The race for top 6 St Mirren v Livi 01/04/2023

[LIVIFOREVER]

1 hour ago, glenburn bud said:

It says a lot about Beaton that he could not have been more than about 20 yards from the first penalty incident, yet he didn’t call it in real time. He might or might not have actually been closer than 20 yards but there you have it. He’s supposedly one of our top refs. 

 

I was sitting more than 20 yards away and saw it hitting his arm, the whole stadium prob could see it, he did try and pull his arm back out the way, but yeah, it hit his arm so penalty. This letting play go on after hand balls, and offsides, is going to see someone get seriously injured, which shouldn't be happening if they'd just call it at the time and then let VAR verify it. And as you say, players are getting cards when they shouldn't be having to play on, our keeper was lucky not to get a red card against County, because the lino didn't call an offside till after play had gone on and 2 players got clattered by our keeper, and both were down injured afterwards.

Edited April 2, 2023 by LIVIFOREVER

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

23 hours ago, Monkey socks said:

From my angle behind the goals I thought they were 2 penalties, pulling arm away or not. I certainly would be screaming for them if it was in our favour. What's annoying is that Beaton missed both instances and VAR called him to account. Both St Mirren stands on either side of the pitch shouted for them at the same time so it was obvious to them but not the ref who was considerably closer to both incidents. The games being run/ ruined by VAR not the refs. I cannot shout at VAR as its in some darkened room in the depths of goodness knows where monitored by another incompetent. 

I'm confused??

How can you say on one hand that VAR corrected two incorrect penalty decisions by the ref and then on the other hand say the game is being ruined by VAR?

[Bobby_F]

19 hours ago, glenburn bud said:

It says a lot about Beaton that he could not have been more than about 20 yards from the first penalty incident, yet he didn’t call it in real time. He might or might not have actually been closer than 20 yards but there you have it. He’s supposedly one of our top refs. 

 

And one of our supposedly top linesmen missed it too.  And the second penalty.

But managed to see exactly when the ball left the kickers foot AND simultaneously see that Main was 6" offside.

Mind you this is the linesman that awarded Kilmarnock a winning goal at the same end for a ball being narrowly over the line, when his view was obstructed by Kris Boyd's huge arse.

#SuperPowers

[djchapsticks]

35 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

I'm confused??

How can you say on one hand that VAR corrected two incorrect penalty decisions by the ref and then on the other hand say the game is being ruined by VAR?

Without putting words into the poster's mouth, I'm guessing he means along this lines of VAR (and indeed the new offside rule) almost absolving referees of the burden of making decisions at times. Indecision of a referee led to a booking for Mark O'Hara on Saturday that should have never actually happened.

Prime example on Saturday was the Livi boy who took a dead leg about 75 mins. He takes a sore one, play goes up our end - we win possession back and Curtis Main is played through. He's offside, he knows he is, Livi knows he is, the fans know he is. The flag stays down, so Curtis, naturally runs onto it. The Livi player who has just taken the injury about 45 seconds prior, also knows he is but is now being forced to run full pelt whilst absolutely fucked just in case. The linesman then waits until the ball is down in the corner and only then, the flag goes up. The Livi player goes off seconds later clearly in no fit start to have just been forced to make what was an absolutely needless run.

[LiviLion]

47 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

I'm confused??

How can you say on one hand that VAR corrected two incorrect penalty decisions by the ref and then on the other hand say the game is being ruined by VAR?

 

4 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

Without putting words into the poster's mouth, I'm guessing he means along this lines of VAR (and indeed the new offside rule) almost absolving referees of the burden of making decisions at times. Indecision of a referee led to a booking for Mark O'Hara on Saturday that should have never actually happened.

I'd add to it more and say the amount of time it takes is absolutely ruining the game, regardless of them coming to the right decision. Boring as f**k sitting there waiting while they watch a load of slowed down replays, then the theatrics of the ref running over to the monitor (why the f**k doesn't he just make his way over when they're checking it anyway), all for an added 9 minutes in the freezing Scottish cold.

