SMFC v HMFC

[Sortmeout]

I’m sure most of the pages on this thread have had similar comments since the match ended but for me the Mandron and Grieve goals were terrible decisions. Mandron due to refereeing incompetence and the offside appears to me to be at worst a guess and at best a indication that we don’t have the correct technology for VAR.

[Black_and_White_Stripes]

Here's another look at the decision to rule Greive's goal out for 'offside':

 

[Dons_1988]

12 minutes ago, Black_and_White_Stripes said:

I'm referring to ONE game, in which we had three goals controversially disallowed. 

Ok cool. Believe what you like. 

[IrishBhoy]

12 minutes ago, Black_and_White_Stripes said:

Here's another look at the decision to rule Greive's goal out for 'offside':

 

As much as I would like to use that as evidence of a horrific decision, look where the ball is. Can’t say wether Grieve is on or off using that picture. 

[Captain_Sensible]

12 minutes ago, Black_and_White_Stripes said:

Here's another look at the decision to rule Greive's goal out for 'offside':

 

That photo is a split second after the header though and if you watch the goal on the highlights you can see Kingsley jumping back just as the header is made.

Looking at it at the point of contact for the header, Greive does indeed look offside 

[Black_and_White_Stripes]

3 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Ok cool. Believe what you like. 

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

I have stated that the decisions are probably down to refereeing incompetence. However, the thought has crossed my mind that the referee was biased, even if unconsciously so. Had it been a single goal, then that wouldn't have been the case. Had it been two, then I could still dismiss it. However, controversially disallowing three goals makes me at least wonder whether there is more to it.

I would be very relieved to be able to attribute the mistakes to incompetence, because these decisions should even themselves out over a season and right now I count five:

- the late Aberdeen penalty that shouldn't have stood.

- the goal against Dundee, which crossed the line (see below).

- plus these three against Hearts.

 

 

[Dons_1988]

11 minutes ago, Black_and_White_Stripes said:

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

I have stated that the decisions are probably down to refereeing incompetence. However, the thought has crossed my mind that the referee was biased, even if unconsciously so. Had it been a single goal, then that wouldn't have been the case. Had it been two, then I could still dismiss it. However, controversially disallowing three goals makes me at least wonder whether there is more to it.

I would be very relieved to be able to attribute the mistakes to incompetence, because these decisions should even themselves out over a season and right now I count five:

- the late Aberdeen penalty that shouldn't have stood.

- the goal against Dundee, which crossed the line (see below).

- plus these three against Hearts.

 

 

No, I’m withdrawing from a daft debate. You think what you’ve experienced so far this season meets a threshold to consider foul play, I think that’s daft. That’s literally all I’m saying. Every team feels like this at one time or another.

We’ve all experienced refereeing performances that feel completely inexplicable but I’m afraid some of them are just not that good at their jobs. 

[Black_and_White_Stripes]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

No, I’m withdrawing from a daft debate. You think what you’ve experienced so far this season meets a threshold to consider foul play, I think that’s daft. That’s literally all I’m saying. Every team feels like this at one time or another.

We’ve all experienced refereeing performances that feel completely inexplicable but I’m afraid some of them are just not that good at their jobs. 

Fair enough. To be honest, the more I've seen of it the more raging I'm getting and quite possibly not thinking straight. I was delighted after the game, as we took all three points, maintained our spot in second place and have had our best start to a top-tier season in 75 years! However, the more I think about the referee's performance the angrier I get, because it could have cost us dearly.

I think I will just look forward to Wednesday's game and try to forget about this one.

[The Master]

20 minutes ago, Black_and_White_Stripes said:

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

I have stated that the decisions are probably down to refereeing incompetence. However, the thought has crossed my mind that the referee was biased, even if unconsciously so. Had it been a single goal, then that wouldn't have been the case. Had it been two, then I could still dismiss it. However, controversially disallowing three goals makes me at least wonder whether there is more to it.

I would be very relieved to be able to attribute the mistakes to incompetence, because these decisions should even themselves out over a season and right now I count five:

- the late Aberdeen penalty that shouldn't have stood.

- the goal against Dundee, which crossed the line (see below).

- plus these three against Hearts.

 

 

St Mirren fans aren’t going to shut up about that “goal” are you?

The simple fact is that no matter what you claim, the footage is not conclusive either way. As such, they had to stick with the on-field decision. 

If the referee had given a goal, I’m certain it wouldn’t have been ruled out, for the same reason. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by The Master

[Captain_Sensible]

In real time, I thought the first disallowed goal was the correct decision. Having watched it back, I still that decision is correct.

The Mandron goal looks okay to me. Again, in time I expected it to be ruled out but watching it back I don’t think it’s a foul.

The Greive goal is marginally offside.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Captain_Sensible

[Black_and_White_Stripes]

Just now, The Master said:

St Mirren fans aren’t going to shut up about that “goal” are you?

The simple fact is that no matter what you claim, the footage is not conclusive either way. As such, they had to stick with the on-field decision. 

If the referee had given a goal, I’m certain it wouldn’t have been ruled out. 

 I had forgotten about it, but the Hearts game reminded me of it. 

[FTOF]

5 minutes ago, Captain_Sensible said:

In real time, I thought the first disallowed goal was the correct decision. Having watched it back, I still that decision is correct.

