VAR in Scottish Football

[The Master]

1 minute ago, houston_bud said:

I think this is something that needs looked at.

Take the second goal St Mirren had chalked off of Sunday, whilst it looked the correct decision I wonder whether it gives the defending team too big an advantage.

Twice Aberdeen players clear the ball, not deflections but clearances. In both incidents, St Mirren players pick up the loose ball before a shot comes in and Kiltie taps in the rebound. Play had gone on for a fair bit of time from the original offside, which was a marginal one about 30 seconds or so before the goal.

I appreciate it being against my team I will be biased, but there must be other examples of this and - as I said - I feel it gives the defending team too big an advantage.

This is the guidance for when VAR should check for offside in England:

Quote

The starting point for a phase of play that leads to a goal or penalty incident will be limited to the immediate phase and not necessarily go back to when the attacking team gained possession.

Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack.

So in the situation you describe, it will be a question of whether the Aberdeen defence had time to "reset" before the next ball came forward. 

In more general terms - is the offside player still having a residual impact on the defence (e.g., they drew a defender who hasn't had a chance to get back into position before the next ball)?

[coprolite]

8 minutes ago, The Master said:

VAR will only go back to the start of the "immediate phase". 

Spfl

How far back can VAR go to check a decision?

As a guide, VAR will normally only go back as far as the start of the last ‘attacking phase of play” (APP). So, if a team is on the attack and the VAR says that the APP has started, if a goal is scored and there’s an obvious foul by the attacking side in the APP, the VAR will look at that as part of automatically checking the goal. Conversely, if the attacking phase comes to an end (e.g. the attacking team loses possession or the ball goes out of play), the VAR would no longer need to check that foul. The only incidents when VAR can go back to a previous phase of play is for incidents of violent conduct, spitting or mistaken identity.

Ifab:

For decisions/incidents relating to goals, penalty/no penalty and red cards for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO), it may be necessary to review the attacking phase of play which led directly to the decision/incident; this may include how the attacking team gained possession of the ball in open play

 

But how long is a phase? 

[The Master]

Just now, coprolite said:

Spfl

How far back can VAR go to check a decision?

As a guide, VAR will normally only go back as far as the start of the last ‘attacking phase of play” (APP). So, if a team is on the attack and the VAR says that the APP has started, if a goal is scored and there’s an obvious foul by the attacking side in the APP, the VAR will look at that as part of automatically checking the goal. Conversely, if the attacking phase comes to an end (e.g. the attacking team loses possession or the ball goes out of play), the VAR would no longer need to check that foul. The only incidents when VAR can go back to a previous phase of play is for incidents of violent conduct, spitting or mistaken identity.

Ifab:

For decisions/incidents relating to goals, penalty/no penalty and red cards for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO), it may be necessary to review the attacking phase of play which led directly to the decision/incident; this may include how the attacking team gained possession of the ball in open play

 

But how long is a phase? 

I'm probably in a minority, but I usually think it's pretty easy to tell when a phase starts and ends.

When the momentum falls out of an attack and the team start to build again, a new phase begins. 

[coprolite]

3 minutes ago, The Master said:

I'm probably in a minority, but I usually think it's pretty easy to tell when a phase starts and ends.

When the momentum falls out of an attack and the team start to build again, a new phase begins. 

I agree it can be obvious, but it's not been obvious enough in slightly less clear circumstances to stop St Mirren fans crying, for days. 

[houston_bud]

6 minutes ago, The Master said:

This is the guidance for when VAR should check for offside in England:

So in the situation you describe, it will be a question of whether the Aberdeen defence had time to "reset" before the next ball came forward. 

In more general terms - is the offside player still having a residual impact on the defence (e.g., they drew a defender who hasn't had a chance to get back into position before the next ball)?

That makes sense and I think the word 'reset' is a good one here. I think in almost all of these cases though, the offside will be so marginal (as the assistant will spot obvious ones) that defenders will get back into position before the next ball.

With Kiltie's goal I would question whether the offside player (Olusanya) was having an impact on a player who hadn't got back in position. The offside was so marginal (we're talking a shoulder) Olusanya was then tracked back and took no further part in the attack. Had he ran in and scored, or directly assisted a goal, fair enough give the offside but there was a lot more play and two clearances.

[houston_bud]

7 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I agree it can be obvious, but it's not been obvious enough in slightly less clear circumstances to stop St Mirren fans crying, for days. 

In my defence I'm not questioning the decision, just stating I think the rule, as it stands, gives the defending team too much of an advantage.

[Busta Nut]

"Phase" has holes all over it.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

1 hour ago, Bobby_F said:

I think it stood because it had no impact on the goal.  

You could argue though that he went for it, so offside.  

And that’s exactly what would happen for the OF in Scotland.  

The OF will benefit from any  ‘grey areas’ and I’m sure the ‘clear and obvious’ threshold will be different for them.  

In Scotland anyway.  

Probably true, but not uniquely so. Huge complaints still about conscious or unconscious bias towards big teams in England. Probably elsewhere too. VAR does not eliminate it, as I'm sure you agree. 

[Bobby_F]

2 hours ago, coprolite said:

Attacking phase. 

