SMFC v HMFC

[Captain_Sensible]

That’s us been on the wrong end of 3 farcical VAR decisions so far this season.

Yet we’re undefeated and 2nd top of the league. I’m sure these VAR decisions will even themselves out and we’ll get the benefit sooner or later. 

Alex Greive would be the league’s top scorer this season but for these blunders - and he hasn’t even started a game yet. 

[FTOF]

6 minutes ago, paranoid android said:

Not much wrong with the disallowed goals.

I know Clark is meant to have given Kent a shout, but, having seen the lowlights, Kent should have just cleared it, imo - an easy enough clearance, ffs - why take the risk of leaving it?

Kent was also easily robbed for one of the disallowed goals, but he's the least of our worries - been a great signing, so I'm hopeful he can shake this off. 

Hearts are a soft touch, and predictable, as was this result. 

Brings up the old debate about whether a defender should wait for the keeper's shout.

However, in this case all Kent had to do was stick his foot out and the goal was prevented at the cost of a corner.

After he leaves it, it allows Olusanya into the mix and into Clarke's eyeline.

Neither of the Heart's players covered themselves in glory, but you'd have thought that Olusanya should have diverted it into the net in the first place!

Edited September 24, 2023 by FTOF

[The Master]

36 minutes ago, houston_bud said:

Who decides when to freeze the frame? Because with decisions that tight, a split second could be the difference.

They choose the frame immediately before the ball has been kicked.

The thickness of the lines compensates for the cameras only being 50fps. If the lines touch, it’s onside.

34 minutes ago, Molotov said:

So it took over 3 and a half minutes for some lines to be drawn and an automatic decision to be made?

If it took less time, you’d also be complaining. The length of time it took is exactly because it was a close decision.

Whether they should be giving offside for such close decisions is another debate: the rules as they are now means they have to.

34 minutes ago, Molotov said:

He was clearly onside and the referee and the VAR team had as much a nightmare as you are having now. 

The lines show otherwise.

34 minutes ago, flyingscot said:

The image is pretty shoddy, so where to draw the line seems tough... 

Can't even see the ball in that one either. 

That image has been cropped. The ball is in the full frame.

30 minutes ago, GAD said:

Yet the offside decision is not "Clear and obvious".

I’m not sure what you’re arguing here.

Whether or not a player is in an offside position is a factual decision. The “clear and obvious” test doesn’t apply, no matter how close the decision.

12 minutes ago, Coventry Saint said:

Because the quality of the footage available - the angle, the frame rate, the resolution - means they're basically guessing. You say that the decision is automatic once the lines are placed, but the placement of those lines is utter guesswork. I don't believe that they have applied the 't-shirt line' to the Hearts players in the same way they have to Greive. 

It’s not guesswork. 

They identify the various body parts of various players that might be relevant. They then position the lines on the basis of the part of the attack and the part of the defender that are closest to the goal. The system allows them to identify those before placing the final lines.

The frame rate is compensated for in the thickness of the lines. If the lines touch, it’s onside.

[pozbaird]

16 minutes ago, The Master said:

They choose the frame immediately before the ball has been kicked.

The thickness of the lines compensates for the cameras only being 50fps. If the lines touch, it’s onside.

If it took less time, you’d also be complaining. The length of time it took is exactly because it was a close decision.

Whether they should be giving offside for such close decisions is another debate: the rules as they are now means they have to.

The lines show otherwise.

That image has been cropped. The ball is in the full frame.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing here.

Whether or not a player is in an offside position is a factual decision. The “clear and obvious” test doesn’t apply, no matter how close the decision.

It’s not guesswork. 

They identify the various body parts of various players that might be relevant. They then position the lines on the basis of the part of the attack and the part of the defender that are closest to the goal. The system allows them to identify those before placing the final lines.

The frame rate is compensated for in the thickness of the lines. If the lines touch, it’s onside.

VAR check on this post. Check over. Post disallowed.

[houston_bud]

9 minutes ago, The Master said:

Whether they should be giving offside for such close decisions is another debate: the rules as they are now means they have to.

I do appreciate you trying to explain this and you're clearly far more knowledgeable than me on it.

With all these things there is a margin of error. With hawkeye in the tennis/cricket the margin of error is a few millimetres. And guaranteed those systems are better than the VAR in Scotland. So with something as tight as yesterday, it's impossible to say unequivocally that Greive was offside.

So the key for me is the bit of your post I've quoted. Decisions like this are a nonsense. VAR is here to stay, but we need to use it much better than we currently are.

[Hendricks]

Well the Saints thoroughly deserved that no doubt about it. Very comfortable win and a team playing with confidence who know what their roles are and have an excellent team spirit. It's still early days but Saints fans should be pretty encouraged by their own side and just how mediocre the teams supposed to finish 3rd/4th and 5th are looking. 

 

Hearts were a shambolic disgrace on the road yet again. Naismith won't survive October, not a chance, in fact he could be gone this week if we exit the Cup (highly likely) on the clustefuck of a pitch at Rugby Park and get out muscled up in Dingwall next weekend. 3 wins out of our last 18 away SPL matches (2 in Perth against a shockingly bad St Johnstone) says it all about the pathetic state of our management and squad. 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Hendricks

[Coventry Saint]

18 minutes ago, The Master said:

 

It’s not guesswork. 

