It's not even an unusual thing to do. It'll happen all over Europe today.

The point is the naivety of professionals looking at it and being taken in by the con.

 

I'd bet every penny I have that if the decision last night had been a Hibs player doing that, you'd be posting in this thread agreeing with me.

Edited November 5, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[Dundee Hibernian]

Interesting views: never watched it last night, more interested in the bottom of the table, but on viewing the incident today, not a penalty for me. 

VAR is performing as I expected in Scotland.