Think I've typed that last sentence in every other match thread since it came in, f**k VAR.

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

6 minutes ago, LiviLion said:

 

I'd add to it more and say the amount of time it takes is absolutely ruining the game, regardless of them coming to the right decision. Boring as f**k sitting there waiting while they watch a load of slowed down replays, then the theatrics of the ref running over to the monitor (why the f**k doesn't he just make his way over when they're checking it anyway), all for an added 9 minutes in the freezing Scottish cold.

Think I've typed that last sentence in every other match thread since it came in, f**k VAR.

I’d say it’s anything but boring when your team are potentially about to benefit to the tune of a penalty that should’ve been given in the first place. 
I think VAR adds a level of excitement to the game. 
My only criticism of VAR as a general concept is the impact it has on spontaneous celebration when your team score a goal. That said, I believe that’s a price worth paying for getting decisions right. 
I also don’t get all this moaning about having to wait a few minutes for a decision. Ffs it might happen two or three time max on average in a game. 
What’s the matter with people that they can reach such extreme levels of impatience. 

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

22 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

Without putting words into the poster's mouth, I'm guessing he means along this lines of VAR (and indeed the new offside rule) almost absolving referees of the burden of making decisions at times. Indecision of a referee led to a booking for Mark O'Hara on Saturday that should have never actually happened.

Prime example on Saturday was the Livi boy who took a dead leg about 75 mins. He takes a sore one, play goes up our end - we win possession back and Curtis Main is played through. He's offside, he knows he is, Livi knows he is, the fans know he is. The flag stays down, so Curtis, naturally runs onto it. The Livi player who has just taken the injury about 45 seconds prior, also knows he is but is now being forced to run full pelt whilst absolutely fucked just in case. The linesman then waits until the ball is down in the corner and only then, the flag goes up. The Livi player goes off seconds later clearly in no fit start to have just been forced to make what was an absolutely needless run.

Addressing two of your points differently.

On the offside/play on rule, I like this. The slim chance of a player getting injured vs a perfectly good goal being disallowed (or more accurately not being able to be scored in the first place) is again a risk worth taking.

As for VAR penalty checks I would change this rule. I wouldn’t wait until the ball goes out of play. I’d stop play as soon as VAR advises the ref that a check is underway. 

[pozbaird]

I’m 50% for VAR, and 50% against it. Seriously conflicted. I am however, 100% against Scottish officials being such incompetent wallopers like Beaton, Collum & Co. At least Collum doesn’t come over as being fond of making an ‘honest mistake’ in favour of an Old Firm ugly, he’s just genuinely inept for all and sundry.

[ATLIS]

4 hours ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

I'm confused??

How can you say on one hand that VAR corrected two incorrect penalty decisions by the ref and then on the other hand say the game is being ruined by VAR?

For me the inconsistent application of VAR is what's ruining the game, and that's before you get to the length of time it's taking to use. 

I'm not in any way suggesting this would've changed the outcome of the game or that St Mirren didn't deserve to win that game but we've had Shinnie's shot cross the line (St Mirren players having admitted that) and a stonewall penalty against Stephen Kelly not even looked at. I'm unsure if VAR can act as a goal line technology-lite system but it's certainly annoying us a bit. 

If you look at the reverse game where we had Pittman sent off, even that was contentious. We had Holt sent off previously for another contentious occurrence vs Hibs. If you then reverse that Dundee Utd got away with 3 reds against us and VAR stepped in for zero. One of them, the ref gave him a final warning and he's subbed 30 minutes in where he should've 100% off. Then you've got Ayina who should've been off for a tackle that's similar to Pittman's and Holt's (a tackle where we lost the appeal for both, so the SFA are adamant it's a red). The third was a bad tackle towards the end of the game as well, nothing went to VAR. None sent to the monitor. 

