Spain (a) in October

[Lurkst]

52 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

He’s presumably told to do it but he needs to stay onside.

Yep, I think Hendry may have forgotten it wasn't a corner and he wasn't behind the ball.

 

[craigkillie]

9 minutes ago, Jaggy McJagface said:

Given that;

1.) The referee signalled for a foul

2.) UEFA and the VAR team initially communicated that it had been disallowed for a foul

3.) John McGinn indicated in two separate interviews that the referee initially gave it as a foul

then it’s fair to assume that in all likelihood it WAS initially called as a foul on the keeper and the position of “we really can’t possibly know what it was given for at this time” is clutching at straws.

But there's a very likely prospect that 2) only happens because 1) happens, and 3) only happens because 2) happens. The ref gives an unclear signal, so the people in the control room dealing with the graphics (in stadium and on broadcast) interpret it as a foul. The screens then show foul, and the players see that in the stadium.

I'm not sure they are 3 separate pieces of evidence as people are claiming.

Edited October 13, 2023 by craigkillie

[Skyline Drifter]

17 minutes ago, Shuggie_Murray7 said:

You've just made that up.

I haven't. You can't possibly be claiming here that you've watched football before and you've never seen a marginal offside call reversed by VAR. There's no "clear and obvious" test in offside reviews.

[Bairnardo]

3 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

But there's a very likely prospect that 2) only happens because 1) happens, and 3) only happens because 2) happens. The ref gives an unclear signal, so the people in the control room dealing with the graphics (in stadium and on broadcast) interpret it as a foul. The screens then show foul, and the players see that in the stadium.

I'm not sure they are 3 separate pieces of evidence as people are claiming.

You don't think there was extensive conversation and agreement on what was being awarded BEFORE the wave of a hand?

[Jaggy McJagface]

3 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

But there's a very likely prospect that 2) only happens because 1) happens, and 3) only happens because 2) happens. The ref gives an unclear signal, so the people in the control room dealing with the graphics (in stadium and on broadcast) interpret it as a foul. The screens then show foul, and the players see that in the stadium.

I'm not sure they are 3 separate pieces of evidence as people are claiming.

I agree that it’s not outwith the realms of possibility, but insisting that this is probably what’s happened with the evidence we currently have is just conjecture.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Has it been confirmed anywhere officially why the goal was chopped off?

[Skyline Drifter]

13 minutes ago, Jaggy McJagface said:

Given that;

1.) The referee signalled for a foul

2.) UEFA and the VAR team initially communicated that it had been disallowed for a foul

3.) John McGinn indicated in two separate interviews that the referee initially gave it as a foul

then it’s fair to assume that in all likelihood it WAS initially called as a foul on the keeper and the position of “we really can’t possibly know what it was given for at this time” is clutching at straws.

People keep quoting this list as if it's different pieces of evidence. It's not. It's all coming from the signal he gave, and McGinn has not at any point to date said the referee actually said that to him.

Does anyone know what language they use for the VAR review? Referee team were Dutch last night. Was the VAR also Dutch or is that different since it's conducted centrally. Are they all communicating in a second language (presumably English)? It's far from a reach that the referee feeding back that he agrees the offside player is "interfering" with the keeper is erroneously then passed on as "foul".

[Distant Doonhamer]

12 minutes ago, TONTROOPER said:

I earnestly hope Laporte's next shite is a porcupine. 

Aye no argument there. He’s an absolute c**t. A stellar performance from him in a 0-0 draw on Sunday wound be most welcome though. 

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkay said:

Has it been confirmed anywhere officially why the goal was chopped off?

Depends what you mean by "officially". There's been no post match statement from either UEFA or referee (don't think refs are allowed to speak about decisions).

It was initially passed to broadcasters that it was ruled out for "a foul" and then subsequently corrected about 5 minutes later to "Offside" and a graphic released which showed the offside confirmation, though Viaplay / host Spanish broadcaster didn't put it on screen for long. I imagine as far as UEFA are concerned that's the official confirmation.

[Salvo Montalbano]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

I cannot remember a thread with a poster so desperate for attention as @Skyline Drifter

If you put the second goal down to a very freakish and unfortunate slip, we effectively lost by one goal to an excellent footballing side who were playing at home and who were desperate for the win.

The fact that we are disappointed about this shows just how far we’ve come under SC.

Sadly, that has been lost a little bit. Imagine a few years ago you'd said, you'll go to Seville to play the reigning Nations League champions and feel aggrieved that a) you didn't win and b) that one of the goals you conceded was down to a freak slip with about 3 left to play. 

Final word from me on the VAR - we've already seen from the Spurs v Liverpool game that the protocols needed tightened up, but why aren't the protocols the same everywhere? For instance, semi-automated offside would have helped last night. As would the English way of highlighting what is being checked (they'll have "VAR Check - Possible Offside" or whatever on the big screen and provided to the host broadcaster). The fact that VAR has been brought in almost universally yet has many different systems is absolutely mental.

[Jaggy McJagface]

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

People keep quoting this list as if it's different pieces of evidence. It's not. It's all coming from the signal he gave, and McGinn has not at any point to date said the referee actually said that to him.

Does anyone know what language they use for the VAR review? Referee team were Dutch last night. Was the VAR also Dutch or is that different since it's conducted centrally. Are they all communicating in a second language (presumably English)? It's far from a reach that the referee feeding back that he agrees the offside player is "interfering" with the keeper is erroneously then passed on as "foul".

Genuinely, how can you know that these are all the same piece of evidence?

