VAR in Scottish Football

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, kingjoey said:

There is no known instance where a referee has been asked to, or has requested to, have a look at a pitchside monitor to rule on offside. That is never going to happen.

I'd be amazed if it hasn't happened - maybe not for whether or not a player is in an offside position, but I could imagine them wanting to see a decision where it's based on whether a player is interfering in some way or other.

[parsforlife]

There’s a weird anti-var element that just seem raging that players are being called up for being offside.   There are arguments over of the measure is accurate enough, if decisions are made fast enough etc,  but being annoyed that an offside player has their goal chocked off cos it was just by a little bit if fucking mental.  If that pisses you off as a striker time your runs better.  There is absolutely zero need to give attackers benefit, you are confusing a pre-var instruction to refs when the situation wasn’t as clear to the current situation where much more accurate data is available(if not perfect)

[Busta Nut]

2 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

There’s a weird anti-var element that just seem raging that players are being called up for being offside.   There are arguments over of the measure is accurate enough, if decisions are made fast enough etc,  but being annoyed that an offside player has their goal chocked off cos it was just by a little bit if fucking mental.  If that pisses you off as a striker time your runs better.  There is absolutely zero need to give attackers benefit, you are confusing a pre-var instruction to refs when the situation wasn’t as clear to the current situation where much more accurate data is available(if not perfect)

You won't need to worry about it. That's maybe why you seem so relaxed.

[HibsFan]

23 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

There’s a weird anti-var element that just seem raging that players are being called up for being offside.   There are arguments over of the measure is accurate enough, if decisions are made fast enough etc,  but being annoyed that an offside player has their goal chocked off cos it was just by a little bit if fucking mental.  If that pisses you off as a striker time your runs better.  There is absolutely zero need to give attackers benefit, you are confusing a pre-var instruction to refs when the situation wasn’t as clear to the current situation where much more accurate data is available(if not perfect)

Offside was invented to stop fat goalhangers scoring fifty a season not to be scientifically scrutinised to death. If a player isn't at least a yard offside I genuinely do not care.

[kingjoey]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

I'd be amazed if it hasn't happened - maybe not for whether or not a player is in an offside position, but I could imagine them wanting to see a decision where it's based on whether a player is interfering in some way or other.

Prepare to be amazed.

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

1 hour ago, parsforlife said:

There’s a weird anti-var element that just seem raging that players are being called up for being offside.   There are arguments over of the measure is accurate enough, if decisions are made fast enough etc,  but being annoyed that an offside player has their goal chocked off cos it was just by a little bit if fucking mental.  If that pisses you off as a striker time your runs better.  There is absolutely zero need to give attackers benefit, you are confusing a pre-var instruction to refs when the situation wasn’t as clear to the current situation where much more accurate data is available(if not perfect)

A player running at about 9m p/s (fast, but certainly not impossible) would with a 50 fps camera have a potential movement of 18 cm per frame.  There's also the very real issue of when exactly a ball has been struck, at much faster speeds generally.

That's a significant potential error when they're drawing lines analysing whether a toe is over it.

Don't use it is my first choice, cause enjoying the football is more important than decisions being perfect, but if you're going to use it then a significant margin of error needs introduced, similar to umpire's call in Cricket

Edited August 22, 2022 by Insert Amusing Pseudonym

[craigkillie]

32 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

Prepare to be amazed.

 

At a very rough estimate, there must have been close to 100,000 football matches officiated by VAR since it was introduced - are you suggesting that you have enough knowledge of every single one of them to be confident that no referee has ever consulted their screen to check an opinion-based offside call?

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

1 hour ago, parsforlife said:

There’s a weird anti-var element that just seem raging that players are being called up for being offside.   There are arguments over of the measure is accurate enough, if decisions are made fast enough etc,  but being annoyed that an offside player has their goal chocked off cos it was just by a little bit if fucking mental.  If that pisses you off as a striker time your runs better.  There is absolutely zero need to give attackers benefit, you are confusing a pre-var instruction to refs when the situation wasn’t as clear to the current situation where much more accurate data is available(if not perfect)

 I get pissed off with the marginal offside calls. Especially measuring with lines and pish.