They identify the various body parts of various players that might be relevant. They then position the lines on the basis of the part of the attack and the part of the defender that are closest to the goal. The system allows them to identify those before placing the final lines.

The frame rate is compensated for in the thickness of the lines. If the lines touch, it’s onside.

Why is the line drawn apparently underneath the defender's boot but to the right of Greive's sleeve? Genuine question btw.

[The Master]

5 minutes ago, Coventry Saint said:

Why is the line drawn apparently underneath the defender's boot but to the right of Greive's sleeve? Genuine question btw.

A combination of parallax and the defender’s foot being off the ground.

The offside was taken from the other defender’s foot.

Edited September 24, 2023 by The Master

[Dons_1988]

Saints fans getting close to implying there’s an agenda against them, don’t go there lads. 

I get the frustration though. It’s just VAR though, it makes you feel like they are trying to f**k up the game. Go out of their way to Disallow goals from open play, find penalties from ludicrous handballs, send people off and kill a game. It’s just shite.

[Biscuits]

Nah absolutely no agenda - that’s mental.

However I do have another complaint about var which kinda affects everyone at the stadium.  All you’re told is there is a var check - not why.  Our second and third disallowed goals - no one actually knew why they were disallowed.  Was it offside? Was it a foul in the build up.

VAR can get fucked - you can’t even properly celebrate a goal for fear of it being chalked off.

[The Master]

2 minutes ago, Biscuits said:

Nah absolutely no agenda - that’s mental.

However I do have another complaint about var which kinda affects everyone at the stadium.  All you’re told is there is a var check - not why.  Our second and third disallowed goals - no one actually knew why they were disallowed.  Was it offside? Was it a foul in the build up.

VAR can get fucked - you can’t even properly celebrate a goal for fear of it being chalked off.

The stadium announcer is supposed to give the reason.

In our game yesterday, we were told “VAR checking possible penalty. Handball”, followed by “VAR decision, penalty. Handball”. In your game it should have been “VAR checking goal. Possible Offside”, followed by  “VAR decision, offside” (or in all cases, phrasing  to that effect). 

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by The Master

[pozbaird]

9 minutes ago, Biscuits said:

Nah absolutely no agenda - that’s mental.

However I do have another complaint about var which kinda affects everyone at the stadium.  All you’re told is there is a var check - not why.  Our second and third disallowed goals - no one actually knew why they were disallowed.  Was it offside? Was it a foul in the build up.

VAR can get fucked - you can’t even properly celebrate a goal for fear of it being chalked off.

I hate VAR, but the goal celebration aspect of it I don’t actually mind. Every time we put the ball in the net yesterday, I think we all celebrated as normal. Then you see the VAR check. If the decision goes your way, you actually get to celebrate twice. I’m still torn between thinking VAR is shit full stop, or if it is particularly shit in Scotland due to the complete bellends in officialdom up here. 

[HibsFan]

3 hours ago, Coventry Saint said:

f**k right off. If they couldn't award the goal Vs Dundee because it wasn't conclusive, and they couldn't overrule the Aberdeen penalty because it was inconclusive, then how the actual f**k are they claiming they can conclude something meaningful here? 

It's a fucking joke.

And don't get me started on that Mandron goal.

 

It’s very simple, check who you were playing against. There is no club in the world who get more lucky breaks with refereeing decisions than Hearts.

I’m only surprised they didn’t get their trademark jammy equaliser when they should’ve legitimately lost 3-0.

Any season when that luck runs out they get sent packing to the second tier like the yo-yo club they are.

[Dons_1988]

2 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

I hate VAR, but the goal celebration aspect of it I don’t actually mind. Every time we put the ball in the net yesterday, I think we all celebrated as normal. Then you see the VAR check. If the decision goes your way, you actually get to celebrate twice. I’m still torn between thinking VAR is shit full stop, or if it is particularly shit in Scotland due to the complete bellends in officialdom up here. 

I don’t believe it’s Scotland. This is just what it is. 

[willywastecoat]

1 hour ago, Coventry Saint said:

As I've mentioned on Twitter, we have to complain about this while we're winning because soon this is going to f**k us when we lose, and at that point nobody pays attention because it looks like sour grapes.

If Shankland was on his game it could've ended 1-1, the Var decisions take on a whole different meaning.
Accepting the technology as part of the game just like a throw in or a corner.

[Captain_Sensible]

I appreciate that it’s a split second later but the photos from behind the goal indicate that Kingsley was fully inside the 6 yard box while the TV still indicates that he only had one foot in the 6 yard box.

The photos and the TV still don’t tie up, it’s very strange 

[willywastecoat]

The speed camara in the back ground give you the 3 points M8.

[tam the bud]

var should have ask the lineman opinion, since he would have been in best place to know 1 way or the other instead of wasting more than 3 mins. 

[The Master]

1 minute ago, tam the bud said:

var should have ask the lineman opinion, since he would have been in best place to know 1 way or the other instead of wasting more than 3 mins. 

Well, no, because the whole point of VAR checking offsides is because the linesmen can’t know when the decision is this close. 

[tam the bud]

1 minute ago, The Master said:

Well, no, because the whole point of VAR checking offsides is because the linesmen can’t know when the decision is this close. 

From the pictures, i wouldn't say it was close.