Tarts vs Hoops

[pozbaird]

3 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Imagine being happy with what's unfolded there and how VAR is affecting football because it happened to benefit your team btw. What a minter. 

If an admittedly utterly shite decision sees Hearts lose here, any St Mirren, Hibs, or Aberdeen fan who doesn’t have a wee chuckle to themselves is, in my opinion, a lying basturt’. 
 

Yeah, it was shite though. Still, mon’ the Celtic…. So help me gawd.

[Jamie_B]

For me that is very subjective and should remain with the on field decision. The Hearts player who is coming back takes a touch on the ball just after it bounces, so unless Maeda is going to take it out of the air and hit it in one move he's at the very least going to be under serious pressure by the time he gets a shot away.

[Empty It]

If Celtic were 3-0 up strolling the game Collum wouldn't have even thought about flagging that.

[Henrik's tongue]

1 minute ago, Jacky1990 said:

Ive never seen an old firm fan, particularly Celtic fans, say anything other than decisions for them are correct and decisions against them being an error/conspiracy.

 

8 minutes ago, The Golden God said:

Celtic fan and that’s never a red. 

There you go.

[Savage Henry]

I think it probably is a red card, but what it isn’t is a clear and obvious error, so VAR shouldn’t have been involved.   It’s not like the ref has missed violent conduct.

[Jinky67]

3 minutes ago, Jacky1990 said:

Ive never seen an old firm fan, particularly Celtic fans, say anything other than decisions for them are correct and decisions against them being an error/conspiracy.

Celtic fans on this thread are split so that doesn’t stand up.

We are also split on the penalty Killie probably should have gotten in the cup semi too.

[gannonball]

1 minute ago, Henrik's tongue said:

 

There you go.

Creates his own conspiracy about folk having conspiracies  

[Henrik's tongue]

Not a red for me either btw. Could easily have left it at the yellow and the free kick.

 

[StellarHibee]

Not a clear and obvious error and should therefore have never gone to VAR.


*Snigger*

[DrewDon]

4 minutes ago, Jaggy Snake said:

I think Cochrane was lucky not to get a red at the time but, after the referee has deemed it a yellow, there shouldn't have been enough for VAR to overrule it.

You could argue it either way for how clear a goal scoring opportunity it is and I'd edge more towards red than yellow but it isn't completely clear cut.

I agree with this. I also think it probably is a red card offence, which I realise puts me in the minority on here, but I would like the bar for VAR reviews on red card decisions (and other decisions, actually) to be a fair bit higher next season than it has generally been since its introduction here. 

[Empty It]

Still seething.

[Ginaro]

3 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

I think it probably is a red card, but what it isn’t is a clear and obvious error, so VAR shouldn’t have been involved.   It’s not like the ref has missed violent conduct.

Depends on what the referee tells the VAR, if he describes the incident as something different to what the footage shows then that's more reason for the VAR to get involved. You can obviously see from a freeze frame of the foul that the referee may have mistakenly thought there was a covering defender. But take the defender making the foul out of the equation and there's no way you would say that the attacker did not have an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

From law 12, the following must be considered:

• distance between the offence and the goal (edge of the box)
• general direction of the play (towards goal)
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball (the ball bounces on the penalty area line and would've been controlled by the attacker)
• location and number of defenders (other defender is 6 yards away and not catching the attacker)

 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Ginaro

['WellDel]

Personally think the red was harsh but Collum being Collum, he gets himself involved unnecessarily and when you see the ref going over to the monitor you know the original decision is getting overturned.

Why do they literally never tell the var official to gtf and have the courage of their convictions to stick with their own judgement in subjective situations like this?.

[HeartsOfficialMoaner]

17 minutes ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

That's the issue. It's debatable whether it's a red or not, I don't think it is. But the fact it's debatable is proof that it isn't a clear and obvious error and isn't a clear goalscoring opportunity.

I would agree wit that but the VAR folk must think it's a clear and obvious error and not up for debate.

[Rugster]

2 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Depends on what the referee tells the VAR, if he describes the incident as something different to what the footage shows then that's more reason for the VAR to get involved. You can obviously see from a freeze frame of the foul that the referee may have mistakenly thought there was a covering defender. But take the defender making the foul out of the equation and there's no way you would say that the attacker did not have an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

From law 12, the following must be considered:

• distance between the offence and the goal (edge of the box)
• general direction of the play (towards goal)
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball (the ball bounces on the penalty area line and would've been controlled by the attacker)
• location and number of defenders (other defender is 6 yards away and not catching the attacker)

 

If you think that incident is on the edge of the box and the nearest defender is 6 yards away you need your eyes tested. 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Rugster

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

Clear goal scoring opportunity there, IMO.

[Bairnardo]

Just now, Rugster said:

If you think that incident is on the edge of the box and the nearest defender is 6 yards away you need your eyes tested. 

Not sure where the "not catching the attacker" certainty comes from either tbh. 

[Richey Edwards]

More red cards

[Richey Edwards]

That's a red

[Rugster]

Just now, Bairnardo said:

Not sure where the "not catching the attacker" certainty comes from either tbh. 

He got so much wrong I couldn’t be arsed with all of it.