The Mandron goal looks okay to me. Again, I’m real time I expected it to be ruled out but watching it back I don’t think it’s a foul.

The Greive goal is marginally offside.

Watch the official match compilation from our video guy on our official Twitter.

It shows all three incidents from different perspectives.

Gogic's swipe at the ball doesn't look as high as I thought it was from TV footage.

 

[Captain_Sensible]

25 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Watch the official match compilation from our video guy on our official Twitter.

It shows all three incidents from different perspectives.

Gogic's swipe at the ball doesn't look as high as I thought it was from TV footage.

 

Just had a watch, I still think the first one is dangerous and I still think Greive is offside

The Mandron one is inconclusive to me

Good to see them all from the other side 

[glenburn bud]

2 hours ago, Captain_Sensible said:

Just had a watch, I still think the first one is dangerous and I still think Greive is offside

The Mandron one is inconclusive to me

Good to see them all from the other side 

How in the name of f**k is the Mandron one inconclusive? 
The Hearts defender just falls over after losing control of the ball. 

If that is the standard of officiating then we might as well chuck it.

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

3 hours ago, Captain_Sensible said:

In real time, I thought the first disallowed goal was the correct decision. Having watched it back, I still that decision is correct.

The Mandron goal looks okay to me. Again, in time I expected it to be ruled out but watching it back I don’t think it’s a foul.

The Greive goal is marginally offside.

Exactly my thoughts on all 3.

The first 2 are subjective but I agree with your take on both. Even from almost the opposite end of the stadium I expected Kiltie’s goal to be disallowed. TV viewing didn’t change my mind. Mandron’s was very soft at best and should have stood.

For Greive’s goal I was virtually bang in line in W1. The first thing I did was look at the linesman as I thought he was marginally off. In the old days you’d have been delighted to see that the linesman wasn’t flagging, but on this occasion the first thing I did was turn to my brother in law and say “I’m not celebrating yet. This is going to VAR”. Then it was just s case of hoping I was wrong. I got a bit of hope because it was taking quite so long and was hoping they maybe couldn’t conclusively prove it, but sadly not. 

[djchapsticks]

The first disallowed goal, I've seen a few folk claiming it shouldn't be a high foot as he didn't come close to making contact with anyone. That doesn't matter though, his boot was high enough and fast enough that it caused the defender to (correctly) pull out of going for the loose ball and that's enough to constitute a high foot, if he'd done that half a yard further away from the Hearts defender then it would have been perfectly fine.

The Mandron goal is just ridiculously bad refereeing. The thing is that he does the initial move correctly and lets play continue...it all falls apart when he blows for a foul and VAR inexplicably dont correct him or ask him to take a look, even though it clearly went to review. Much like The Master says about the 'goal' vs Dundee that wasn't given, if he let's it stand in the first place, VAR are not overturning it in a million years. 

The offside, again is so flimsy, so minimally marginal. The fact that it takes so long to come to a decision coupled with the fact that the linesman hasn't flagged it, suggests that it's too tight to definitively call and the actual end call won't have been made with 100% certainty. We saw similar debate in the EPL in the advent of VAR when players were literally getting called offside by a fraction of a shoulder and the decisons were taking an age to be made. It's found it's feet somewhat down south and hopefully the same happens up here.

[Hoose Rice]

1st disallowed completely the correct call. 

2nd disallowed totally the wrong call.

3rd disallowed inconclusive so the decision should go to the attacker. 

Not just saying that because I have a dislike of the scarf twirling gimps either.

[kingjoey]

10 hours ago, Black_and_White_Stripes said:

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

I have stated that the decisions are probably down to refereeing incompetence. However, the thought has crossed my mind that the referee was biased, even if unconsciously so. Had it been a single goal, then that wouldn't have been the case. Had it been two, then I could still dismiss it. However, controversially disallowing three goals makes me at least wonder whether there is more to it.

I would be very relieved to be able to attribute the mistakes to incompetence, because these decisions should even themselves out over a season and right now I count five:

- the late Aberdeen penalty that shouldn't have stood.

- the goal against Dundee, which crossed the line (see below).

 

So all these referees and VARs were/are biased against St Mirren? Get a grip.

[coprolite]

11 hours ago, Black_and_White_Stripes said:

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

I have stated that the decisions are probably down to refereeing incompetence. However, the thought has crossed my mind that the referee was biased, even if unconsciously so. Had it been a single goal, then that wouldn't have been the case. Had it been two, then I could still dismiss it. However, controversially disallowing three goals makes me at least wonder whether there is more to it.

I would be very relieved to be able to attribute the mistakes to incompetence, because these decisions should even themselves out over a season and right now I count five:

- the late Aberdeen penalty that shouldn't have stood.

- the goal against Dundee, which crossed the line (see below).

- plus these three against Hearts.

 

 

It would appear that four out of five of these decisions were highly debatable and inconclusive even after days of tearful posts of grainy stills and mobile phone footage. 

The evidence all points in one direction, and having performed a regression analysis corroborated by a chi squared test i can confirm that St Mirren fans are indeed disproportionately likely to be in urgent need of getting their hole. 

[Black_and_White_Stripes]

1 hour ago, kingjoey said:

So all these referees and VARs were/are biased against St Mirren? Get a grip.

You quote a post in which I refer to 'the referee' and then ask that? Seriously? Plus I have already responded to a similar question.