Spain (a) in October

[Stellaboz]

VAR aside I thought we did extremely well, then tired last 10 minutes. Hickey was clearly burst. 

Boat load of defending and a little luck kept us level but Spain didn't cut us open too often. And when we eventually got forward 2nd half it was pleasing to see us getting then worried. Even at 1 down we looked a threat, wasn't until the 2nd I think the legs went. 

 

For Spain, they've completely changed their game since their dominant era 15 years ago. That team previous never crossed a ball once, that team last night looked like they relied on getting it wife and firing in crosses. Bit weird to see that.

[Willie adie]

From listening on the wireless, we were lucky to have held it at 0-0 for so long.

So there is a case for saying Spain were the deserved winners.

But we all know that keepers get so much protection it's laughable, 

VAR is something football spent decades demanding, and probably justifyably, but it's the usage of it, and way it seems to be down to interpretation and opinion that is the issue,

And the lack of transparency and communication.

 

[Cptn Hooch]

8 hours ago, 101 said:

UEFA are useless b*****ds. SFA aren't usually much better

FIFY

[Richey Edwards]

The referee and match officials can hold their heads high and be proud of their performance last night.

It was probably the worst officiating performance I have seen in a long, long time. Coming from a Scottish football supporter - and considering the standard of officiating in Scotland - that is high praise indeed. 

A monumental achievement in officiating.

[Empty It]

They should just bring in a rule nobody is allowed within 3M of the goalkeeper, football is fucked anyway. 

[Dons_1988]

16 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

VAR aside I thought we did extremely well, then tired last 10 minutes. Hickey was clearly burst. 

Boat load of defending and a little luck kept us level but Spain didn't cut us open too often. And when we eventually got forward 2nd half it was pleasing to see us getting then worried. Even at 1 down we looked a threat, wasn't until the 2nd I think the legs went. 

 

For Spain, they've completely changed their game since their dominant era 15 years ago. That team previous never crossed a ball once, that team last night looked like they relied on getting it wife and firing in crosses. Bit weird to see that.

I thought we defended well but we didn’t pose enough threat the other way. As toothless as Spain were at times, if you spend that much time under pressure you will concede more often than not. The first half especially played out like that. 

That was actually pleasing in the build up to the disallowed goal, we were getting our foot on the ball and posing a threat which was taking that pressure off us. Unfortunately the disallowed goal drives Spain forward and we’re on the back foot right up until they go 1-0 up. Very, very frustrating. 

[RandomGuy.]

4 hours ago, itzdrk said:

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.  

I mean, they literally did give it for a foul and then randomly announce later it was actually offside.

The ref signalled a foul, VAR showed it was for a foul, UEFA said it was a foul, the pitchside monitors said it was a foul. Then they obviously watched the clip back multiple times and realised offside made more sense so ran with that.

Quite why people think its acceptable and "a good use of technology" that they rule out a goal for something, realise they got it wrong, and simply change their mind on the reason is beyond me. Its just trying to cover their own back because they realise theyve fucked up and fortunately theyll get away with it as wee snivellers need to act smart or "be neutral" at all costs and will support/defend the decision. 

The idea that they always said it was offside and literally everyone just signalled it wrong at the time is just twisting reality to excuse people who make constant errors and try and make it sound like they didnt get it wrong. VAR didnt cost millions and ruin the game so referees could spend 15 minutes trying to cover their own arses.

Edited October 13, 2023 by RandomGuy.

[Monkey Tennis]

6 hours 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.

Yes, fair enough.  Hendry's right foot can be deemed offside.  I still think it's a nonsense that VAR gets used in such a way, when the margins are so tiny.  Whatever happened to "clear and obvious error"?  Genuine question:  is that still a thing?

I agree that if he's offside, he is interfering.  Any offside, however, is so marginal.

However, I know that such decisions aren't confined to last night's match.  I also know that VAR did us some favours during our good late run to the World Cup play-offs.  Last night's ruling was pretty painful though.

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes, fair enough.  Hendry's right foot can be deemed offside.  I still think it's a nonsense that VAR gets used in such a way, when the margins are so tiny.  Whatever happened to "clear and obvious error"?  Genuine question:  is that still a thing?

