Spain (a) in October

[strichener]

15 hours ago, craigkillie said:

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.

Yet VAR decides if it is offside.  That isn't assisting, that makes them the arbiters.

[Monkey Tennis]

9 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Er, no. Level has always been onside.

Do you mean when they changed to 'give the benefit of any doubt to the attacker'? 

No I mean precisely the thing that I said.

I know you're feeling a bit embattled and I've a degree of sympathy.

Stop being such an arrogant twat though. 

 

In 1990 (admittedly more than a decade of two ago) the rules were changed in exactly the way I outlined. 

See a link below to the relevant  IFAB document.  Page 16 is where you need to look.

https://ssbra.org/ifab/assets/pdf/1990min.pdf

Edited October 13, 2023 by Monkey Tennis

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

No I mean precisely the thing that I said.

I know you're feeling a bit embattled and I've a degree of sympathy.

Stop being such an arrogant twat though. 

 

In 1990 (admittedly more than a decade of two ago) the rules were changed in exactly the way I outlined. 

See a link below to the relevant section of the relevant ruling document.

https://ssbra.org/ifab/assets/pdf/1990min.pdf

There really wasn't any need for that. I've no idea what part of my post you think screams "arrogant twat" but since my posting style clearly completely offends everyone this will be the last one outside of the Managers thread on Infowire for the foreseeable future. I've absolutely had my fill of it to be honest.

And I have absolutely no memory of offside ever being anything other than level being onside. As you've provided evidence of it I'll happily concede I'm wrong about that, but I don't remember it.

Bye.

[Monkey Tennis]

Just now, Skyline Drifter said:

There really wasn't any need for that. I've no idea what part of my post you think screams "arrogant twat" but since my posting style clearly completely offends everyone this will be the last one outside of the Managers thread on Infowire for the foreseeable future. I've absolutely had my fill of it to be honest.

And I have absolutely no memory of offside ever being anything other than level being onside. As you've provided evidence of it I'll happily concede I'm wrong about that, but I don't remember it.

Bye.

 "Er, no.  Level has always been onside" betrayed a certain arrogance in my view.

I've no wish to join any pile on, and your absence from here would be a loss.

It's possible to disagree more humbly than you've been managing though.  By the way, I do recognise a certain irony in the fact it's me saying that.

[Thistle_do_nicely]

2 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

The general refereeing decision making, disallowed goal aside, was indicative of a referee going into the game with a narrative in his head. Obviously referees don't intentionally cheat and it's tinfoil hat stuff to think they do, but if a referee goes into a game with an idea in their head of what both teams are like and is therefore looking out for specific things from one side, even subconsciously, if it can lead to wildly inconsistent and blatantly unfair decision making. Last night was a very extreme version of it.

We've probably all seen this with our clubs. Fans of Premiership clubs will get this going against them when they're playing against the Old Firm and going for them in cup ties against lower league sides, as a fan of a perennial Championship side I've seen it go against us against Premiership sides and for us against League Two sides, a relegation battling team suffers it against a title contender, a team with an average height of about 5'7 who are all built like the side of a fiver are on the receiving end if opposition managers have been crying about big bad physical Morton all season, and so on. If a referee starts the game with a narrative in their head that one team is there to play football and the other are just cloggers, they can end up refereeing both sides in an entirely different way.

The centre backs of one team are allowed to manhandle the opposition's centre forwards for 90 minutes, while the centre backs at the other end can't go for a header without being penalised for it. The referee is subconsciously thinking the team they have viewed as a better side are winning those contests through their innate footballing superiority regardless of how blatant their fouls get, while the team they expected to be nothing more than big physical cloggers can only be triumphing in 50/50 contests through cheating even if they're winning the ball cleanly and fairly.

The referee clearly started the game last night with a preconceived notion that Scotland were turning up to physically clog Spain off the park while Spain would be playing tiki-taka and never making a tackle. When subconsciously looking at the game through that prism, he can ignore the evidence of his eyes to see Carvajal bodychecking McGinn as just a collision and not even a foul rather than a stonewall yellow card, because Spain's total footballers simply aren't going to make cynical physical fouls. Meanwhile Patterson barely touching Zaragoza is a clear foul and booking, because the slightest touch is confirmation of the horrible cynical cloggers perception he's started the game with.

It's clearly not deliberate, but I've never seen a referee at international level so obviously succumb to a narrative to that extent. It's the kind of weak refereeing you expect from a young ref in Scotland getting their first SPFL game.

Excellent post.

Another example springing to mind about other external factors influencing decision making I'd chime in with is "not wanting to spoil an occasion"; its absolutely a real thing.

Netherlands vs. Spain world cup (or was it Euros, genuinely cannae mind) was incredible, fair enough Holland got a mad amount of yellow cards and De Jong got a red I think, but iirc they ought to have finished with about 8 players if the ref had been a lot stronger.

So Spain being the home team vs. a preconceived notion of Scotland clogging their way to a 0-0 to qualify may well be a factor, yeah.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Thistle_do_nicely

[Molotov]

Well let’s just hope we have a stronger referee and var team in place when the teams next meet in the final of the Euros! 

[Jaggy Snake]

For people still claiming the decision wasn't changed and using the slightest ambiguity in McGinn's interview, Ryan Christie literally said the referee told the players two different stories.

The goal probably shouldn't have stood as Hendry was marginally off and arguably obstructed/distracted the keeper. That might be debatable but it's pretty clear that the refereeing team changed their story on what the goal was ruled out for.

