VAR in Scottish Football

[Dons_1988]

8 minutes ago, AJF said:

Wrong

People are complaining about a new technology being used because it has set the game back. We are living through it and believe it has made the sport worse.

It has nothing to do with resistance to change or not being progressing thinkers.

My post office point was clearly facetious but it wasn’t totally without substance. That story is an extreme example of what happens when technology is defended to the hilt to protect an investment, of which there will have been huge time, resources and money spent on. Therefore, we all just need to adapt around it because it was expensive. 

In reality, a technology that isn’t fit for purpose should be withdrawn until they can come up with something that actually achieves what it set out to do. 

If the stated aim was merely to improve a % accuracy regardless on the impact on the sport, the spectator or whatever else then I suppose it’s achieved it. But if it was the stated aim it should never have made it past the conceptual phase of planning. 

[Busta Nut]

1 hour ago, 10menwent2mow said:

Are we starting to say that every time you accidentally impede an opponent it's a foul??

 

1 hour ago, VincentGuerin said:

Yes. It is.

I fail to understand why there are thoughts it wouldn't be a foul, when an opponent is impeded.  

[MrWorldwideJr]

32 minutes ago, Ric said:

You are rifling through the logical fallacies today aren't you big chap?

 

I think if one of my arguments for not getting rid of VAR was 'where does it stop, do we get rid of substitutions or thrown ins next?' I would steer clear of accusing anyone else of using logical fallacies.

[10menwent2mow]

1 minute ago, Busta Nut said:

 

I fail to understand why there are thoughts it wouldn't be a foul, when an opponent is impeded.  

Because believe it or not. Opponents can be impeded accidentally. Yet there are occasions when an opponent is impeded deliberately (shielding the ball) yet its not considered a foul. 

[Ric]

2 minutes ago, MrWorldwideJr said:

I think if one of my arguments for not getting rid of VAR was 'where does it stop, do we get rid of substitutions or thrown ins next?' I would steer clear of accusing anyone else of using logical fallacies.

Someone was using a logical fallacy, albeit they admitted as such a few posts later so no harm, no foul, that's why I mentioned it.

Asking people how many changes they would roll back when discussing rolling back the most recent change seems entirely within context and in no way qualifies as a fallacy.

 

[johnnydun]

VAR was introduced to end all controversy on decisions.

However imo, it has created more. 

For instance, the first Penalty in the Livingston v Dundee game (was the soft nudge inside or outside of the box), before VAR that would've stayed a free kick and nobody would've spoken about it again. But because of VAR, it's still getting debated. You could say this with countless other VAR interventions.

I agree it helps with offsides, where it's a black and white decision. 

But I just think we should let referees try and do their job without so much intervention. Ok, it was never perfect, but it was a lot better (and cheaper) than this current mess.

 

[Ric]

Just now, johnnydun said:

VAR was introduced to end all controversy on decisions.

However imo, it has created more.

I am going to finish here, I am sure some people would just love to read my comments...

I just wanted to highlight Johnny's post, as I think it is 100% correct.

For me VAR is a natural step, one that has been taken all across different sports, but has been handled so badly that it's understandable there is so much backlash.

 

Hopefully this last post shows I am not some evangelist, dismissing valid concerns, and with that I think I'm out..

 

[AJF]

24 minutes ago, Ric said:

I'm happy to discuss it, everyone knows my viewpoint by now anyway.

I fully accept that VAR has issues my point is that those could be fixed, and the result would be much less disruption but an increased level of accuracy (and to a non-OF supporter, consistency must come into that).

 

You are contradicting yourself with that answer.

...my point is "wrong" to suggest that people are against something because they think it "ruins the game".

yet...

...but your point is  "right" because people are complaining something was introduced as they think it "ruins the game".

When you say, "we are living through this", all I see is a massive red flag for observer bias. Do you think when substitutes were first included in the game, that those "living throught it" at the time didn't feel as connected to the issue as some here do with VAR? I would wager they were.

It’s not a contradiction. You said the following:

Quote

people complain about a new technology being used, it is because they got used to a time when that technology was not present.

 

You are suggesting that people moaning about VAR are doing so just because it’s something new and we are not used to it. I’m stating that this is wrong.

Certainly for me, anyway, my complaints are because I have experienced it long enough to form an opinion that I think it has made the game worse. Any issues with the application of VAR are likely to remain and won’t be fixed IMO.