I agree that if he's offside, he is interfering.  Any offside, however, is so marginal.

However, I know that such decisions aren't confined to last night's match.  I also know that VAR did us some favours during our good late run to the World Cup play-offs.  Last night's ruling was pretty painful though.

Technically, clear and obvious isn’t a thing with offside. 

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

Technically, clear and obvious isn’t a thing with offside. 

Is it not?  Is that deemed simply to be entirely binary then?  

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Is it not?  Is that deemed simply to be entirely binary then?  

Yeah, ‘offside is offside’ is the mandate there. The argument of hendry interfering is more subjective but I think he probably does. 

This being despite the fact that it’s very questionable that the technology can cope with making the calls at such fine margins. 

But the bigger issue for me is in a sporting context, who gives a flying f**k if someone’s foot is half a centimetre offside, that is clearly not what the rule is for. 

[Virtual Insanity]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Is it not?  Is that deemed simply to be entirely binary then?  

Yes, which in itself is a farce since they cannot prove it at the margins they give decisions by. 

[Monkey Tennis]

58 minutes ago, Iain said:

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.

100% this.

It's a separate argument to that concerning the mechanics of what was given last night, but you're absolutely right.  The spectacle is not aided by wiping out goals on such tiny technicalities.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

7 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

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.

Apart from the fact it was called for a foul.

 

 

 

[Diamonds are Forever]

3 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Yeah, ‘offside is offside’ is the mandate there. The argument of hendry interfering is more subjective but I think he probably does. 

This being despite the fact that it’s very questionable that the technology can cope with making the calls at such fine margins. 

But the bigger issue for me is in a sporting context, who gives a flying f**k if someone’s foot is half a centimetre offside, that is clearly not what the rule is for. 

 

Can we accept goals that are half a centimetre over the goal line? Or give penalties that are half a centimetre inside the penalty box? Or should we have a similar blasé attitude to those too?

It's not about 'what the rule is for', you need to have a consistent standard otherwise you have no rules. Is 2 centimetres offside okay? What about 5? What about 20? Or is that being picky too? At some point you need to draw the line, how offside do you think someone needs to be before they are actually offside?

There is a very valid debate to be had about the reliability of the technology and how much weight we should put on it, but basically just saying he's only a wee bit offside so it doesn't count is ridiculous.

 

[BallochSonsFan]

The only reason we're talking about offside is because UEFA  changed the referee's decision from a foul to offside. The referee called it as a foul. UEFA called it as a foul. They then realised how weak a decision it was and tried to cover it by claiming offside. They've since gone back to calling it a foul.

Beyond the goal? Ref was at it all nigiht. Laporte allowed to foul at will but only booked in the last few minutes. Patterson? Booked for very little. McGinn wiped out on the edge of the Spanish box and deemed not a foul by that ref.

Christian Daily would have said it like it was last night.

[houston_bud]

1 hour ago, Iain said:

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.

Spot on. It's now completely impossible for an attacking player to look along the line and know if he's on or offside.

I can't fathom how those in charge of the game think this is an improvement. 

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

Can we accept goals that are half a centimetre over the goal line? Or give penalties that are half a centimetre inside the penalty box? Or should we have a similar blasé attitude to those too?

It's not about 'what the rule is for', you need to have a consistent standard otherwise you have no rules. Is 2 centimetres offside okay? What about 5? What about 20? Or is that being picky too? At some point you need to draw the line, how offside do you think someone needs to be before they are actually offside?

There is a very valid debate to be had about the reliability of the technology and how much weight we should put on it, but basically just saying he's only a wee bit offside so it doesn't count is ridiculous.

 

If the technology doesn’t exist to definitively make the call then this babyish black and white notion of offside being offside is just silly. 

Even then, there is absolutely an argument to say that if you can’t tell with the naked eye even on a replay, then who fucking cares. No unfair advantage has been gained. 

[accies1874]

Anyone fancy taking a stab at who the last player to score a (legitimate) free-kick for Scotland was, and in which game? 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

6 hours ago, Alert Mongoose said:

Until they sort out the timing issue.

They may say it is factual - it isn't in reality because a player could be onside (or offside) momentarily between frame rates.