Spain (a) in October

[bleedingums]

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

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.

This still is ridiculous. The ball could be as much as a foot away from McTominay by then. 

[velo army]

Away from this refereeing pish, I thought McGinn was utter rubbish tonight. I know he gets a free pass due to scoring and generally being great, but I thought his passing was mostly utter mince tonight. The one into Christie was dreadful.

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, bleedingums said:

This still is ridiculous. The ball could be as much as a foot away from McTominay by then. 

It could, yes. I didnt say its definitive, it cant be for the reason you say. I said its the perfect angle, not the low one from a few yards further up the pitch posted earlier. 

I'm assuming its from when he kicked it because its the one they used to show the ref. Its a still capture from the tv replay of that from VAR. To put up an image from after he picked it would be truly horrendous incompetence.

[101]

6 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

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.

Dykes heads that home at the near post if he isn't being held. Clear penalty

[Fratelli]

7 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

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 to me. 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.

I don’t really get the leniency with the hand signal stuff to be honest. ‘Ach he’s just gotten mixed up’ isn’t acceptable for a ref at the top level. That’s a major f**k up in those circumstances and shouldn’t be happening, regardless of the actual decision.

[craigkillie]

2 minutes ago, bleedingums said:

This still is ridiculous. The ball could be as much as a foot away from McTominay by then. 

The ref isn't actually being asked to judge this still in any way though, the judgement of whether he's in an offside position or not is made entirely by the VAR officials just like every other offside decision. This image is just their way of confirming to him "we've checked it and he's in an offside position, here's a quick look to confirm". The referee's decision in the context of offside is purely down to whether he is interfering or not.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I would be interested to hear a justification why this was a clear and obvious error.

 

[bleedingums]

Just now, velo army said:

Away from this refereeing pish, I thought McGinn was utter rubbish tonight. I know he gets a free pass due to scoring and generally being great, but I thought his passing was mostly utter mince tonight. The one into Christie was dreadful.

Yeah we were really not very good in possession tonight. I thought Hickey and McTominay were our two best players which is especially shore considering that they suffered the most from the circumstances…

 

I remember thinking that replacing McGregor with Gilmour was something that I’d never considered because of McGregor’s previous form, but I’m thinking it again tonight. Maybe all the games are finally catching up with him.

[accies1874]

Having some poindexter take away the kinds of moments we go to football for just because of a marginal offside is why VAR is in fact the problem, not the people running it. 

[Thistle_do_nicely]

VAR

Edit: that genuinely looks like they're using the goalkeeper as the last defender??????? Am i missing something?

My eyes might be playing tricks on me or im being heated/daft but is there a line taken from the goal line to whatever that wee blue line is? No clue what the shaded area is meant to be.

Waitwaitwait im having neuron activation; the blue line is the last defender so if theres any Scotland player with a part they can score a legit goal from in it, its offside?

Dont like it at all, surely you need two lines, one for the last defender and one for the scorer if you're going to use this pish?

Edited October 12, 2023 by Thistle_do_nicely

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, DeeTillEhDeh said:

I would be interested to hear a justification why this was a clear and obvious error.

Offside is offside. Its factual. The 'clear and obvious' test doesnt apply. Its not relevant.

Once they've concluded he is offside then the ref has to decide if he's interfering since he didnt actually touch it.

[craigkillie]

1 minute ago, Fratelli said:

I don’t really get the leniency with the hand signal stuff to be honest. ‘Ach he’s just gotten mixed up’ isn’t acceptable for a ref at the top level. That’s a major f**k up in those circumstances and shouldn’t be happening, regardless of the actual decision.

It's not leniency, it's just explaining why it happened. It's still a mistake but it's nowhere near as crucial as getting a decision wrong. I'd rather a referee got all their decisions correct (not that this one did) but occasionally pointed to the corner flag instead of the penalty spot instead of being absolutely brilliant at pointing for things but not actually making good decisions.

[bleedingums]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

The ref isn't actually being asked to judge this still in any way though, the judgement of whether he's in an offside position or not is made entirely by the VAR officials just like every other offside decision. This image is just their way of confirming to him "we've checked it and he's in an offside position, here's a quick look to confirm". The referee's decision in the context of offside is purely down to whether he is interfering or not.

But that’s the still that’s being used to show to the television audience that he was offside. If he wasn’t offside then he can’t impede.

[craigkillie]

Just now, bleedingums said:

But that’s the still that’s being used to show to the television audience that he was offside. If he wasn’t offside then he can’t impede.

The television audience aren't a major factor in the referee's decision making process though. The referee will trust his assistants (on-field and video) to make offside decisions correctly for him. If a flag goes up in a non-VAR game then he's rarely going to overrule that, and if the VAR tells him it's offside then he's going to trust them that it's offside - which is exactly why most offside decisions don't even require him to go to the monitor (eg the Spain disallowed goal).

[bleedingums]

2 minutes ago, bleedingums said:

But that’s the still that’s being used to show to the television audience that he was offside. If he wasn’t offside then he can’t impede.

And all of this is aside of the fact that VAR have broadcast to the stadium and to the commentary teams that it was for a foul.

[parsforlife]

54 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Its honestly tragic how many football fans delight in watching goals being ruled out for absolutely nothing because "the rules say so".

Its a fucking sport, not some world changing scientific experiment, is it really worth spending 5 minutes working out if someones toe is 3mm offside, or if a keepers chances of saving a shot is 0% or 2%?

The arguments against VAR are valid,  stopping games for ages to make decisions is shite, especially when fans aren't included within the decision making.

But,  goals should absolutely be ruled out if there's something that breaches the laws regardless of how good looking people decide they are.   The 'football is about scoring goals' argument is complete fallacy,  its about winning or losing and 1-0 has the same validity as 5-4.

50 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

I have absolutely no idea what constitutes “interfering with play” these days btw. I swear a season or two ago the attacker had to deliberately motion for the ball. I’m pretty sure they changed it (again) since then but I’ve no idea what the current rule is.

The amount of rule flip-flopping that’s gone on since VAR came in is maddening.

Attacker motioning towards the ball is only one factor to decide if your interfering.

The offside rule has been tweaked alot over the decades but has been reasonably consistent for a few years now,  and the changes that have happened haven't been directly related to VAR,  unlike handball for example.

5 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

I would be interested to hear a justification why this was a clear and obvious error.

 

  The justication would be the offside position wasn't noticed in real time, and therefore once proven it was reasonable to ask if an offence occurred. 

[bleedingums]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

The television audience aren't a major factor in the referee's decision making process though. The referee will trust his assistants (on-field and video) to make offside decisions correctly for him. If a flag goes up in a non-VAR game then he's rarely going to overrule that, and if the VAR tells him it's offside then he's going to trust them that it's offside - which is exactly why most offside decisions don't even require him to go to the monitor (eg the Spain disallowed goal).

So where are the lines etc?

 

[Ginaro]

Sorry, but having seen the highlights I'm unsure what all the complaining is about? Player in an offside position gets involved in active play by interfering with the goalkeeper, goal correctly ruled out for offside. Referee points in the direction of the free kick as normal - however we don't see him put his hand up for an IDFK so we don't know if it was for offside or not.

Is that it?

Edited October 12, 2023 by Ginaro

[craigkillie]

Just now, bleedingums said:

So where are the lines etc?

 

The referee doesn't need to be shown lines, his VAR assistant has told him it's offside.

[bleedingums]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

The referee doesn't need to be shown lines, his VAR assistant has told him it's offside.

Nope. His VAR assistant told him it was a foul.