Can go back as far as the opposition losing the ball. An attacking phase ends when the defending team gets possession or the ball goes out of play. I don't think ricochets off defenders count as them taking possession. 

 

No obviously it doesn’t.  Which is why the first goal against Aberdeen was chopped off.

What about a defender clearing the ball 30 yards up the pitch?

[Bobby_F]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

I agree it can be obvious, but it's not been obvious enough in slightly less clear circumstances to stop St Mirren fans crying, for days. 

I think given the text quoted here it’s clear that Saints second goal should not have been chalked off.  

Aberdeen cleared the ball twice, and Olusanya not involved, nor was a player defending him having an impact.  

My original question was whether offside had a different threshold for how far back you go. If it doesn’t, then the goal should have stood.  

[coprolite]

Just now, Bobby_F said:

I think given the text quoted here it’s clear that Saints second goal should not have been chalked off.  

Aberdeen cleared the ball twice, and Olusanya not involved, nor was a player defending him having an impact.  

My original question was whether offside had a different threshold for how far back you go. If it doesn’t, then the goal should have stood.  

It would appear that the subjective wording of the VAR protocol is open to interpretation and the referee's interpretation differs from yours, resulting in almost five days of non stop tears. 

[velo army]

On 28/08/2023 at 19:46, Captain_Sensible said:

The thing I hate about VAR is that you are now almost afraid to celebrate a goal……

This is my main objection to it and I railed against it at the start of this thread on those grounds.

Spontaneous eruption of joy is why we follow the game. I do think there is a wider sociological issue where there is a bias towards rectitude and exactitude which robs us of spontaneity and joy. A societal trauma response is what it feels like.

It's the same response that sees football reduced to nonsense statistics which give the illusion of control through prediction. That's another thread though (neckbeard VL XG thread).

Following on from more recent posts though, the rules that have come from VAR have made things needlessly complex too. When a phase of play starts and ends might be clear on retrospect, but when you're watching it and being absorbed in the play you're not following what phase of play you're in. Football is becoming less of a bottom-up instinctual experience and VAR is the main symptom of this. 

In sum it's the worst thing to happen to football in my lifetime. 

[DA Baracus]

VAR is a very 'sledgehammer/nut' issue.

[Ginaro]

Looks to me that St Mirren goal was correctly ruled out, the attacker commits an offside offence however the attacking phase of play doesn't reset before it ends up in the net despite three Aberdeen touches.

First clearance goes out to another attacker who keeps up the attack, cross comes in and second clearance goes straight to a St Mirren player who takes a first time shot, which then is saved but goes directly to the goalscorer. These clearances are not a clear change of possession (see tweet image with the more detailed VAR protocol that was available previously).

The VARs have a green button where they can mark incidents or the start of the APP which I suppose helps in these situations to work out how far back they have to go.

 

[houston_bud]

8 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Looks to me that St Mirren goal was correctly ruled out, the attacker commits an offside offence however the attacking phase of play doesn't reset before it ends up in the net despite three Aberdeen touches.

First clearance goes out to another attacker who keeps up the attack, cross comes in and second clearance goes straight to a St Mirren player who takes a first time shot, which then is saved but goes directly to the goalscorer. These clearances are not a clear change of possession (see tweet image with the more detailed VAR protocol that was available previously).

The VARs have a green button where they can mark incidents or the start of the APP which I suppose helps in these situations to work out how far back they have to go.

 

Which is fine, and Sundays incident falls into this category, but what if the attacking team's players are quicker/more alert and get to the cleared ball before the defending team? So, the defending team could clear the ball multiple times but if it doesn't reach one of their team mates - due to the opposition being quicker or better - any subsequent goal could be given offside?

Edited August 31, 2023 by houston_bud

[Bobby_F]

5 hours ago, coprolite said:

It would appear that the subjective wording of the VAR protocol is open to interpretation and the referee's interpretation differs from yours, resulting in almost five days of non stop tears. 

Leaving the tiresome ‘tears’ patter aside you’re correct about interpretation.  

Which is why we’ll continue to have such problems.  

[Ginaro]

2 hours ago, houston_bud said:

Which is fine, and Sundays incident falls into this category, but what if the attacking team's players are quicker/more alert and get to the cleared ball before the defending team? So, the defending team could clear the ball multiple times but if it doesn't reach one of their team mates - due to the opposition being quicker or better - any subsequent goal could be given offside?

I think a clearance to say the halfway line is not going to be classed as the same attacking phase, as the attack would basically be starting again from the back having to beat some defenders again, or maybe pass back/sideways. At least that clearance would've reached/gone over the heads of some team mates rather than straight to an attacker in the St Mirren example.

[DA Baracus]

Ridiculous argument. Not the fault of the folk discussing it; it's ridiculous because there shouldn't be such a debate, but VAR has made such nitpicking bullshit a thing.

 

Just get VAR to f**k. Sadly I know that won't be happening though.

[ropy]

For Kilmarnock’s goal/penalty yesterday it would have been interesting if a VAR review resulted in no penalty.

[Paxo]

3 minutes ago, ropy said:

For Kilmarnock’s goal/penalty yesterday it would have been interesting if a VAR review resulted in no penalty.

I think Clancy would have been lynched.