Spain (a) in October

[Distant Doonhamer]

I see the good old BBC who spent days last week saying we needed a win last night to qualify are now saying that we need a Spain win on Sunday to qualify.

They really are clueless. 

[Kevin Finnerty]

2 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

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

Yeah it affects the seeding. Pots 1 and 2 are made up of the teams that won their group sorted by their position in the overall ranking (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Edited October 13, 2023 by Kevin Finnerty

[2426255]

On 12/10/2023 at 07:55, accies1874 said:

I probably prefer Adams in these games as he's generally a more reliable out-ball whereas Dykes prefers the rough and tumble which can be very useful but isn't always helpful. They're both capable of being brilliant or terrible tonight, though, and I reckon Clarke will try and go with as close as possible to the team that beat them in March so Dykes will get the nod imo.

Gunn

Porteous Hendry Cooper

Hickey McTominay McGregor Robertson

McGinn Dykes Christie

Overall you weren't too far off.

11 hours ago, accies1874 said:

Spain pressed well and we had no out-ball anywhere on the park, but I think the change of formation just before-half time helped us get into the game as Christie could sit on Rodri and it gave us two targets to hit as well as some more space for the wing-backs.  

I think the change occurred earlier in the 1st half. After around 20 minutes (20.43) it could be seen that Scotland had adjusted to a 532/352 from the 541/3421.

The tell was Christie appearing on the right hand side up with Dykes when he had previously been on the left and McTominay moved more centrally when he had previously had more of a right hand skew.

Edited October 13, 2023 by 2426255

[Jaggy McJagface]

Wanting a Norway win on Sunday is mental, as that leaves us being a slip up in Georgia away from a nerve wracking do or die match against Norway where they will have all the momentum.

If we were to win our last 2 games we will almost certainly be in pot 2 as the best runner up with 21/24 points - that’s an achievable goal and has less unbearable pressure on it than if we are going into matches worrying about the unthinkable happening.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Jaggy McJagface

[Hedgecutter]

1 hour ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

it is literally killing the moment.  Who ever wanted a wait of six minutes before they could celebrate a goal, or now has absolutely no confidence that the 'moment' everyone just witnessed will be remembered for what it was rather than the subsequent analysis and often unsatisfactory outcome ?

I have to admit that all I could think of was "right, what's this going to be chalked off for?" about 5 secs after it went in.  Should have been a McFadden-in-Paris-esque bouncing all over the shop moment, but it's now just ruined. 

[Donathan]

4 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

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

Yes, the top 5 group winners join Germany in pot 1 and the other 5 go into pot 2.

 

If you finish 2nd you almost certainly go into pot 3 or 4. 

[Skyline Drifter]

26 minutes ago, velo army said:

Fucking hell. Can we stop debating the offside? It's obvious he gave a foul and fucked up. 

I'm more concerned about Robbo and also about how shite we were in possession. It doesn't look like he'll be back for the next games as by the looks of it he's either dislocated his shoulder or broken his collar bone. 

 

Well it's obvious he didn't give a foul. People preferring to believe a communications breakdown to what they can see with their own eyes doesn't make it so. From the moment he went over to the monitor they're clearly showing him an image relating to offside.

17 minutes ago, Venti said:

Skyline guy really is a fucking rocket.

Yes, apologies for letting the facts get in the way of everybody's frustrated ranting.

[forameus]

4 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Well it's obvious he didn't give a foul. People preferring to believe a communications breakdown to what they can see with their own eyes doesn't make it so. From the moment he went over to the monitor they're clearly showing him an image relating to offside.

If it was relating to offside, wouldn't you be seeing the lines in the pictures he was looking at?  Unless I missed them.  And how else are you supposed to look at an incident where the free-kick was where it was?

[Brother Blades]

I also think a negative result for Norway on Sunday (draw preferably) will lift a lot of pressure from the squad, especially going into the last two fixtures potentially off the back of three losses. Knowing we are there & both Norway & Georgia having nothing tangible to play for could make all the difference between pot 1 (draw) and potentially pot 3/4. 

[Skyline Drifter]

1 minute ago, Artemis said:

Whether Hendry was interfering or not isn’t a fact. Even if you think he obviously was, it still isn’t a fact.

Yes, ok, fair point. If it was a fact they wouldn't need the referee to review it. It's very obviously interfering though, which is why he didn't need much of a look at it to confirm he was.

[Venti]

7 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Well it's obvious he didn't give a foul. People preferring to believe a communications breakdown to what they can see with their own eyes doesn't make it so. From the moment he went over to the monitor they're clearly showing him an image relating to offside.

Yes, apologies for letting the facts get in the way of everybody's frustrated ranting.

Must have been pretty exciting watching your first ever football game last night.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 minute ago, forameus said:

If it was relating to offside, wouldn't you be seeing the lines in the pictures he was looking at?  Unless I missed them.  And how else are you supposed to look at an incident where the free-kick was where it was?

No, the match referee doesn't decide on factual offside (he was offside), he was being asked to confirm whether the offside player had done enough to be deemed interfering with the goalkeeper.

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, Venti said:

Must have been pretty exciting watching your first ever football game last night.

Yes, that's what happened here. Thanks for your contribution.

[cyderspaceman]

2 hours ago, houston_bud said:

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. 

My tuppenceworth, is that only the whole body of the player should cause offside to be triggered, not just a toe or the nose. 

I realise there would still be debate, over a trailing foot for instance, but to the watching fan it would be more obvious and acceptable .

[Skyline Drifter]

10 hours 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. 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.

Craig explained this last night much better than any of my apparently offensive posts did. Other than the fact that I don't agree with the suggestion it was "definitely going to be a goal" this post is 100% bang on the money.

[Pie Of The Month]

I've seen it said a fair few times on here that the Spanish players didn't appeal for anything for the disallowed goal. Im assuming the TV just didn't show them surrounding the ref to the point he booked one of them for dissent? 

[Skyline Drifter]

1 minute ago, Pie Of The Month said:

I've seen it said a fair few times on here that the Spanish players didn't appeal for anything for the disallowed goal. Im assuming the TV just didn't show them surrounding the ref to the point he booked one of them for dissent? 

Yes they did. He booked the keeper for dissent. I assume that stands regardless of the subsequent overturn? Dissent is still dissent I guess.

[Stellaboz]

Thanks to @McGlovin' for stream assist... was i the only one that heard the commentator on Dazn say the goal stood? Keeper shown as booked, then 5 minutes later getting very confused by the 0 0 scoreline?!

[Pie Of The Month]

Just now, Skyline Drifter said:

Yes they did. He booked the keeper for dissent. I assume that stands regardless of the subsequent overturn? Dissent is still dissent I guess.

You're right it still stands. Fairly sure there was an instance similar recently where a player got a 2nd yellow for dissent for an overturned decision and he was still sent off 

[Skyline Drifter]

1 minute ago, Pie Of The Month said:

You're right it still stands. Fairly sure there was an instance similar recently where a player got a 2nd yellow for dissent for an overturned decision and he was still sent off 

Logically you're right. I was just recalling that Dykes was booked for the goal against Israel and that was then rescinded when the goal was given on review. However, it was probably that the booking was for dangerous play / high feet rather than subsequent dissent. Once they overturn the goal then it's clearly not a foul and he can't be booked for it.