VAR in Scottish Football

[VincentGuerin]

Just now, Zamora Fan said:

I think it's a very soft reason to retroactively disallow a goal. If the ref spots it in real time and gives it there is no issue, happens all the time. I doubt it would have been much of an issue if it wasn't spotted and the goal was given in a non-VAR world either — look how much Aberdeen still have to do to score at the moment when he accidentally clips the player. Hearts only start appealing for it once ball is in the net...

But because it isn't spotted at the time, play continues, Miovski scores a peach etc ... the fact it's then disallowed at that point is just a travesty. And (though I'm not pretending to have watched the game, just talking generally) it also changes the game by giving Hearts that boost/kick up the backside you get when you have a big-let off and the opposite for Aberdeen — think Spain V Scotland after the McTominay free kick was disallowed. 

 

I am completely against VAR and would never have introduced it and would bin it tomorrow. But we need to discuss reality here, and it is used, so let's take that as our starting point.

Miovski is unlucky. I don't think he trips Beni on purpose. But the fact remains that it has a material impact on what happens next. Beni can't shut his man down, the ball goes into the box, and a goal is scored. The fact that Miovski didn't mean it and then scored a nice finish does not change the fact that the foul helped Aberdeen score the goal. I don't agree that disallowing it is a travesty. The goal was assisted by the foul.

In general, get VAR in the bin. Absolutely. But as long as it's used, that's never going to be a goal.

[Zamora Fan]

4 minutes ago, Ric said:

After some time, I think the answer is clear. VAR is fine, the problem is we are still using the laws of the pre-VAR game, and that is a fundamental failure of those who set the rules.

There are definitely problems to be sorted, and let me be clear here it is not as if we are going from a 100% reliability to something less with VAR. The simple fact is we are seeing more correct decisions being made, and obvious errors being addressed. That can only be a good thing. However when someone suggests that "He was only a toe over the line, how is that offside" then blames VAR, what they should be doing is blaming the rules that state the binary nature of the offside rule. That rule was put in place when it was nothing more than human judgement, not known for it's consistency and reliability, not when lasers can detect in centimetres rather than whether you can see one player's socks ahead of the others.

Aside the officials trying to abide by the rules which were revised for the VAR era, the time is a major issue and one that I don't understand why it's not been addressed by now. The time taken to sort out problems is far, far too long, and it now seems to have been shrouded in a cloud of conspiracy. That needs to be changed, decisions on whether VAR should be reviewed by the ref should be taken within 10 seconds of seeing a replay. VAR shouldn't tell the ref there is a foul, VAR officials should say based on their experience that the ref could have a second look at it. The VAR officials shouldn't be reviewing and reviewing before handing it over to the ref, taking up to 4 or 5 minutes, it should be immediately obvious whether the ref should have a second look, you don't need to spend minutes figuring out an answer for that ref, that is their job let them do it.

All in all, if those who want to remove VAR, what do you want to go back to? Remember all we had before were slow motion replays on Sportscene, the ONLY difference VAR has done is allowed those videos to be shown immediately rather than with a 4 hour delay where, if an error is spotted, it is impossible to fix because the game is over. "Un-inventing VAR" is not really an option.

400 words of complete nonsense.

To answer your last point — yes, back to what we had before, which was great. Why on earth would you fundamentally change the game for the worse to appease dipshit Sportscene pundits and those eternal victims who can't take a defeat?

[Scooby_Doo]

26 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Belgium's P&B is going to be awash with fans of any club wronged by an official demanding a replay.

I'm away to check fritesetbiere.com and I'll get back to you.

[Dons_1988]

2 minutes ago, Zamora Fan said:

400 words of complete nonsense.

To answer your last point — yes, back to what we had before, which was great. Why on earth would you fundamentally change the game for the worse to appease dipshit Sportscene pundits and those eternal victims who can't take a defeat?

‘But replays on sportscene…’ is the best, worst and funniest argument for VAR I think I’ve seen. 

[Ric]

6 minutes ago, Zamora Fan said:

400 words of complete nonsense.

Great rebuttal, you really nailed all the reasons why that was "complete nonsense".

 

6 minutes ago, Zamora Fan said:

To answer your last point — yes, back to what we had before, which was great. Why on earth would you fundamentally change the game for the worse to appease dipshit Sportscene pundits and those eternal victims who can't take a defeat?

That is word salad, and doesn't at all address the point I raised.

I presume you have never gotten over the introduction of the Spinning Jenny.

Edited January 28 by Ric

[Ric]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

‘But replays on sportscene…’ is the best, worst and funniest argument for VAR I think I’ve seen. 

If that is the argument you took from my post then it's clear you did not understand my point at all.

 

[Zamora Fan]

3 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

I am completely against VAR and would never have introduced it and would bin it tomorrow. But we need to discuss reality here, and it is used, so let's take that as our starting point.

