Spain (a) in October

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

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

Not necessarily, no. The VAR officials will have told the referee the reason they wanted him to go over, and the referee will be asking them to see certain angles etc, but I don't think there will always be some sort of final "debrief" on the exact decision before the referee goes away. The Spurs v Liverpool thing showed that. I can imagine the ref saying "thanks guys, I'm happy with no goal now" or something to that extent rather than giving any more information.

After the ref has made a decision, anything else could just be seen as a waste of time. The VAR officials don't need to agree with him, they're not the ones in charge, and he doesn't need to convince them (or anyone else) before making a final decision.

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, kingjoey said:

Given that the referee signals a foul, the game restarts with a direct free kick, the screen in the stadium says that the goal was disallowed because of a foul, UEFA representative releases after the incident that the goal is disallowed for a foul and John McGinn is told by the referee that it was a foul, it's remarkable that you know that the referee was looking at offside. I doff my hat to you sir. 

Did the game restart with a direct free-kick? As far as I'm aware they were showing replays at the time it kicked back off. Every single one of these other points has already been covered - the referee isn't responsible for what goes on a screen, who do you think this "UEFA representative" is and how would they automatically know what every decision is, and John McGinn at no point said the referee told him anything.

[kingjoey]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

It's not remarkable at all, it's clear from what they show him what he's looking at, in particular the fact that they start by confirming it involves an offside player.

We didn't see the restart, and in any event, given the incident took place more than 100 yards from our goal, we don't actually know how play restarted. We know he appears to initially signal a direct free kick, we don't know it's what actually happened.

The screen on the stadium / UEFA control room comms are the same thing, not different pieces of evidence and may have arose from language / error.

McGinn never said the referee told him that. People are misquoting him.

Gies peace. 

[JamesP_81]

Sore one to take last night but can I just point out that we're 2 games from the end of a campaign and not only are we right on the edge of automatic qualification but folk are actually hoping for results to go certain ways that will delay qualification to allow us to win the group. 

Whit a difference from the Berti Vogts days eh ? 

[kingjoey]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

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.

...or you could be wrong. Is that possible?

[kennie makevin]

5 hours ago, jimbaxters said:

This has probably been answered, but does winning the group have a bearing on what happens at the finals?

No, we go out in the group phase as per .....

[accies1874]

54 minutes ago, dstuart82 said:

Yes, that is why I think Gilmour has to play in every game, he demands and is comfortable taking the ball in tight areas. He also makes it easier for players around him to play and keep possession.

Whereas McGregor hides and wants nothing to do with the ball against opposition such as England and Spain. He needs Gilmour alongside him imo to force him to play.

McGregor was excellent against Spain in March and against England at the Euros. 

[Bairnardo]

3 minutes ago, accies1874 said:

McGregor was excellent against Spain in March and against England at the Euros. 

I'm not sure what a midfielder like McGregor is meant to do against a team so ruthlessly efficient in blocking off any avenue for forward passing, and where one of his midfield partners (McGinn) was totally unable to keep possession and allow our midfield any time on the ball. He still got stuck in though despite the difficulty of the task. Def not getting the "hiding" accusation. 

[Savage Henry]

1 hour ago, Ken Deans said:

Gave an excellent Spain side a fright on their patch. Folk who worry about the last 2 results should remember we got gubbed by neither.

Don't fancy Georgia or Norwats chances

We were gubbed by England.  That could have been four or five.  
 

But England are a vastly superior side to Spain, and Spain are better than both Norway and Georgia.  As are Scotland.  
 

So all is good.  Unless the Spanish coach sends out his reserves again on Sunday.  But he won’t.  
 

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

It's not remarkable at all, it's clear from what they show him what he's looking at, in particular the fact that they start by confirming it involves an offside player.

We didn't see the restart, and in any event, given the incident took place more than 100 yards from our goal, we don't actually know how play restarted. We know he appears to initially signal a direct free kick, we don't know it's what actually happened.

The screen on the stadium / UEFA control room comms are the same thing, not different pieces of evidence and may have arose from language / error.

McGinn never said the referee told him that. People are misquoting him.

We don't know what they said though.

The frames to check for  interference by Hendry are the same frames they would have used to check for a foul by Hendry.

