Spain (a) in October

[Distant Doonhamer]

7 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

No, its got nothing to do with vision. He can see it coming. He's pretty obviously preventing the keeper coming for the ball though. He standing right in front of him, between him and the ball as it passes him. 

And I dont agree with the assertion even @craigkillie made that the ball was going in anyway. I think if Hendry's not in his way he probably claws that away. I certainly dont think you can definitively say he doesn't. 

That for me is key. 
That being so have  we seen definitive evidence that Hendry is offside. 
If it’s true that the ref has told players it’s a foul  then somehow changed his mind then that reeks of justification of a dodgy call. 
If Hendry is offside then the decision is correct IMHO. If it’s disallowed as a foul then there’s no reasonable  evidence that a clear and obvious error has been made. A view that  Hendry has fouled the keeper is debatable at best and the on field decision should stand. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Distant Doonhamer

[Skyline Drifter]

10 minutes ago, Distant Doonhamer said:

That for me is key. 
That being so have  we seen definitive evidence that Hendry is offside. 
If it’s true that the ref has told players it’s a foul  then somehow changed his mind then that reeks of justification of a dodgy call. 
If Hendry is offside then the decision is correct IMHO. If it’s disallowed as a foul then there’s no reasonable  evidence that a clear and obvious error has been made. A view that  Hendry has fouled the keeper is debatable at best and the on field decision should stand. 

Someone posted this earlier from the Viaplay footage. Its not a great image (clearly from a paused stream) but you can just about see the blue line of Hendry marginally beyond the Spanish player's line. And it says Offside at the bottom obviously! 

Presumably the system actually worked properly. Even the now notorious Liverpool v Spurs cock up didnt actually get the technology wrong (they agreed it was onside), they just made an arse of realising what the on field decision had been and communicating. As they did tonight in sticking up that it was a foul.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Skyline Drifter

[Distant Doonhamer]

Just now, Skyline Drifter said:

Someone posted this earlier from the Viaplay footage. Its not a great image but you can just about see the blue line of Hendry marginally beyond the Spanish player's line. And it ssys Offside at the bottom obviously! 

Presumably the system actually worked properly. Even the now notoriously Liverpool v Spurs cock up didnt actually get the technology wrong (they agreed it was onside), they just made an arse of realising what the on field decision had been and communicating. As they did tonight in sticking up that it was a foul.

Thanks for that. Assuming it’s correct then Hendry is offside. No need for the ref to clarify that. Presumably he’s being asked for an opinion as to whether Hendry is influencing what happens next. I’m not sure why a qualified ref in VAR can’t make that decision. That the ref seems to have told players it’s disallowed for a foul and then changes that narrative still seems at best iffy to me. 
 

[itzdrk]

Jumping in two footed on the obvious

Goal disallowed for an unfortunately clear offside, the fact that Michael Stewart didn't have the correct information and was talking about a foul that didn't exist is irrelevant.  Stop being radicalised by commentators.  

Edited October 13, 2023 by itzdrk

[itzdrk]

BUT MICHAEL STEWART SAIS IT WIZ A FOUL HE GAVE AND IT WISNAE A FOUL, NOW THEY R SAYING OFFSIDE.  REF IS CHEETIN!!!!

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

Yep.

The evidence that it was given for a foul: the referee signalling for a foul, the referee not signalling for offside, the screens in the stadium saying it was for a foul, UEFA advising it was for a foul, players saying the referee told them on the park it was a foul

The evidence that it was given for offside: UEFA saying it was for offside about 15 minutes after the incident when they'd already said it was for a foul 10 minutes earlier, after every communication already saying it was for a foul

The referee disallowed it for a foul. The evidence pointing to this is so obvious it's irrefutable.

As an aside, am I right in saying that the offence of obstruction is also punished with an indirect freekick? So even if the referee had later raised his arm to signal an indirect freekick after quite clearly awarding a foul, that could still mean he'd not given offside?

These pieces of evidence aren't all independent though, they are pretty much all contingent on a single action, which is the referee pointing towards our goal after he makes the video signal. I already gave examples of referees being a bit ambiguous in how they give VAR decisions, so this is shaky ground to base an assertion on. The only exception to that is the part about players saying the referee told them, which has already been discussed by others on here in terms of it not actually being clear this happened.

