VAR in Scottish Football

[Zamora Fan]

I see Liam Gordon's red card which was overturned on appeal isn't among their list of "incorrect calls" either. 

Just a complete farce.

[Dons_1988]

It’s quite amusing that they will use this report as vindication for the use of VAR. 

as @craigkillie is pointing out, it just highlights the absurdity of the whole thing. 

[Jamie_B]

42 minutes ago, Zamora Fan said:

I see Liam Gordon's red card which was overturned on appeal isn't among their list of "incorrect calls" either. 

Just a complete farce.

It's the inverse of the Dundee one that wasn't overturned and just shows the futility of the whole system.

[SJFCtheTeamForMe]

Somehow it doesn't shock me one bit that they're not being transparent and are attempting to use the numbers as some kind of pro VAR propaganda. 

I'm sure there was massive pressure from the likes of FIFA and or UEFA to bring VAR in so it was always going to happen and won't be going anywhere either. If the SPFL refused to bring it in it would have just been made mandatory anyway. 

The worst bit for me is  we kept being fed "It's just teething problems" when mistakes were made when it was introduced. It wasn't teething problems, it's just those in charge of it are not up to the standard and are far too influenced by the simple fact of having to go to the monitor. Once they go to the monitor they're given a slow mo or still frame that vindicates the VAR's decision so the ref goes with that. 

Now they can't use the excuse of teething problems we've got them telling us "no no those decisions weren't errors". Is the term for that not "gaslighting". 

While I want it gone, it won't happen. As it continues they could improve it but they're not. They're just bashing on as is telling us there's no issue with it. It's as poorly implemented as it was from day 1. Multiple instances of games I've been at recently where there's been 2 mins ISH stoppages for each goal that was scored. One game was still playing at near 5 o'clock.

In my opinion it could be improved by stopping the slow mo still frames and watch it live speed and use the fact that the VAR can provide a different angle etc the referee didn't see it from. Instead we've just got every incident re-refereed by someone watching it via VAR looking for a reason to disallow a goal for something. 

If it requires a slow mo still frame there's probably a strong arguement for that not being a clear and obvious error. That's just re refereeing the game. 

Edited November 24, 2023 by SJFCtheTeamForMe

[ropy]

VAR hates Dundee 

[craigkillie]

56 minutes ago, SJFCtheTeamForMe said:

Somehow it doesn't shock me one bit that they're not being transparent and are attempting to use the numbers as some kind of pro VAR propaganda.

I don't know who released this or how, but surely this is being transparent?

[SJFCtheTeamForMe]

46 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I don't know who released this or how, but surely this is being transparent?

Not if it doesn't make sense or there's incidents just missed from the list of errors.

Liam Gordon one a prime example. Yellow by ref. Red after VAR. Reduced to yellow when appealled. 

If that's not an error they need to explain why it's not, not just pretend it didn't happen. 

[Wilbur]

Presumably Miovski will be punished retrospectively for conning the referee.

Minimum 3 match ban would be appropriate. 

Surely ???? .......

Oh, I see ....

 

[Steve McQueen]

27 minutes ago, SJFCtheTeamForMe said:

Not if it doesn't make sense or there's incidents just missed from the list of errors.

Liam Gordon one a prime example. Yellow by ref. Red after VAR. Reduced to yellow when appealled. 

If that's not an error they need to explain why it's not, not just pretend it didn't happen. 

Wasn't even a foul by the ref TBF they could say the ref missed it.

[Dons_1988]

52 minutes ago, SJFCtheTeamForMe said:

Not if it doesn't make sense or there's incidents just missed from the list of errors.

Liam Gordon one a prime example. Yellow by ref. Red after VAR. Reduced to yellow when appealled. 

If that's not an error they need to explain why it's not, not just pretend it didn't happen. 

I suspect the review is not for whether or not the call was ‘correct’ but that the right VAR process was followed and presumably the interaction between ref and VAR was acceptable and meets the threshold for appropriate action taken. 

Very different from stating the calls were correct or incorrect so it’s basically a technicality point as opposed to anything else. It’s being reported in a slightly mischievous way to get people worked up. 