 

 

[Bonksy+HisChristianParade]

37 minutes ago, JamesP_81 said:

Sore one to take last night but can I just point out that we're 2 games from the end of a campaign and not only are we right on the edge of automatic qualification but folk are actually hoping for results to go certain ways that will delay qualification to allow us to win the group. 

Whit a difference from the Berti Vogts days eh ? 

In fairness Berti would’ve taken us to Euro 2004 had the format of the competition been the same as it is today.

[Venti]

Fucking hell man, he's still at it?

[eez-eh]

7 minutes ago, Bonksy+HisChristianParade said:

In fairness Berti would’ve taken us to Euro 2004 had the format of the competition been the same as it is today.

I get you can only beat what’s in front of you but Berti’s qualifying group was the biggest piece of piss ever.

[craigkillie]

8 minutes ago, Bonksy+HisChristianParade said:

In fairness Berti would’ve taken us to Euro 2004 had the format of the competition been the same as it is today.

He took over in January 2002, which would have been before the Nations League took place. Given his record against any remotely half-decent side, it's likely we would have struggled, and thus might not have ended up as 2nd seeds in our Euro qualifying group.

[Dunning1874]

1 hour ago, towser said:

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. 

The general refereeing decision making, disallowed goal aside, was indicative of a referee going into the game with a narrative in his head. Obviously referees don't intentionally cheat and it's tinfoil hat stuff to think they do, but if a referee goes into a game with an idea in their head of what both teams are like and is therefore looking out for specific things from one side, even subconsciously, if it can lead to wildly inconsistent and blatantly unfair decision making. Last night was a very extreme version of it.

We've probably all seen this with our clubs. Fans of Premiership clubs will get this going against them when they're playing against the Old Firm and going for them in cup ties against lower league sides, as a fan of a perennial Championship side I've seen it go against us against Premiership sides and for us against League Two sides, a relegation battling team suffers it against a title contender, a team with an average height of about 5'7 who are all built like the side of a fiver are on the receiving end if opposition managers have been crying about big bad physical Morton all season, and so on. If a referee starts the game with a narrative in their head that one team is there to play football and the other are just cloggers, they can end up refereeing both sides in an entirely different way.

The centre backs of one team are allowed to manhandle the opposition's centre forwards for 90 minutes, while the centre backs at the other end can't go for a header without being penalised for it. The referee is subconsciously thinking the team they have viewed as a better side are winning those contests through their innate footballing superiority regardless of how blatant their fouls get, while the team they expected to be nothing more than big physical cloggers can only be triumphing in 50/50 contests through cheating even if they're winning the ball cleanly and fairly.

The referee clearly started the game last night with a preconceived notion that Scotland were turning up to physically clog Spain off the park while Spain would be playing tiki-taka and never making a tackle. When subconsciously looking at the game through that prism, he can ignore the evidence of his eyes to see Carvajal bodychecking McGinn as just a collision and not even a foul rather than a stonewall yellow card, because Spain's total footballers simply aren't going to make cynical physical fouls. Meanwhile Patterson barely touching Zaragoza is a clear foul and booking, because the slightest touch is confirmation of the horrible cynical cloggers perception he's started the game with.

It's clearly not deliberate, but I've never seen a referee at international level so obviously succumb to a narrative to that extent. It's the kind of weak refereeing you expect from a young ref in Scotland getting their first SPFL game.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

9 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

The general refereeing decision making, disallowed goal aside, was indicative of a referee going into the game with a narrative in his head. Obviously referees don't intentionally cheat and it's tinfoil hat stuff to think they do, but if a referee goes into a game with an idea in their head of what both teams are like and is therefore looking out for specific things from one side, even subconsciously, if it can lead to wildly inconsistent and blatantly unfair decision making. Last night was a very extreme version of it.

We've probably all seen this with our clubs. Fans of Premiership clubs will get this going against them when they're playing against the Old Firm and going for them in cup ties against lower league sides, as a fan of a perennial Championship side I've seen it go against us against Premiership sides and for us against League Two sides, a relegation battling team suffers it against a title contender, a team with an average height of about 5'7 who are all built like the side of a fiver are on the receiving end if opposition managers have been crying about big bad physical Morton all season, and so on. If a referee starts the game with a narrative in their head that one team is there to play football and the other are just cloggers, they can end up refereeing both sides in an entirely different way.

