VAR in Scottish Football

[Busta Nut]

20 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

But it's also on the linesman's side of the pitch, and the ref's not far away. It should have been given as a foul in the first place. VAR is resulting in a lot of responsibility being passed on by the officials.

The whole thing is shite.

This.

I think Refs etc have taken their foot off a bit thinkin "if it's needing checked they'll tell me"

Shite as you said.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

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

ETA scrap that, the list pops up.

Minter for them.

Edited January 28 by Melanius Mullarkant

[Busta Nut]

7 minutes 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.

Minter for them.

Had never bothered with that option before. 

Lost a lot of respect for some posters there. Suspect a few are at it and noticed all the Old Firm posters who you know watch the fitba on the telly voted for it. nae surprise there.

[10menwent2mow]

I have to disagree with those saying that it was a clear foul by Miovski. I don't think any of the VAR angles showed that there was definitely contact between him and the Hearts boy but it now appears that VAR is operating on a 'balance of probabilities' rather than definitive evidence. Everything pointed to the fact that Miovski made contact, mainly from the way the Hearts boy went down. I just don't think the officials could 100% say it was a foul or that it was a 'clear and obvious error' to not give a free kick. 

 

I don't think VAR could have 100% said there was enough contact for Shankland to go down against Dundee either but again in that case it decided that there probably was. So it appears we are now making decisions on what probably happens rather than what definitely happens which is an even bigger shit show than before. 

Yet it didn't do that for Bojan's pen against St Mirren. 

Edited January 28 by 10menwent2mow

[houston_bud]

2 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

VAR is resulting in a lot of responsibility being passed on by the officials.

The whole thing is shite.

Definitely, it's even written in the officials' guidance to do that. The perfect example was the Alistair Johnston handball fiasco. Sima is clearly offside but the linesman can't flag. Then we end up with this absurd situation. 

No VAR means the linesman flags for that offside and everyone gets on with their lives.

[VincentGuerin]

7 minutes ago, 10menwent2mow said:

I have to disagree with those saying that it was a clear foul by Miovski. I don't think any of the VAR angles showed that there was definitely contact between him and the Hearts boy but it now appears that VAR is operating on a 'balance of probabilities' rather than definitive evidence. Everything pointed to the fact that Miovski made contact, mainly from the way the Hearts boy went down. I just don't think the officials could 100% say it was a foul or that it was a 'clear and obvious error' to not give a free kick. 

 

I don't think VAR could have 100% said there was enough contact for Shankland to go down against Dundee either but again in that case it decided that there probably was. So it appears we are now making decisions on what probably happens rather than what definitely happens which is an even bigger shit show than before. 

Yet it didn't do that for Bojan's pen against St Mirren. 

Come on, now. Let's not be silly.

Short of sniper in the stand, there is no reason for Beni to go down. He's moving towards blocking the pass.

If Miovski had been running into the box and Beni had accidentally clipped him in the same way, you'd be on here (correctly) arguing it was an obvious penalty.

I understand you're frustrated. But it was a foul.

[craigkillie]

1 minute ago, houston_bud said:

Definitely, it's even written in the officials' guidance to do that. The perfect example was the Alistair Johnston handball fiasco. Sima is clearly offside but the linesman can't flag. Then we end up with this absurd situation. 

No VAR means the linesman flags for that offside and everyone gets on with their lives.

The guidance is for the assistant to delay the flag, but once the dangerous attack has passed they are still supposed to raise it to make a decision. The assistant in that game obviously didn't think it was offside or the flag would have gone up once it went out for the goal-kick.

[Dons_1988]

Whether that game is being replayed or not due to a VAR error isn’t really that relevant. 

The precedent that a refereeing decision, in amongst the thousands of incidents that happen in a football game, has been the determining factor in the outcome is such a dangerous message to send. 

It is why VAR was implemented and why it’ll get worse. 

[VincentGuerin]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

Whether that game is being replayed or not due to a VAR error isn’t really that relevant. 

The precedent that a refereeing decision, in amongst the thousands of incidents that happen in a football game, has been the determining factor in the outcome is such a dangerous message to send. 

It is why VAR was implemented and why it’ll get worse. 

Belgium's P&B is going to be awash with fans of any club wronged by an official demanding a replay. And I'm sure some coaches etc.

And why the f**k not? If you can get a replay after you've got beat, people will push for it.

Fucking stupid.

[10menwent2mow]

Just now, VincentGuerin said:

Come on, now. Let's not be silly.