It should be much more lax. Because the whole point of offside was to prevent goal hanging and the game would be far better if they took amore liberal approach.

Offside traps are a load of shite and every measure IFAB takes outside of VAR is to eliminate them.

Even with extra camera that come in with VAR the angles are not going to be great at a lot of grounds. And even if you can sync up frames the cameras might not be able to see the body of one player through another. For tight calls i would rather they stick with the decision on the field. Kind of like how LBW review works in cricket.

[VincentGuerin]

2 hours ago, parsforlife said:

There’s a weird anti-var element that just seem raging that players are being called up for being offside.   There are arguments over of the measure is accurate enough, if decisions are made fast enough etc,  but being annoyed that an offside player has their goal chocked off cos it was just by a little bit if fucking mental.  If that pisses you off as a striker time your runs better.  There is absolutely zero need to give attackers benefit, you are confusing a pre-var instruction to refs when the situation wasn’t as clear to the current situation where much more accurate data is available(if not perfect)

Offside is probably the most important single rule in football (apart from handball). Offside makes the game work in the way that it does and makes football watchable. It's central to the game and everything is built around it.

But it was never designed to be analysed to within an inch of its life by people who fundamentally do not understand the purpose of the rule. It has been modified over the years to improve the game, from no offside in your own half (thanks to the English national team of 1906 for that one, look it up!), to the change from three to two defenders in an attempt to increase the number of goals, to the change again after Italia 90 to make level onside, again encouraging attacking and having huge tactical implications. Changes to offside have always been about the shape of the game and how it should develop tactically and become a better, more enjoyable sport.

The offside rule wasn't designed to need 'more accurate data'. You're missing the point completely and seem to be excusing disrupting the flow of the game and damaging the most exciting moments in football to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

This pish about 'time your run better' is physically impossible when we're dealing with offside calls so minute as to be completely pointless. If someone can't immediately look and say 'offside', then the offside rule has done its job and the game should just carry on. The post-Italia 90 solution was pretty much perfect. In line is onside and just get on with it.

It's becoming even worse than the fucking choobs that moaned like f**k about the old (perfectly sensible) approach to the handball rule and led us to the point where players can be penalised for having arms. Now offside is getting like that. Football never needed this level of technical infringement. It's totally against the spirit, and just as importantly the flow, of the game.

Football is a game where things happen quickly and it can be a bit messy and it's not always clear what exactly has happened. But that's fine and has always been fine. It's not a sport like tennis that has built-in breaks to stop and analyse a marginal call using fucking satellites and protractors, or like rugby where the game can stop for a couple of minutes while a technical decision beyond the understanding of the casual viewer is deliberated over. I cannot fathom why any football supporter would want - or perceive a need for - football to go down this road.

Edited August 22, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[HibsFan]

1 hour ago, VincentGuerin said:

I cannot fathom why any football supporter would want - or perceive a need for - football to go down this road.

Everything above this last bit is spot on, so I’ll just quote this bit and offer a suggestion: because the nightmare that is televised football punditry has slowly drip fed the poison of ‘ref watch’, ‘talking points’, ‘officiating controversy’ into the ears of unsuspecting fans for two/three decades. All part of a bid to make the half time and full time as interesting as the game itself (it isn’t and never will be). Of course the mouth breathers who follow the Old Firm from their sofa would lap it up, but it has infected others too, who genuinely believe that football could ever be refereed in an 100% fair and objective way with 100% accuracy in all decisions made.

Edited August 23, 2022 by HibsFan

[kingjoey]

6 hours ago, craigkillie said:

 

At a very rough estimate, there must have been close to 100,000 football matches officiated by VAR since it was introduced - are you suggesting that you have enough knowledge of every single one of them to be confident that no referee has ever consulted their screen to check an opinion-based offside call?