It’s likely the referee and VAR team were communicating with each other about the offence that they’ve flagged up and disallowed the goal for. It’s also likely that McGinn was in communication with the ref during the match, including with the immediate aftermath.

It being given as a foul initially is more likely than not from the evidence and information we currently have.

[H Wragg]

1 hour ago, Shuggie_Murray7 said:

The crux of the issue is we're all still here more than 12 hours later debating why the goal was chalked off. That, to me, does not hit the criteria for a "clear and obvious error".

The 'clear and obvious error' part of what VAR was to be used for more or less disappeared right from the off.

Sadly, that wasn't acted upon and it's now the norm for it to be used for fag paper width offside decisions and the likes.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 minute ago, Jaggy McJagface said:

Genuinely, how can you know that these are all the same piece of evidence?

It’s likely the referee and VAR team were communicating with each other about the offence that they’ve flagged up and disallowed the goal for. It’s also likely that McGinn was in communication with the ref during the match, including with the immediate aftermath.

It being given as a foul initially is more likely than not from the evidence and information we currently have.

I don't agree. Like I've said innumerable times already, it's obvious from the images they show him on screen for VAR what he's reviewing for.

[Virtual Insanity]

Just now, Skyline Drifter said:

I don't agree. Like I've said innumerable times already, it's obvious from the images they show him on screen for VAR what he's reviewing for.

So with that knowledge, why did whoever is responsible for communicating within the stadium and to the worldwide TV audience, who presumably knew the ref had just made a straightforward signalling mistake then communicate that the decision was foul? 

[MarkoRaj]

1 hour ago, Fratelli said:

One thing that’s winding me up is that there was absolutely no reason for Hendry to go near the keeper. Totally needless.

I thought that as well but when you watch it back he's onside and makes the run forward as the ball is kicked. It's a standard movement and if it was a fraction of a second slower we'd be looking back at another famous victory with an all time classic goal to look back on

[towser]

From this image he doesn't look offside and the angle is in line with Hendry and the defender.

Game was rigged, Scotland were never getting anything out of that - and on balance Spain deserved the win - but the ref certainly gave them every chance he could, reffing "highlights" apart from the ghost goal : 

McGinn flattened on the edge of the Spain box in the first half

Laporte constantly fouling and gets eventual yellow in last 10 mins

Robertson getting booked for getting his shoulder dislocated

Patterson yellow for not touching that nippy wee winger. 

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, Virtual Insanity said:

So with that knowledge, why did whoever is responsible for communicating within the stadium and to the worldwide TV audience, who presumably knew the ref had just made a straightforward signalling mistake then communicate that the decision was foul? 

Either they made an error or language issues (interfering isn't that big a shift from foul). It's more likely than the idea that they've:

1 - given that minor contact as a foul (as others have said, it's not even the most obvious "foul" going on at the time as both Dykes and McGinn are being held)

2 - changed their mind five minutes later as part of some sort of cover up to justify it when it would have been easier to just live with the decision made

3 - actually missed the fact that it WAS offside at the time anyway.

[Shuggie_Murray7]

11 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I haven't. You can't possibly be claiming here that you've watched football before and you've never seen a marginal offside call reversed by VAR. There's no "clear and obvious" test in offside reviews.

I'm not claiming to have never seen a marginal offside call reversed by VAR. I'm pointing out that you claimed that "there's absolutely no requirement for a "clear and obvious" error on this call as it was about offside". You've offered nothing in the way of any sort of evidence that this was in fact "about offside".

Whilst the decision remains unclear, all the evidence already available clearly indicates that the initial decision from the referee, once the VAR check was complete, was no goal due to a foul, as backed up in the initial VAR graphic. The referee clearly signals that it's a foul, I don't this that can be disputed.

You have entirely made up the part about it "being about offside" and offered nothing that backs that up.

It's certainly a stretch to suggest that the VAR team mistook it for a foul, as opposed to offside, AND that the referee simultaneously somehow got confused and mistakenly signalled for a foul, as opposed to offside. Both of those things happening would have to be an enormous coincidence.

When they did change their mind, around 10 minutes later, that it was in fact for offside, they offered up no footage or still frames that actually show this. It's simply a shot that isn't up to speed with play, with a blue line drawn on the last Spanish defender and then everything else beyond that in a grey box. Hardly a conclusive offside.

As I've already said, this certainly neds clarified by UEFA. It can't be allowed to remain a mystery why the goal was disallowed. I'm under no illusion, they will come out and clarify this as an offside, but how the events unfolded simply does not back this up at all.

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, towser said:

From this image he doesn't look offside and the angle is in line with Hendry and the defender.

Game was rigged, Scotland were never getting anything out of that - and on balance Spain deserved the win - but the ref certainly gave them every chance he could, reffing "highlights" apart from the ghost goal : 

McGinn flattened on the edge of the Spain box in the first half

Laporte constantly fouling and gets eventual yellow in last 10 mins

Robertson getting booked for getting his shoulder dislocated

Patterson yellow for not touching that nippy wee winger. 

We've been here, go back about 15 pages! It's not quite in line, it's too low and you can't see Hendry's foot which is the furthest forward part of him.

Robertson didn't get booked.

Patterson was booked for dissent, not the (non) foul.

[towser]

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

We've been here, go back about 15 pages! It's not quite in line, it's too low and you can't see Hendry's foot which is the furthest forward part of him.

Robertson didn't get booked.

Patterson was booked for dissent, not the (non) foul.

At least I got it off my chest!