Your examples regarding substitutes seems a false equivalence because nobody is arguing against VAR just because it is new. It’s being complained about because we have experienced it and don’t like it.

Edited January 28 by AJF

[HibsFan]

3 hours ago, Ric said:

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

Here's what I did when I saw slow motion replays on Sportscene that carried absolutely zero impact on whether I could celebrate a goal or not:

[Derry Alli]

6 hours ago, Melanius Mullarkant said:

Who are the 33.71% who voted yes for this shit show? Name names.

ETA scrap that, the list pops up.

Should see a week on the sidelines, IMO.

[VincentGuerin]

2 hours ago, 10menwent2mow said:

Because believe it or not. Opponents can be impeded accidentally. Yet there are occasions when an opponent is impeded deliberately (shielding the ball) yet its not considered a foul. 

Shielding the ball is allowed. Tripping is not.

I mean, I've literally pasted the laws of the game for you.

[strichener]

4 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

Shielding the ball is allowed. Tripping is not.

Only if you are within playing distance and not held off by body or arms.  It annoys the f**k out of me when you see players shielding the ball out for a goal kick about 2m away from the ball.

[LIVIFOREVER]

Quote

Davie Martindale has revealed that Livingston will submit an official complaint to the Scottish FA over VAR after claiming the officials got two major decisions wrong in Saturday’s defeat to Dundee

The Lions boss is adamant that Lions defender James Penrice was shoved by Michael Mellon in the build up to Zach Robinson restoring the Dark Blues’ two goal lead in the visitor’s 4-1 win. And he also claims that Mellon had encroached in Livingston’s half as the game restarted just moments after Tete Yengi got Livingston back into the clash from the penalty spot.

You see the push as clear as day in the video.

P

Pretty clear encroachment before the ball is kicked to restart the game. VAR is meant to check everything leading up to a goal in the immediate phase of play. How did they miss this?

[Ginaro]

5 hours ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Pretty clear encroachment before the ball is kicked to restart the game. VAR is meant to check everything leading up to a goal in the immediate phase of play. How did they miss this?

VAR does not intervene to ensure the correct procedure is followed at restarts (makes sense as after all, once play has restarted VAR cannot get involved). And if you are doing it for kick-offs then it also needs to be done for free kicks, throw-ins and corners leading to a goal/penalty/red card.

[LIVIFOREVER]

2 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

VAR does not intervene to ensure the correct procedure is followed at restarts (makes sense as after all, once play has restarted VAR cannot get involved). And if you are doing it for kick-offs then it also needs to be done for free kicks, throw-ins and corners leading to a goal/penalty/red card.

Is it not similar to a penalty kick when players are over the line before the kick is taken? It's in the phase of play leading to the goal and not hard to check back, was a straight kick up to Mellon who had a head start being in our half before the restart.

[Ginaro]

1 minute ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Is it not similar to a penalty kick when players are over the line before the kick is taken? It's in the phase of play leading to the goal and not hard to check back, was a straight kick up to Mellon who had a head start being in our half before the restart.

It's similar but not the same, penalties are a special case as there is a specific table of offences and sanctions and it's basically the same as VAR getting involved for goal/penalty decisions.

Also, if you watch the kick off again the Dundee player stops running and then sprints again, so not that much of an advantage. The push, well there's obviously contact, there question is how much versus the Livi player already being off balance - if the ref said the VAR that they'd seen it but didn't think it was enough for a foul I'm not sure the VAR can call it a clear and obvious error.

[MarkoP]

VAR can do one and anyone discussing it should get a ten year PnB ban and their Sky box taken off them.

Simple

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

VAR is still shite

[Loonytoons]

8 hours ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Pretty clear encroachment before the ball is kicked to restart the game. VAR is meant to check everything leading up to a goal in the immediate phase of play. How did they miss this?

Fairly sure the rule is to do with contact with the ground in encroachment which will almost always be the foot. 

On that basis, in the image above all the players chasing forward are still in their own half.

[Ginaro]

20 minutes ago, Loonytoons said:

Fairly sure the rule is to do with contact with the ground in encroachment which will almost always be the foot. 

On that basis, in the image above all the players chasing forward are still in their own half.

I considered that until I realised it was for the Dundee player at the top...