That's a fairly ridiculous question, but I have never seen that happening nor heard of that happening. Given that offside is considered a black or white senario with the VAR, it's fairly safe to say that offside will never be referred to a referee. 

[Swello]

4 hours ago, HibsFan said:

Everything above this last bit is spot on, so I’ll just quote this bit and offer a suggestion: because the nightmare that is televised football punditry has slowly drip fed the poison of ‘ref watch’, ‘talking points’, ‘officiating controversy’ into the ears of unsuspecting fans for two/three decades. All part of a bid to make the half time and full time as interesting as the game itself (it isn’t and never will be). Of course the mouth breathers who follow the Old Firm from their sofa would lap it up, but it has infected others too, who genuinely believe that football could ever be refereed in an 100% fair and objective way with 100% accuracy in all decisions made.

All true - this is a media-led thing at its heart but I also think that TV money (and over-commercialisation generally) has indirectly led to this situation as well.

In the biggest leagues, there are literally billions of quid sloshing around and marginal decisions could potentially cost individual clubs 8 figure sums - so the financial, not sporting, need for decisions to be "correct" has driven the needlessly strict interpretations of long standing laws that we now see.

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, Swello said:

All true - this is a media-led thing at its heart but I also think that TV money (and over-commercialisation generally) has indirectly led to this situation as well.

In the biggest leagues, there are literally billions of quid sloshing around and marginal decisions could potentially cost individual clubs 8 figure sums - so the financial, not sporting, need for decisions to be "correct" has driven the needlessly strict interpretations of long standing laws that we now see.

Yeah, it’s all of the above. But fans need to take their share of the blame. There’s been a fetishisation of moaning about decisions and overestimating it’s impact on a result or the overall fortunes of a team. 

I include myself in that, in the past I’ve raged at refs in this country and no doubt will again but I’m trying a lot harder to put those decisions in perspective when I consider where the game is going as a result. 

[craigkillie]

That's a fairly ridiculous question, but I have never seen that happening nor heard of that happening. Given that offside is considered a black or white senario with the VAR, it's fairly safe to say that offside will never be referred to a referee. 

You obviously missed the point of my earlier post. Whether a player is in an offside position is considered black or white, but there are still subjective decisions to be made relating to whether players gained an advantage by being in an offside position, and I can imagine sometimes a referee would want to have a look at things like that.

[VincentGuerin]

6 hours ago, HibsFan said:

Everything above this last bit is spot on, so I’ll just quote this bit and offer a suggestion: because the nightmare that is televised football punditry has slowly drip fed the poison of ‘ref watch’, ‘talking points’, ‘officiating controversy’ into the ears of unsuspecting fans for two/three decades. All part of a bid to make the half time and full time as interesting as the game itself (it isn’t and never will be). Of course the mouth breathers who follow the Old Firm from their sofa would lap it up, but it has infected others too, who genuinely believe that football could ever be refereed in an 100% fair and objective way with 100% accuracy in all decisions made.

You're absolutely right.

And VAR is fucking perfect for the current culture of football in that sense. Make tv central to the game itself, rather than just a deliverer of it, and produce short controversial moments for pundits and social media.

You've got to hand it to them, they've got a lot of people to buy into it.

[DA Baracus]

1 hour ago, Swello said:

All true - this is a media-led thing at its heart but I also think that TV money (and over-commercialisation generally) has indirectly led to this situation as well.

In the biggest leagues, there are literally billions of quid sloshing around and marginal decisions could potentially cost individual clubs 8 figure sums - so the financial, not sporting, need for decisions to be "correct" has driven the needlessly strict interpretations of long standing laws that we now see.

I also think they're probably covering their backs a bit, as I wouldn't be surprised if a club launched a legal challenge over some decision given the cash and mentalists kicking around.

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

Yeah, it’s all of the above. But fans need to take their share of the blame. There’s been a fetishisation of moaning about decisions and overestimating it’s impact on a result or the overall fortunes of a team. 

