Spain (a) in October

[Skyline Drifter]

7 minutes ago, MarkoRaj said:

Even forgetting the McTominay goal, the we were up against it all game from that ref.

The McGinn one in the first half not being given, the Patterson booking, just an absolute abomination of a performance

This is true. Notwithstanding the goal shenanigans I thought the ref had a poor game. On tbe goal he either gives a truly ludicrous foul or he makes the wrong signal for offside. Carvajal wiping out McGinn's as clear a free kick as you'll ever see. The Dykes booking's a nonsense. His arms are up for leverage and Laporte jumps into him, there's no backward motion with the elbow. The Patterson is for dissent but it arises from giving a foul for absolutely nothing.

5 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Have you got that angle?

I've genuinely not seen it yet?  Is there a version with lines drawn?  I've seen it referenced on here a couple of times, but I've missed the image if its been posted, or was shown on TV.

It was shown on tv during the game very briefly about 5 - 10 mins later but play was restarting and it didnt stay up long. A few seconds maybe.

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

34 minutes ago, ScottishZizou said:

So the VAR room controls his hand? He could have just made the wrong signal?

There's no danger that would happen, because an offside is an indirect free kick so the ref has to keep his arm up signaling that till its taken.

It's possibly crossed wires, if you're being ultra generous, but he 100% gives a foul, not offside.

 

[DA Baracus]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

Davie Marshall on sky saying they reached the right decision. 

How to fall from favour

 

1 hour ago, Ludo*1 said:

David Marshall on Sky saying it was the correct decision. 

Strip his caps.

Willie Miller on the radio said it was both a foul on the keeper (a push apparently) and offside.

1 hour ago, Father Ted said:

VAR should be fired into the Sun.

Liverpool debacle, now this utter shambles.

Only money men at the top table want this. No one else. 

Wrong, plenty of fans want it sadly.

1 hour ago, HIT THE CHANNEL said:

Serious question, how do we get rid of VAR from the Scottish game (obviously can’t do anything internationally). It kills the game and I fucking hate it. You always here ‘aye but it’s not going anywhere’ - but why? Fans threatening to not buy season tickets stopped the The **** getting parachuted into the premiership. Can fans do similar to make clubs vote to get rid?

Unfortunately I think those who want it are in the majority.

[Todd_is_God]

4 minutes ago, Virtual Insanity said:

What frame rate do they use? How many frames is a foot in contact with the ball when struck? 

No matter the framerate the answer will always be 1 as the decision is made when the foot first comes into contact with the ball rather than when the ball moves away.

[Skyline Drifter]

10 minutes ago, Zetterlund said:

How is this photo not in line with the last man? It's about as perfectly in line as you're likely to see.

 

10 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It's the perfect angle in terms of looking across the pitch.  I've already conceded that the players were ahead of the ball, so offside in that regard.

It's perhaps at the wrong height however, to settle the question of what their legs were doing.

Its at least a yard too far up the pitch which is enough to change whether you can see Hendry poking out beyond the defender or not. The photo the broadcasters put up briefly was one of those offside by a toe type ones where the lines are nearly on top of each other. A yard makes a difference. 

It is closer than I thought at the time from the tv replay though. If its not offside then its a travesty of a decision because its not a foul.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Skyline Drifter

[Monkey Tennis]

4 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

The VAR check starts just after halfway here. Looks pretty clear that Hendry’s foot is beyond Morata’s elbow.

I still don't think it settles it.

I'm keen to see one with lines.

[Thistle_do_nicely]

52 minutes ago, Jambomo said:

The lines they drew were actual pretty far apart, clearly much further than what you can see is simply his right foot being off (which it doesn’t look like it is either, no part of him looks offside).

I was kinda seething and looking at my phone but aye, i thought my mind was playing tricks on me. Yellow line looked like it was using the goalkeeper as the last defender almost or some mad shit????? Or was i in a rage haze?

Was it the broadcaster lines or Uefa's? Think the post match stuff is sometimes on youtube, i might have a wee look in case im going mad.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Thistle_do_nicely

[Cardle is Magic]

A lot of people stuck in their feeling judging by the froth and tears in my notifications.

I went mental when I thought we scored too. I’m still gutted it didn’t count, even though I’m not howling at the moon about it.

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 

Its at least a yard too far up the pitch 

I honestly don't think it is.  I think it's pretty much ideal.

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, DA Baracus said:

Willie Miller on the radio said it was both a foul on the keeper (a push apparently) and offside.

Wrong, plenty of fans want it sadly.

Unfortunately I think those who want it are in the majority.

The existence of VAR itself isn't the problem. The application of it is.

VAR should reduce mistakes made by officials, but it has a fatal law by being itself entirely reliant on other officials not making mistakes.

[Highlandmagar]

3 hours ago, craigkillie said:

 

There are posters with a long history of it. For example...

  

 

Where does it say in that remark that I wanted Scotland to lose 5-0? 

People like yourself can't seem to be able to accept an opinion of a player.

 

Silly person. 

[Todd_is_God]

I don't think it's helpful to not believe Hendry was not closer to the goal than both the ball and the second last defender tbh. As he was.