Short of sniper in the stand, there is no reason for Beni to go down. He's moving towards blocking the pass.

If Miovski had been running into the box and Beni had accidentally clipped him in the same way, you'd be on here (correctly) arguing it was an obvious penalty.

I understand you're frustrated. But it was a foul.

I 100% agree with what you are saying. There's no reason for him to go down and I 100% agree that there has almost certainly been an accidental clip of the heels. It's the accidental part that is the most frustrating though. Are we starting to say that every time you accidentally impede an opponent it's a foul??

[craigkillie]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

The precedent that a refereeing decision, in amongst the thousands of incidents that happen in a football game, has been the determining factor in the outcome is such a dangerous message to send.

It's not a precedent though, because these things have happened before. This isn't a case of a referee getting an opinion-based decision wrong like not giving a penalty or missing an offside or something like that, it's about a fact-based decision being made incorrectly because of a misapplication of the rules. It's a bit like the ref giving someone a yellow card and then asking them to go off the pitch, or letting a team play for 25 minutes with 12 men.

I don't think games should be replayed under the specific circumstances outlined in this Belgian game, but I think there is a lot more too it than it just being a standard wrong decision.

[VincentGuerin]

2 minutes ago, 10menwent2mow said:

I 100% agree with what you are saying. There's no reason for him to go down and I 100% agree that there has almost certainly been an accidental clip of the heels. It's the accidental part that is the most frustrating though. Are we starting to say that every time you accidentally impede an opponent it's a foul??

Yes. It is.

[Dons_1988]

Just now, craigkillie said:

It's not a precedent though, because these things have happened before. This isn't a case of a referee getting an opinion-based decision wrong like not giving a penalty or missing an offside or something like that, it's about a fact-based decision being made incorrectly because of a misapplication of the rules. It's a bit like the ref giving someone a yellow card and then asking them to go off the pitch, or letting a team play for 25 minutes with 12 men.

I don't think games should be replayed under the specific circumstances outlined in this Belgian game, but I think there is a lot more too it than it just being a standard wrong decision.

A precedent doesn’t have to be the first incident to be considered as such.  There are now precedents plural to games being replayed over a refereeing decision. 

You may be right about the nature of it, but you tell me that jurgen klopp and Liverpool isn’t seeing this decision and applying pressure to the premier league over their disallowed goal where the VAR refs agreed it as onside but it was given as off. Or whatever happened. 

These things still matter and will be used by clubs seeking to throw their weight about. 

[10menwent2mow]

Just now, VincentGuerin said:

Yes. It is.

So why are free kicks rarely given for an accidental clash of heads?

[VincentGuerin]

4 minutes ago, 10menwent2mow said:

So why are free kicks rarely given for an accidental clash of heads?

Sometimes they are given, and I'd argue they should be given more often. But I think refs generally find them hard to call. Sometimes it's just a collision and you can't tell who initiated it, or often both did.

As for accidentally tripping an opponent; that is a foul and has been as long as I've been watching the game. Relatively few fouls are actually deliberate.

Miovski tripped Beni, impeding him in attempting to close down an opponent. It's a foul. Tripping is a foul.

Again, I understand fans being frustrated, especially as you went on to lose. But it's a non-controversial free-kick award. In the VAR era there's no way it could not have been given.

Edited January 28 by VincentGuerin

[10menwent2mow]

2 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Sometimes it's just a collision and you can't tell who initiated it, 

Hmmmmmm, interesting. 

[VincentGuerin]

2 minutes ago, 10menwent2mow said:

Hmmmmmm, interesting. 

We really don't need to discuss this further.

https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2023-24?l=en

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:
• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

You'll note that the laws of the game have no requirement for tripping to be deliberate to be a foul.

There's really mothing to debate here. It's an open and shut case.

Edited January 28 by VincentGuerin

[Ric]

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.

[Zamora Fan]

19 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Come on, now. Let's not be silly.

Short of sniper in the stand, there is no reason for Beni to go down. He's moving towards blocking the pass.

If Miovski had been running into the box and Beni had accidentally clipped him in the same way, you'd be on here (correctly) arguing it was an obvious penalty.

I understand you're frustrated. But it was a foul.

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. 

 

[AJF]

Aye, accidental or not, Miovski’s trip is a foul. I think the only instance of a potential offence not being punished is for accidental handball as the law states it needs to be deliberate (or deliberately making your body bigger) for it to be an offence.