I think people like to think there is some sort of centralised decision system where the referee officially logs everything with the VAR team and or some sort of central UEFA official, but in reality you just have him giving a signal and others having to interpret that. He will be in verbal contact with the VAR team, but we saw from the Liverpool incident that this isn't exactly some sort of military operation in terms of what they say. It's entirely possible he'd just have gone "right thanks guys, I'm going to disallow the goal" (in Dutch).

When you say "UEFA saying it was offside", this isn't Alexander Ceferin sitting in Switzerland telling the world he's offside, it's just the same people as above acting on new information. It could even be as simple as the VAR official, during a quiet period in play, asking the ref to confirm what he gave.

In terms of your point about obstruction, any foul where there is contact between the players will be a direct free-kick. The wording for an indirect free-kick is "impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made".

[Salvo Montalbano]

13 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

Jumping in two footed on the obvious

Goal disallowed for an unfortunately clear offside, the fact that Michael Stewart didn't have the correct information and was talking about a foul that didn't exist is irrelevant.  Stop being radicalised by commentators.  

I didn't listen to it with commentary. 

[craigkillie]

15 minutes ago, Distant Doonhamer said:

Thanks for that. Assuming it’s correct then Hendry is offside. No need for the ref to clarify that. Presumably he’s being asked for an opinion as to whether Hendry is influencing what happens next. I’m not sure why a qualified ref in VAR can’t make that decision. That the ref seems to have told players it’s disallowed for a foul and then changes that narrative still seems at best iffy to me. 
 

You could say that about any decision where the ref goes to the monitor. The whole ethos of VAR is that the referee is still the sole arbiter and that everyone else is simply assisting him.

[Skyline Drifter]

23 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

Jumping in two footed on the obvious

Goal disallowed for an unfortunately clear offside, the fact that Michael Stewart didn't have the correct information and was talking about a foul that didn't exist is irrelevant.  Stop being radicalised by commentators.  

This. There are still people rattling on about UEFA comms to broadcasters and what the ref may or may not have said to McGinn, or how he pointed. Notwithstanding any of that it was pretty obvious from watching what they were showing him and that it started with a still of the offside Hendry that the review was for interference by an offside player.

UEFA made a complete dog's dinner of communications but the decision looks pretty sound ultimately.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Skyline Drifter

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, Jaggy McJagface said:

Surely the decision that was made on the field is the most relevant point of discussion here? It’s the reason why the goal was disallowed.

If McGinn is telling the truth and the ref gave it as a foul and *not* as offside then how can you say this is irrelevant?

Because the entire discussion was based around people questioning whether Hendry's actions constituted "interfering with an opponent" - ie whether the goal should have stood. The actual decision given by the referee isn't important to that discussion - it's the exact same discussion that we might be having even if the goal had been given.
 

[itzdrk]

7 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

This. There are still people rattling on about UEFA comms to broadcasters and what the ref may or may not have said to McGinn, or how he pointed. Notwithstanding any of that it was pretty obvious from watching what the were showing him and that it started with a still of the offside Hendry that the review was for interference by an offside player.

UEFA made a complete dog's dinner of communications but the decision looks pretty sound ultimately.

Your missing the important point that 'Mikey' Stewart said it was a foul and that means the referee CHANGED HIS MIND to make it offside 10 minutes after it was ruled out.  

Clear anti Scottish bias at play tonight disc race. 

[bleedingums]

5 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Because the entire discussion was based around people questioning whether Hendry's actions constituted "interfering with an opponent" - ie whether the goal should have stood. The actual decision given by the referee isn't important to that discussion - it's the exact same discussion that we might be having even if the goal had been given.
 

No, you just decided that so that you could be correct.

The whole argument from the outset has been that the VAR is totally out of whack. One minute they’re saying it’s a foul and the next its offside - while not showing anything conclusive (Nevermind the standard lines etc) to show that it actually was… or why Hendry was deemed to be intervening…

McGinn said that the referee said it was a foul. There are pictures of the stadium screen saying that it was ruled out for a foul. There are images of the referee signaling that it was a foul. The commentators on numerous streams (not just viaplay) said that it was because it was a foul at the time.
 