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I still don't think it settles it.

I'm keen to see one with lines.

I'd be keen to see a point where they're looking at McTominay kicking the ball from the same angle they're using to show Hendry is offside. You can't even see his botton half ffs

[Thistle_do_nicely]

21 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The bigger issue with the frame rates are when the ball is moving in active play and there are players running in opposite directions - ie a defender rushing out to play offside as an attacker sprints through. A dead ball situation where the players are all basically just standing about is not going to have this issue.

Not sure i agree, theres plenty of movement in the box even at set plays?

[Todd_is_God]

2 minutes ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

I'd be keen to see a point where they're looking at McTominay kicking the ball from the same angle they're using to show Hendry is offside. You can't even see his botton half ffs

They did ping a graphic up that showed this clearly btw. But i'm assuming most of us either did not record the game or watched it on a dodgy stream so can't go back to get it.

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, Autistisches Nilpferd said:

Could @craigkillie make an appearance and either tell Drifter or the rest of us that we're stupid

Basically paraphrasing from my tweets I made at the time and then after the game, here's my overall view of the decision.

As soon as ref went over to the screen, the first thing they showed him was the freeze-frame of Hendry being in an offside position when McTominay hit the free-kick. As soon as I saw that, my thought was that the check must have been for offside, and the ref was being brought over because it was a subjective call - ie interfering with an opponent. During the review, on at least one occasion they went back to that exact freeze-frame, and to me that absolutely confirmed that they were looking at whether it was offside.

The hand signal at the time was quite ambiguous, but that's not really unusual - for example in the Old Firm game earlier this season, the ref disallowed a Rangers goal (for a foul), and when he pointed for the free-kick quite a few Rangers fans cheered because they thought he had given the goal. The crucial thing in both cases though, is that the referee made the TV signal first - this is something they only do if they are overturning the original decision. So he absolutely 100% did not give a goal, despite someone in the thread claiming he did.

In terms of the actual hand signal for giving the foul, I do think he's just confused himself a bit and basically gone into autopilot. Refs signal for stuff all the time during games, and you do tend to go into autopilot a wee bit, the brain gives the decision and the body just knows to point. These refs will make loads of VAR decisions, but the vast majority of the time when they actually go to a monitor it is to look for a foul for a direct free-kick. Therefore I do think it's second nature to point for a free-kick in that situation. Normally when they're giving an offside , they are in a different scenario, since they're normally not at the screen, but rather standing on the spot of the foul waiting for the decision to be given in their ear.

He's under a lot of pressure making the decision, it's a big call, and once you've lifted that pressure by actually making a decision there can definitely be a tendency to relax a bit and for the brain to switch off. If that is what happened, it's still a f**k-up, but hardly unprecedented, refs point the wrong way or similar fairly regularly. What we didn't actually see was whether he signalled for an indirect free-kick when he whistled for the free-kick to actually be taken - typically your hand would stay in the air when it was being taken, until the point where another player makes contact.

All the stuff on the screens, both inside the stadium and on the broadcast, plus what has been told to the commentators will all come from a single source, which will be some sort of VAR control room. However, this is a communication tool, not an official decision or anything of the sort. Just in the same way that they sometimes flash up the wrong player as being booked, or indeed even miss a card, they are just putting out what they see. The referee isn't formally lodging paperwork with them in real-time, they're just acting on what they see and hear from him as part of his standard decision making process.

On the decision itself, I think it is probably technically correct. Hendry is in an offside position, and by challenging the goalkeeper and indeed moving into his line of vision, he is guilty of "interfering with an opponent". It's annoying because it's definitely going to be a goal regardless, but ultimately that's not what's being judged. It is absolutely an example of VAR going far beyond what it was initially sold as being introduced for though. That's not some massive egregious error, it's not a decision that players on the field were screaming out for as some major injustice. Had it been communicated properly and it was clear it was an offside from the first moment, I don't think there'd be anything like the same anger though.

Edited October 12, 2023 by craigkillie

[craigkillie]

14 minutes ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

There's no danger that would happen, because an offside is an indirect free kick so the ref has to keep his arm up signaling that till its taken.

We didn't actually see what he did while it was being taken, did we?

[Skyline Drifter]

6 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I honestly don't think it is.  I think it's pretty much ideal.

This is pretty much the perfect angle. I accept it doesnt show McTominay actually kicking the ball, I'm trusting its the right image though as his body position looks right and its the one they used for VAR. Its tight but he's offside. And if he's offside he's 100% interfering.

None if which matters of course if it was given as a foul. If it waa given as offside and they screwed up the comms then I think its a correct decision.

[craigkillie]

20 minutes ago, Virtual Insanity said:

What frame rate do they use? How many frames is a foot in contact with the ball when struck? 

I can't remember the exact numbers but from looking into it before I'd say the frame rates are insufficient to be clear on fast-moving decisions. I don't think that really mattered here though, the players were pretty static.

[craigkillie]

5 minutes ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

Not sure i agree, theres plenty of movement in the box even at set plays?

Not to the extent of players moving at full speed in the opposite direction from each other, and definitely not for this particular decision.