The centre backs of one team are allowed to manhandle the opposition's centre forwards for 90 minutes, while the centre backs at the other end can't go for a header without being penalised for it. The referee is subconsciously thinking the team they have viewed as a better side are winning those contests through their innate footballing superiority regardless of how blatant their fouls get, while the team they expected to be nothing more than big physical cloggers can only be triumphing in 50/50 contests through cheating even if they're winning the ball cleanly and fairly.

The referee clearly started the game last night with a preconceived notion that Scotland were turning up to physically clog Spain off the park while Spain would be playing tiki-taka and never making a tackle. When subconsciously looking at the game through that prism, he can ignore the evidence of his eyes to see Carvajal bodychecking McGinn as just a collision and not even a foul rather than a stonewall yellow card, because Spain's total footballers simply aren't going to make cynical physical fouls. Meanwhile Patterson barely touching Zaragoza is a clear foul and booking, because the slightest touch is confirmation of the horrible cynical cloggers perception he's started the game with.

It's clearly not deliberate, but I've never seen a referee at international level so obviously succumb to a narrative to that extent. It's the kind of weak refereeing you expect from a young ref in Scotland getting their first SPFL game.

Whilst I said that football could learn a lot from rugby regards using technology, this is an issue in both sports.

[Bonksy+HisChristianParade]

10 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

I get you can only beat what’s in front of you but Berti’s qualifying group was the biggest piece of piss ever.

 

6 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

He took over in January 2002, which would have been before the Nations League took place. Given his record against any remotely half-decent side, it's likely we would have struggled, and thus might not have ended up as 2nd seeds in our Euro qualifying group.

I was being facetious.

[Richey Edwards]

Craig Levein would have got us through some Nations League groups.

[Dons_1988]

17 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

The general refereeing decision making, disallowed goal aside, was indicative of a referee going into the game with a narrative in his head. Obviously referees don't intentionally cheat and it's tinfoil hat stuff to think they do, but if a referee goes into a game with an idea in their head of what both teams are like and is therefore looking out for specific things from one side, even subconsciously, if it can lead to wildly inconsistent and blatantly unfair decision making. Last night was a very extreme version of it.

We've probably all seen this with our clubs. Fans of Premiership clubs will get this going against them when they're playing against the Old Firm and going for them in cup ties against lower league sides, as a fan of a perennial Championship side I've seen it go against us against Premiership sides and for us against League Two sides, a relegation battling team suffers it against a title contender, a team with an average height of about 5'7 who are all built like the side of a fiver are on the receiving end if opposition managers have been crying about big bad physical Morton all season, and so on. If a referee starts the game with a narrative in their head that one team is there to play football and the other are just cloggers, they can end up refereeing both sides in an entirely different way.

The centre backs of one team are allowed to manhandle the opposition's centre forwards for 90 minutes, while the centre backs at the other end can't go for a header without being penalised for it. The referee is subconsciously thinking the team they have viewed as a better side are winning those contests through their innate footballing superiority regardless of how blatant their fouls get, while the team they expected to be nothing more than big physical cloggers can only be triumphing in 50/50 contests through cheating even if they're winning the ball cleanly and fairly.

The referee clearly started the game last night with a preconceived notion that Scotland were turning up to physically clog Spain off the park while Spain would be playing tiki-taka and never making a tackle. When subconsciously looking at the game through that prism, he can ignore the evidence of his eyes to see Carvajal bodychecking McGinn as just a collision and not even a foul rather than a stonewall yellow card, because Spain's total footballers simply aren't going to make cynical physical fouls. Meanwhile Patterson barely touching Zaragoza is a clear foul and booking, because the slightest touch is confirmation of the horrible cynical cloggers perception he's started the game with.

It's clearly not deliberate, but I've never seen a referee at international level so obviously succumb to a narrative to that extent. It's the kind of weak refereeing you expect from a young ref in Scotland getting their first SPFL game.

Yeah good post and certainly how he came across. The moment he booked dykes I thought that this was what was going on. 

[Ken Deans]

46 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

We were gubbed by England.  That could have been four or five.  
 

But England are a vastly superior side to Spain, and Spain are better than both Norway and Georgia.  As are Scotland.  
 

So all is good.  Unless the Spanish coach sends out his reserves again on Sunday.  But he won’t.  
 

 

Aye. Competitive game v England wod b a lot spicier