[GiGi]

The fact we're even still arguing about why the goal might have been disallowed never mind if it was correct or not is absolutely shameful. The referee was hugely incompetent all night, and in his haste to find fault with the goal he's forgotten to even get his story straight.

Dodgy as f**k, and certain anoraks on this thread posting 400 times somehow more sure of what the ref's given than the ref is, just trying too hard. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by GiGi

[craigkillie]

2 hours ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

Interfering by challenging for the ball, nope.

Interfering my attempting to play the ball,nope

Interfering by clearly obstructing his line of vision, nope.

Which leaves interfering by making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.  That's subjective but I'd 100% say nothing Hendry does impacts Simon in any meaningful way

 

2 hours ago, Artemis said:

Did Hendry do any of these?
The only one could be “making an obvious action which impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball”. Does that still count even if the opponent couldn’t have played the ball anyway? So, if the ball is not within reach of the opponent, how can you impact their ability to play it?
Similarly for the very last point - if the offence was “interfering with the movement of an opponent towards the ball” that is all the rule would say. But it goes on to say “if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball”.
So, is it still offside even if the opponent couldn’t have played or challenged for the ball anyway because they couldn’t have reached it even if there was no player there?
Genuinely not sure.

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

• interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
• interfering with an opponent by:
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
     
  • In situations where:
     
  • a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball

It started as a response to these two posts.

[Swarley]

6 minutes ago, she.IVNA.Sevilla said:

Hello! I live in Seville and since wednesday I could see the good atmosphere in my city on the occasion of the match. I would like to contact some Scottish fans who are in Seville still. My email is joven_20h@hotmail.es. Than you!

 

 

[gannonball]

5 hours ago, Cardle is Magic said:

Can’t believe some folk can’t accept any other explanation other than potential corruption.

I'm not surprised tbh, my experience of this site it is that it is full of absolute moon howlers when it comes to referees. Also the bias from Michael Stewart last night was utter cringe, felt like I was watching a club TV channel.

[kingjoey]

5 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 

If its not offside then its a travesty of a decision because its not a foul.

You keep saying "if". There is no "if".

[kingjoey]

6 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I said immediately if its given for a foul then its an absolute nonsense. Thats still the case.

 

3 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

No, its got nothing to do with vision. He can see it coming. He's pretty obviously preventing the keeper coming for the ball though. He standing right in front of him, between him and the ball as it passes him. For good measure he also gives him a wee push in the opposite direction. Not enough for a foul, but enough to affect his balance. Blatant interference.

And I dont agree with the assertion even @craigkillie made that the ball was going in anyway. I think if Hendry's not in his way he probably claws that away. I certainly dont think you can definitively say he doesn't. 

You've changed your tune.

[Iain]

VAR has completely eradicated the concept of a defender and attacker being level and it's to the detriment of the game. The law wasn't designed to rule out goals because one guy's toe is six inches beyond another guy's armpit or to allow goals where a forward is completely behind a defender, but the defender has a trailing leg two centimetres behind him for a fraction of a second when the ball is played.

It doesn't improve the game to make decisions based on such tiny margins.

[Dons_1988]

If I was to give my two cents here…

I think if we assume the decision is offside (ignoring the timeline of what way he pointed, comms from uefa etc as I don’t know what happened there) then I think technically there is an argument to be made that it’s a sound VAR decision. 

But, putting on my nostalgic, yer da, fucking hate VAR hat…why the f**k are we doing this to ourselves as a sport? I know this sounds totally biased, but I promise I’d say this as a neutral, but what a moment that mctominay free kick is. A truly stunning strike, huge away support, huge celebrations but we have a team of guys watching replay after replay trying to find ways of ruling it out.

f**k that, hendry doesn’t influence the outcome there really, the keeper isn’t saving it. It’s not for the ref to make that judgement though so once he’s called over I can see why he’s done it. 

Still think the ref was shite though, I thought from the moment he booked dykes he wasn’t going to be our friend. The amount Laporte then got away with vindicates that. 

the less biased views are a) why the f**k was hendry in there putting his hand on the keeper in the first place and b) you can’t really argue Spain didn’t deserve to win.