Quote

“Then the ref’s telling everyone on the pitch that it’s for a push, then when we go to see him afterwards he’s saying it’s offside.

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/sport/23853333.afc-bournemouth-ryan-christie-scotlands-loss-spain/

[Distant Doonhamer]

2 hours ago, printer said:

Indeed, @craigkillie 's post is a very good summary.

I also agree with you that we can't say it would definitely have been a goal if Hendrie hadn't committed the foul; likely would have, but we just don't know.

IMHO Hendry doesn't commit a foul. I can accept an offside decision as Hendry is offside and does impact on the possibility of the keeper making a save.

It's never a foul by Hendry though. 

[Bairnardo]

18 minutes ago, Jaggy Snake said:

For people still claiming the decision wasn't changed and using the slightest ambiguity in McGinn's interview, Ryan Christie literally said the referee told the players two different stories.

The goal probably shouldn't have stood as Hendry was marginally off and arguably obstructed/distracted the keeper. That might be debatable but it's pretty clear that the refereeing team changed their story on what the goal was ruled out for.

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/sport/23853333.afc-bournemouth-ryan-christie-scotlands-loss-spain/

Na Christie has made a mistake there. What's happened is, he's seen the referees mistaken hand signal.......

[Diamonds are Forever]

2 hours ago, Jambomo said:

Generally speaking I absolutely agree with this overall but it’s worth bearing in mind that this ref was subject to match-fixing investigations in 2015. Not only do some refs cheat occasionally, this one has been suspected of being one that does previously. 

 

But it's also worth remembering that the referee gave the goal initially. If not for VAR we'd currently be qualified for Euro 2024, so he wouldn't be a very good cheat.

 

[Venti]

Conveniently Skyline skulks off as England are about to kick off.

[Jaggy McJagface]

50 minutes ago, Jaggy Snake said:

For people still claiming the decision wasn't changed and using the slightest ambiguity in McGinn's interview, Ryan Christie literally said the referee told the players two different stories.

The goal probably shouldn't have stood as Hendry was marginally off and arguably obstructed/distracted the keeper. That might be debatable but it's pretty clear that the refereeing team changed their story on what the goal was ruled out for.

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/sport/23853333.afc-bournemouth-ryan-christie-scotlands-loss-spain/

If this is the case I think the SFA need to seek clarification on the decision. It won’t change the result obviously, but if you just meekly let stuff like that slide then things aren’t ever going to improve.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, Venti said:

Conveniently Skyline skulks off as England are about to kick off.

Don't be daft.

He's absolutely a Scotland fan and to imply otherwise is silly.

 

I feel a bit bad about my part in driving him from here.  It wasn't my intention and I apologise if he felt my post was a bit of a personal attack.  

I know what it's like to be set upon by a mob on here, and although we're all apparently meant to insist we're utterly unbothered by what other posters say, it doesn't feel very nice.

 

He's an excellent overall poster. Both Queens threads and Scotland ones are better for his presence. 

[Distant Doonhamer]

3 minutes ago, Jaggy McJagface said:

If this is the case I think the SFA need to seek clarification on the decision. It won’t change the result obviously, but if you just meekly let stuff like that slide then things aren’t ever going to improve.

BBC saying this evening that SFA have written to UEFA to seek clarification around the disallowed goal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67103483

[Bairnardo]

6 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Don't be daft.

He's absolutely a Scotland fan and to imply otherwise is silly.

 

I feel a bit bad about my part in driving him from here.  It wasn't my intention and I apologise if he felt my post was a bit of a personal attack.  

I know what it's like to be set upon by a mob on here, and although we're all apparently meant to insist we're utterly unbothered by what other posters say, it doesn't feel very nice.

 

He's an excellent overall poster. Both Queens threads and Scotland ones are better for his presence. 

I agree with this. But I also agreed with you re the tone of arrogance. I have no idea what he was up to with that whole argument, but the tone was really poor.

[craigkillie]

2 hours ago, strichener said:

Yet VAR decides if it is offside.  That isn't assisting, that makes them the arbiters.

VAR does the exact same thing an assistant referee with a flag has done for decades, it advises the referee of an offside. The referee still has to make the final decision, but he does so on the advice of his colleagues who have a better view of the incident.

[printer]

53 minutes ago, Distant Doonhamer said:

IMHO Hendry doesn't commit a foul. I can accept an offside decision as Hendry is offside and does impact on the possibility of the keeper making a save.

It's never a foul by Hendry though. 

When I said committed the foul, I meant the offside foul. To me a foul is anytime a player commits an offence which is punishable by a free kick. I might be wrong in that view.

[Distant Doonhamer]

12 minutes ago, printer said:

When I said committed the foul, I meant the offside foul. To me a foul is anytime a player commits an offence which is punishable by a free kick. I might be wrong in that view.

Fair enough. I’d just call it being offside rather than it being an offside fall. 

[strichener]

23 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

VAR does the exact same thing an assistant referee with a flag has done for decades, it advises the referee of an offside. The referee still has to make the final decision, but he does so on the advice of his colleagues who have a better view of the incident.

 

20 hours 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.

 

24 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

 

Your explanations are as inconsistent as a Dutchman in Seville.

[printer]

4 minutes ago, Distant Doonhamer said:

Fair enough. I’d just call it being offside rather than it being an offside fall. 

To me being offside just means you are in an offside position. It doesn't say whether or not you are committing an offence (ie are also interfering with play, an opponent).