Miovski is unlucky. I don't think he trips Beni on purpose. But the fact remains that it has a material impact on what happens next. Beni can't shut his man down, the ball goes into the box, and a goal is scored. The fact that Miovski didn't mean it and then scored a nice finish does not change the fact that the foul helped Aberdeen score the goal. I don't agree that disallowing it is a travesty. The goal was assisted by the foul.

In general, get VAR in the bin. Absolutely. But as long as it's used, that's never going to be a goal.

The ref or linesman should spot it in real time and blow for the foul. Maybe he does if there isn't VAR to cover for him. If he doesn't spot it, then as we did for 100+ years everyone should play on and who cares? It really isn't an equivalent of Maradona hand of god or whatever.

It's a travesty it was allowed to continue and then we're retrospectively robbed of a lovely goal, something which is a rarity in our league. 
 

[AJF]

1 minute ago, Ric said:

Great rebuttal, you really nailed all the reasons why I that was "complete nonsense".

 

That is word salad, and doesn't at all address the point I raised.

I presume you have never gotten over the introduction of the Spinning Jenny.

It addresses the question you asked, which was: for all those who want to remove VAR, what do you want to go back to

@Zamora Fanstated they’d go back to what we had pre-VAR, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Football, for me, was infinitely more enjoyable before VAR’s introduction.

[VincentGuerin]

13 minutes ago, Ric said:

After some time, I think the answer is clear. VAR is fine, the problem is we are still using the laws of the pre-VAR game, and that is a fundamental failure of those who set the rules.

There are definitely problems to be sorted, and let me be clear here it is not as if we are going from a 100% reliability to something less with VAR. The simple fact is we are seeing more correct decisions being made, and obvious errors being addressed. That can only be a good thing. However when someone suggests that "He was only a toe over the line, how is that offside" then blames VAR, what they should be doing is blaming the rules that state the binary nature of the offside rule. That rule was put in place when it was nothing more than human judgement, not known for it's consistency and reliability, not when lasers can detect in centimetres rather than whether you can see one player's socks ahead of the others.

Aside the officials trying to abide by the rules which were revised for the VAR era, the time is a major issue and one that I don't understand why it's not been addressed by now. The time taken to sort out problems is far, far too long, and it now seems to have been shrouded in a cloud of conspiracy. That needs to be changed, decisions on whether VAR should be reviewed by the ref should be taken within 10 seconds of seeing a replay. VAR shouldn't tell the ref there is a foul, VAR officials should say based on their experience that the ref could have a second look at it. The VAR officials shouldn't be reviewing and reviewing before handing it over to the ref, taking up to 4 or 5 minutes, it should be immediately obvious whether the ref should have a second look, you don't need to spend minutes figuring out an answer for that ref, that is their job let them do it.

All in all, if those who want to remove VAR, what do you want to go back to? Remember all we had before were slow motion replays on Sportscene, the ONLY difference VAR has done is allowed those videos to be shown immediately rather than with a 4 hour delay where, if an error is spotted, it is impossible to fix because the game is over. "Un-inventing VAR" is not really an option.

A lot of this is stuff that has been addressed countless times.

1) The laws of the game were broadly fine. Football's the most popular sport on the planet and we shouldn't be altering its laws to suit the use of technology that the sport doesn't need, and that only marginally increases the number of correct calls when the vast majority were correct pre-VAR.

2) The timing issue will never be fixed. And this is no great secret. If you're going to check for a handball in the box, then you need to check that phase of play for offside and other potential offences. There is no way to do that that doesn't take time. The idea we should give officials 10 seconds to decide if there's an issue gives us the worst of both worlds; constantly stopping the game needlessly, but then making them rush and possibly get it wrong or miss things anyway. Bad idea.

3) I want to go back to the game being officiated by the officials on the pitch. What's hard to comprehend about that? Most deisions were right anyway, and the game was better to watch.

[VincentGuerin]

2 minutes ago, Zamora Fan said:

The ref or linesman should spot it in real time and blow for the foul. Maybe he does if there isn't VAR to cover for him. If he doesn't spot it, then as we did for 100+ years everyone should play on and who cares? It really isn't an equivalent of Maradona hand of god or whatever.

It's a travesty it was allowed to continue and then we're retrospectively robbed of a lovely goal, something which is a rarity in our league. 
 

I agree the linesman (right next to it) and the ref should have spotted it between them. Mentioned it above.

I think if the goal had been allowed to stand, it would be fair to say Hearts would have been rightly miffed.

[Ric]

1 minute ago, AJF said:

It addresses the question you asked, which was: for all those who want to remove VAR, what do you want to go back to

@Zamora Fanstated they’d go back to what we had pre-VAR, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Football, for me, was infinitely more enjoyable before VAR’s introduction.