[Alert Mongoose]

3 hours ago, ropy said:

VAR hates Dundee 

Finally, someone has something positive to say about it.

[hk blues]

15 hours ago, Zamora Fan said:

I see Liam Gordon's red card which was overturned on appeal isn't among their list of "incorrect calls" either. 

Just a complete farce.

They didn't review all decisions and haven't confirmed how many, and which, decisions they looked at other than the 3 said to be 'wrong.'  If they're not looking at all what's the point?  

[craigkillie]

17 hours ago, SJFCtheTeamForMe said:

Not if it doesn't make sense or there's incidents just missed from the list of errors.

Liam Gordon one a prime example. Yellow by ref. Red after VAR. Reduced to yellow when appealled. 

If that's not an error they need to explain why it's not, not just pretend it didn't happen. 

The independent review panel didn't think it was an error. A different panel (the appeal panel) thought it was an error. It's a subjective decision, that's what will happen with those. I don't see why the opinion of one group of people would be more important or more correct than another.

[VincentGuerin]

45 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The independent review panel didn't think it was an error. A different panel (the appeal panel) thought it was an error. It's a subjective decision, that's what will happen with those. I don't see why the opinion of one group of people would be more important or more correct than another.

I think one of the issues is that a lot of people still haven't grasped how much of what happens on a pitch is subjective and can reasonably be argued both ways.

A lot of people were sold on the idea that VAR would deliver absolute truth, and can't get their heads round the idea this doesn't exist.

A classic example of this would be the Michael Smith non-penalty for Celtic at Tynecastle last year. You can reasonably argue it's a penalty, and you can reasonably argue it's not. Ultimately someone just makes a call, and in either sense I think VAR would back the original decision up.

It will simply never work. It's a waste of time.

[SJFCtheTeamForMe]

2 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

I think one of the issues is that a lot of people still haven't grasped how much of what happens on a pitch is subjective and can reasonably be argued both ways.

A lot of people were sold on the idea that VAR would deliver absolute truth, and can't get their heads round the idea this doesn't exist.

A classic example of this would be the Michael Smith non-penalty for Celtic at Tynecastle last year. You can reasonably argue it's a penalty, and you can reasonably argue it's not. Ultimately someone just makes a call, and in either sense I think VAR would back the original decision up.

It will simply never work. It's a waste of time.

That's also in part why the slow mo or freeze frames shouldn't be a thing. 

If it's a borderline decision already but the referee live thought no using a single freeze frame or slow mo as evidence is using the subjective information in a manner to influence the referee into "VAR officials are definitely correct" but theres not the same weight given to subjective information that suggests otherwise. For example how close the man is or how fast the ball was moving. 

Single still frame "it his his hand away from his body in an unnatural position". 

Pen to Rangers. 

[Arch Stanton]

No again...

The offside lines show that Greive was offside yet he played no part in the build up to the goal.

[Busta Nut]

Greg Taylor should have seen red today. 

[willywastecoat]

21 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

I think one of the issues is that a lot of people still haven't grasped how much of what happens on a pitch is subjective and can reasonably be argued both ways.

A lot of people were sold on the idea that VAR would deliver absolute truth, and can't get their heads round the idea this doesn't exist.

A classic example of this would be the Michael Smith non-penalty for Celtic at Tynecastle last year. You can reasonably argue it's a penalty, and you can reasonably argue it's not. Ultimately someone just makes a call, and in either sense I think VAR would back the original decision up.

It will simply never work. It's a waste of time.

29 times the refs had to go to check their clear and obvious error, is that something the refs should focus on?
Subjectively getting your mates to help, in general the off side part is good but looking for something to get a goal disallowed (eg McTominay in Spain) is bad.

[willywastecoat]

On 24/11/2023 at 12:07, craigkillie said:

This is the whole issue with trying to re-referee clearly subjective decisions.

It's no longer subjective it becomes objective based on decisions from previous games.

[well again]

8 hours ago, Busta Nut said:

Greg Taylor should have seen red today. 

Those bloody masonic referees, always conspiring against ra celic. So they Ur..