I can sympathise with St Mirren fan's over O'Hara's booking as well, because the exact same thing happened to us with Nicky Devlin where Dundee Utd broke up the park and he's booked but play is pulled back and we're awarded a penalty. 

We didn't get many, if any decisions our way pre-VAR but we're certainly having more go against us post-VAR's introduction. The annoying thing is that Motherwell beat us 1-0 after being awarded a penalty for a cross that hit Montano's chest. It's not a black and white issue because the refs with and without VAR are shite and make bad mistakes almost weekly. 

The one time people thought we got a dodgy decision our way was Shamal's 'tackle' on Brophy which was talked about on Sportscene, Ref Watch etc. Except they completely forgot to show the fact that the linesman gave Brophy as offside which changes the options the referee has. Nevertheless, pundits alike went on to be dumbfounded as to how Livi got the free kick and Shamal wasn't sent off. 

[Monkey socks]

6 hours ago, djchapsticks said:

Without putting words into the poster's mouth, I'm guessing he means along this lines of VAR (and indeed the new offside rule) almost absolving referees of the burden of making decisions at times. Indecision of a referee led to a booking for Mark O'Hara on Saturday that should have never actually happened.

 

Put more succinctly than my original post.  Beaton had made a decion on both penalty incidents that he had not seen any infringements which would have led to the award of a penalty. He was happy but a faceless 5th official decided he was wrong. It gets to the stage where its a case of " I'm not sure and if I'm wrong VAR will bail me out"  And if it was clear cut it should not take  4 minutes to sort it out.  

[Stu]

I've felt for a while refs are choosing/have been told to wait and let VAR decide on penalties, perhaps on the basis it's much easier to pull play back and award a penalty than give a spot-kick then restart play when it turns out you were wrong.

There has to be some element of deliberateness (if that's a word) to letting these decisions go initially because if not our officials are even worse than I thought.

[craigkillie]

6 hours ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Addressing two of your points differently.

On the offside/play on rule, I like this. The slim chance of a player getting injured vs a perfectly good goal being disallowed (or more accurately not being able to be scored in the first place) is again a risk worth taking.

As for VAR penalty checks I would change this rule. I wouldn’t wait until the ball goes out of play. I’d stop play as soon as VAR advises the ref that a check is underway. 

 

This is logically inconsistent. If you think (and I agree), that the flag has to stay down in order to prevent an incorrect offside decision from preventing a goal being scored, then how can you also think that the referee should stop the game (and potentially prevent a goal being scored) in a situation where he didn't even think it was a penalty in the first place?

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

2 hours ago, craigkillie said:

 

This is logically inconsistent. If you think (and I agree), that the flag has to stay down in order to prevent an incorrect offside decision from preventing a goal being scored, then how can you also think that the referee should stop the game (and potentially prevent a goal being scored) in a situation where he didn't even think it was a penalty in the first place?

Because the very definition of an offside scenario is that there is a fair chance a goal is about to scored. 
The opposite is true of a denied penalty situation. Most often the ball will have been cleared away from the danger area, as was the case in both St. Mirren penalties at the weekend. 
I accept it’s an imperfect science, but I’d don’t accept that the opinion is logically inconsistent. 

Anyway, that’s the last time I stick up for you on another thread.

[Mordecai]

5 hours ago, ATLIS said:

For me the inconsistent application of VAR is what's ruining the game, and that's before you get to the length of time it's taking to use. 

I'm not in any way suggesting this would've changed the outcome of the game or that St Mirren didn't deserve to win that game but we've had Shinnie's shot cross the line (St Mirren players having admitted that) and a stonewall penalty against Stephen Kelly not even looked at. I'm unsure if VAR can act as a goal line technology-lite system but it's certainly annoying us a bit. 
 

I don't know if you've seen the highlights, but it doesn't look like it crossed the line at all. As you said though, I'm not even sure if VAR checks these things. 