I include myself in that, in the past I’ve raged at refs in this country and no doubt will again but I’m trying a lot harder to put those decisions in perspective when I consider where the game is going as a result. 

Yup, nonsense like a decision costing a manager their job or a decision relegating a team. Utter nonsense of course. A manager loses their job for being consistently pish, likewise a team is relegated for being consistently pish.

Even at a per game level, a refereeing decision usually* doesn't result in a team losing or not winning a game. Players missing chances, players not marking their man, players mis-hitting passes, goal howlers, players making stupid fouls etc are what costs teams. 

*There are exceptions of course. A dodgy last minute penalty is the most obvious one, although even then you could potentially point to a missed chance from earlier that could have meant the penalty was not a winner or equaliser.

Edited August 23, 2022 by DA Baracus

[Dons_1988]

12 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

I also think they're probably covering their backs a bit, as I wouldn't be surprised if a club launched a legal challenge over some decision given the cash and mentalists kicking around.

Yup, nonsense like a decision costing a manager their job or a decision relegating a team. Utter nonsense of course. A manager loses their job for being consistently pish, likewise a team is relegated for being consistently pish.

Even at a per game level, a refereeing decision usually* doesn't result in a team losing or not winning a game. Players missing chances, players not marking their man, players mis-hitting passes, goal howlers, players making stupid fouls etc are what costs teams. 

*There are exceptions of course. A dodgy last minute penalty is the most obvious one, although even then you could potentially point to a missed chance from earlier that could have meant the penalty was not a winner or equaliser.

Yes, Aberdeen received a healthy dose of shite decisions last season. 

But ultimately, did we deserve to finish 10th? 100% yes, we were awful. And of all the bad decisions we had, I don’t remember too many of those games that I feel we were actually robbed of points because we were generally useless. 

The late penalty when we were 2-1 up at ibrox and livi not having their keeper sent off for punching our player in the face when it was 0-0 are the only ones that may have really altered what we deserved. 

[Leith Green]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

Yeah, it’s all of the above. But fans need to take their share of the blame. There’s been a fetishisation of moaning about decisions and overestimating it’s impact on a result or the overall fortunes of a team. 

I include myself in that, in the past I’ve raged at refs in this country and no doubt will again but I’m trying a lot harder to put those decisions in perspective when I consider where the game is going as a result. 

I know what you mean (and this is probably a completely separate thread) but for me the way the referees are selected in this country and VAR are two distinct topics.

We are implementing VAR whether we like it or not, but will still be stuck with refs from (iirc) two  associations in a part of the country where a large proportion of the population associate with 2 clubs.

That doesnt, and never has, passed the sniff test for me.

[VincentGuerin]

12 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

I know what you mean (and this is probably a completely separate thread) but for me the way the referees are selected in this country and VAR are two distinct topics.

We are implementing VAR whether we like it or not, but will still be stuck with refs from (iirc) two  associations in a part of the country where a large proportion of the population associate with 2 clubs.

That doesnt, and never has, passed the sniff test for me.

The influence of the Lanarkshire crew especially in refereeing in Scotland is in need of a thorough examination, no question.

But I think whatever we do, we need to accept that in this country an awful lot of the people interested in football are OF fans, and that will simply always be reflected in the pool of referees. Not a huge amount we can (or really should) do about that. All refs support someone, the issue we have is that we don't produce good ones.

[Dons_1988]

22 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

I know what you mean (and this is probably a completely separate thread) but for me the way the referees are selected in this country and VAR are two distinct topics.

We are implementing VAR whether we like it or not, but will still be stuck with refs from (iirc) two  associations in a part of the country where a large proportion of the population associate with 2 clubs.

That doesnt, and never has, passed the sniff test for me.

I agree on the face of it that doesn’t sound right but how material is it? I don’t really buy into any theories of corruption or biased (although I do think they can be influenced by ‘partisan’ crowds).