It absolutely failed to address the question because the poster decided to change the context and somehow make out that VAR needs to be introduced because Sportscene complains about it.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding, and I feel intentional because they are trying to hyperbole their response.

My point wasn't to appease those who complain, but why have a 5 hour delay on the decision.

In that sense, it they failed to answer the question.

[Zamora Fan]

6 minutes ago, Ric said:

Great rebuttal, you really nailed all the reasons why that was "complete nonsense".

I couldn't be arsed, but @VincentGuerinhas basically done that below
 

9 minutes ago, Ric said:

 

That is word salad, and doesn't at all address the point I raised.

I presume you have never gotten over the introduction of the Spinning Jenny.

Q: "What should we go back to when all we had before VAR were 'Sportscene replays'?!"

A: Exactly what we had before VAR was introduced. Happy to help.

[AJF]

Just now, Ric said:

It absolutely failed to address the question because the poster decided to change the context and somehow make out that VAR needs to be introduced because Sportscene complains about it.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding, and I feel intentional because they are trying to hyperbole their response.

My point wasn't to appease those who complain, but why have a 5 hour delay on the decision.

In that sense, it they failed to answer the question.

There wasnt a 5 hour delay on the decisions though, because pre-VAR, the referee’s onfield decision was final and was not impacted by replays shown on TV hours later.

The match-going experience was far greater and they said they’d rather have that than what we have now. I agree. Football pre-VAR was much better, warts and all.

[Dons_1988]

9 minutes ago, Ric said:

If that is the argument you took from my post then it's clear you did not understand my point at all.

 

Your points were entirely old and tired arguments for VAR that have been rebutted many, many times. I’m sorry but I’m not making a considered response to:

- VAR is clearly fine 

- marginal improvement in decision accuracy can ONLY be a good thing and

- remember when sportscene showed replays.

 

[Ric]

2 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

A lot of this is stuff that has been addressed countless times.

1) The laws of the game were broadly fine. (1) Football's the most popular sport on the planet and we shouldn't be altering its laws to suit the use of technology that the sport doesn't need(2), and that only marginally increases the number of correct calls when the vast majority were correct pre-VAR.

(1) The laws of the game were broadly fine, pre VAR. Post VAR they are not.

(2) Where do you stop that argument? On one side technology cannot be uninvented, and on the other do you roll back everything? Let's stop subsitutions, or throw ins, after all they were not plat of the game to begin with, or are you prescribing the benchmark to be specifically in the timeline you live in?

(3) Somewhat self defeating argument really, VAR is not used for every call, and without doing a similar process as VAR you are unable to justify whether "the vast majority were correct". To do so, you would literally have to go through video evidence, presumably many hours/days/weeks after the event, whereas VAR can recall those incidents in real time.

 

 

[craigkillie]

17 minutes ago, Ric said:

After some time, I think the answer is clear. VAR is fine, the problem is we are still using the laws of the pre-VAR game, and that is a fundamental failure of those who set the rules.

The premise of this entire TLDR post is wrong. The laws of the game have been substantially changed in recent years to accommodate VAR, and in my opinion generally for the worse.

The handball rule has been completely overhauled, removing the very simple concept of "deliberate handball" with various interpretations of unnatural positions which now have to be updated on an annual basis to try to fix the ongoing mess they've made of that. They also brought in a daft rule about even accidental handballs not being allowed to lead to goals. All of this was a direct consequence of VAR being introduced.

The offside laws has been adapted to include additional bits of "clarity" about phases of play, and about what consistutes deliberately playing the ball and so on, specifically geared towards a situation where you can pore over every touch of the ball with a camera.

[Ric]

3 minutes ago, AJF said:

because pre-VAR, the referee’s onfield decision was final and was not impacted by replays shown on TV hours later.

That's just an argument for VAR. A decision taken at the time that live footage on the television shows was incorrect but we need to accept that the referee was entirely right, despite clearly being wrong?

[Ric]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

The premise of this entire TLDR post is wrong. The laws of the game have been substantially changed in recent years to accommodate VAR, and in my opinion generally for the worse.

They may have been changed but the changes do not reflect the specificity that VAR provides.

[craigkillie]

Just now, Ric said:

They may have been changed but the changes do not reflect the specificity that VAR provides.

I've just explained in my post exactly how they do. Perhaps because it wasn't 45 paragraphs long you don't recognise it as being a real post.

[Ric]

5 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Your points were entirely old and tired arguments for VAR that have been rebutted many, many times. I’m sorry but I’m not making a considered response to:

- VAR is clearly fine 

- marginal improvement in decision accuracy can ONLY be a good thing and

- remember when sportscene showed replays.

 

Ah, the mote and bailey tactic.