Livingston v St.Mirren.Wednesday.

[btb]

12 minutes ago, Bobby_F said:

The fact refs very rarely stick with their original decision suggests that VAR are indeed highlighting things the ref missed.

*******************************

I absolutely agree with the clear an obvious error part of VAR.

I can only think the VAR official thought the ref hadn't properly seen the contact and asked him to go look again.

What SHOULD have happened there is that if the replay should what the ref gave the yellow for, it stays as yellow.  If it shows the ref something he missed, and that if he'd seen it was a red, then he should change the decision.

I've no idea if that's how it went, but it feels like that's how it should work.

The fact refs very rarely stick with their original decision suggests that VAR are indeed highlighting things the ref missed.

We've got to remember that (love them or loathe them) VAR is being looked at by professional referees who know a lot more about the laws and their interpretation than fans (and even players and managers) do.

Apologies for butchering your post but my feeling is that refs will tend to go for the safe option such as in this case upgrading the yellow to red, with the expectation that this will be almost always be backed up post-match.

As I said earlier in the thread I feel long term this will result in more red/yellow cards - still no point longin' for long hair & AC/DC them daze are gone.

Edited December 31, 2022 by btb

[ATLIS]

9 hours ago, FTOF said:

Did refs get it right? The VARdict reviews big calls - BBC Sport

The former referee in this explains it quite clearly as to why it was a dangerous challenge, as opposed to the plum that is Richard Foster.

If Pittman slides in without his studs showing at ground level and wins the ball with the top of the boot, which, let's face it, is the way that most successful slide tackles are made, then there's not really a decision to be made.

However, by following through in recklessly on Baccus' standing foot after contact being made by the sole of the boot with studs fully showing and off the ground, then you only have yourself to blame.

The fact that Baccus kicks Pittman's other foot is complete whataboutery of the highest order.

Here's a wee video for Pittman and Holt to watch during their suspensions.

Happy to help.

 

 

What’s mental is that neither are a tackle? They successfully clear the ball and Nisbet and Bacchus are late to the ball 

[Troy.1995]

Just seen this.Technicalities go out the window for me.Ridicoulos decisions in both cases.Had a lot of respect for Stuart Douglas in his time,but the introduction of VAR ind his obvious continues protection of current day officials absolutely baffles me.Wondering if hes still involved with the SFA.If so,says it all.Disgracefull and embarrassingly corrupt. 

[Torfason]

One thing I find odd is how poorly former pros understand the rules of the game they played.

In most cases their grasp of the rules is no better than the average fan and even if they do understand, their knowledge is based on when they played and not on current rules.

Graeme Le Saul did a referee coaching course last year and said afterwards he had no idea how many of the rules he didn’t know…………….so what chance do the cliche ridden wallopers who cover our game have.

[Troy.1995]

47 minutes ago, Torfason said:

One thing I find odd is how poorly former pros understand the rules of the game they played.

In most cases their grasp of the rules is no better than the average fan and even if they do understand, their knowledge is based on when they played and not on current rules.

Graeme Le Saul did a referee coaching course last year and said afterwards he had no idea how many of the rules he didn’t know…………….so what chance do the cliche ridden wallopers who cover our game have.

Aye right .The so called wallopers have played the game,as opposed to the wallopers at SFA HQ.And these two decisions shows how inept they are.Games dead when we have to rely on their expertise. Whose the wallopers then.Embarresing..

[Torfason]

15 minutes ago, Troy.1995 said:

Aye right .The so called wallopers have played the game,as opposed to the wallopers at SFA HQ.And these two decisions shows how inept they are.Games dead when we have to rely on their expertise. Whose the wallopers then.Embarresing..

It was a general comment and not related to the game however your reply makes me think you need to let it go for your own mental well-being. That game was always finishing a draw and neither sending off changed that.

[Munoz]

I'm all for Livi supporters that think these type of "tackles" are acceptable. If they are at ease with one of their players getting suspended every other week, then so am I .

[FTOF]

2 hours ago, Troy.1995 said:

Aye right .The so called wallopers have played the game,as opposed to the wallopers at SFA HQ.And these two decisions shows how inept they are.Games dead when we have to rely on their expertise. Whose the wallopers then.Embarresing..

 Not quite as embarrassing as this post though.

[Molotov]

4 hours ago, Troy.1995 said:

Just seen this.Technicalities go out the window for me.Ridicoulos decisions in both cases.Had a lot of respect for Stuart Douglas in his time,but the introduction of VAR ind his obvious continues protection of current day officials absolutely baffles me.Wondering if hes still involved with the SFA.If so,says it all.Disgracefull and embarrassingly corrupt. 

Embarrassing and disgraceful spelling and grammar.

When do the “skools” go back wee man?  

[Bobby_F]

17 hours ago, Torfason said:

One thing I find odd is how poorly former pros understand the rules of the game they played.

In most cases their grasp of the rules is no better than the average fan and even if they do understand, their knowledge is based on when they played and not on current rules.

Graeme Le Saul did a referee coaching course last year and said afterwards he had no idea how many of the rules he didn’t know…………….so what chance do the cliche ridden wallopers who cover our game have.

Or indeed fans on t'internet.