[ATLIS]

6 minutes ago, Mordecai said:

I don't know if you've seen the highlights, but it doesn't look like it crossed the line at all. As you said though, I'm not even sure if VAR checks these things. 

I was just going off of what Martindale has said, and what he's said St Mirren players had said to be fair. If not then fair enough, i don't think it changes the outcome of the game either way. Would be interesting to know if VAR can step in on it though

[Ginaro]

9 hours ago, djchapsticks said:

Prime example on Saturday was the Livi boy who took a dead leg about 75 mins. He takes a sore one, play goes up our end - we win possession back and Curtis Main is played through. He's offside, he knows he is, Livi knows he is, the fans know he is. The flag stays down, so Curtis, naturally runs onto it. The Livi player who has just taken the injury about 45 seconds prior, also knows he is but is now being forced to run full pelt whilst absolutely fucked just in case. The linesman then waits until the ball is down in the corner and only then, the flag goes up. The Livi player goes off seconds later clearly in no fit start to have just been forced to make what was an absolutely needless run.

That sounds like something that would've happened pre-VAR as well, because the assistant can't flag until there is an offside offence, i.e. when the attacker actually goes for the ball.

26 minutes ago, Mordecai said:

I don't know if you've seen the highlights, but it doesn't look like it crossed the line at all. As you said though, I'm not even sure if VAR checks these things. 

19 minutes ago, ATLIS said:

I was just going off of what Martindale has said, and what he's said St Mirren players had said to be fair. If not then fair enough, i don't think it changes the outcome of the game either way. Would be interesting to know if VAR can step in on it though

How are we 5-6 months on from the introduction of VAR in this country and it's been years since it was first used in England, yet still people don't know how it works and what VAR is used for? 

Goal/no goal decisions by the on field officials are one of the things VAR can intervene on, so why on earth wouldn't the VAR check whether the ball has crossed the line for a goal? We can see from the highlights that the whole ball didn't cross the line, quite obviously that would've been checked by the VAR and a "check complete" relayed to the referee.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Ginaro

[Torfason]

3 hours ago, ATLIS said:

I was just going off of what Martindale has said, and what he's said St Mirren players had said to be fair. If not then fair enough, i don't think it changes the outcome of the game either way. Would be interesting to know if VAR can step in on it though

Watching it online, it wasn’t even close. Suspect he was engaging in a bit of deflection.

[Mordecai]

7 hours ago, Ginaro said:

That sounds like something that would've happened pre-VAR as well, because the assistant can't flag until there is an offside offence, i.e. when the attacker actually goes for the ball.

How are we 5-6 months on from the introduction of VAR in this country and it's been years since it was first used in England, yet still people don't know how it works and what VAR is used for? 

Goal/no goal decisions by the on field officials are one of the things VAR can intervene on, so why on earth wouldn't the VAR check whether the ball has crossed the line for a goal? We can see from the highlights that the whole ball didn't cross the line, quite obviously that would've been checked by the VAR and a "check complete" relayed to the referee.

I've personally never been at a game where VAR has intervened on goal line decisions. Also VAR wouldn't be used in similar circumstances in England because they have goal line technology. I can certainly see why there's ambiguity with these types of decisions, particularly when you see the angles provided by the cameras at most grounds.

[Coventry Saint]

2 minutes ago, Mordecai said:

I've personally never been at a game where VAR has intervened on goal line decisions. Also VAR wouldn't be used in similar circumstances in England because they have goal line technology. I can certainly see why there's ambiguity with these types of decisions, particularly when you see the angles provided by the cameras at most grounds.

Saints were given a goalline decision a few weeks back, were we not? I guess they felt that was clear enough that it was simple enough to step in on. Again just creates a grey area for fans.

 

[Mordecai]

1 minute ago, Coventry Saint said:

Saints were given a goalline decision a few weeks back, were we not? I guess they felt that was clear enough that it was simple enough to step in on. Again just creates a grey area for fans.

 

Remind me again?