SMFC v HMFC

[kingjoey]

41 minutes ago, Black_and_White_Stripes said:

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. 

I didn't expect an answer.

[Bobby_F]

16 hours ago, Billy Jean King said:

This x 100. If you moan after going down to a dodgy VAR decision it's going to be roundly dismissed as sour grapes. Fans are totally correct in calling out it's inadequacies when they win despite the VAR decisions. It's blatantly not being used in the correct way in this country when these exact same discussions emerge week after week be that from supporters of teams who have won, lost or drew.

When Aberdeen's 100th minute double touch penalty stood and we lost 2 points, after us having an earlier goal chopped off for an offside that happened before Dons had twice cleared the ball - we were accused of sour grapes for complaining.

Thankfully when Grieve's goal against Dundee wasn't given, and Saturday's 3 goals against Hearts were chopped off, we somehow managed to win the games. And yeah, much harder to complain about these unfortunate decisions going against you when you don't win.

[Bobby_F]

15 hours ago, Coventry Saint said:

In his head there, he thinks VAR will correct his mistake. But he needs to award the goal for that to happen. If he does that, there's a clear review of the incident and if they decide there's a foul, then fair enough. Instead, he says it was a free kick and play continues, so VAR doesn't get involved.

He's hugely mishandled it. I really hope the club is (quietly, without issuing a statement) kicking off about this.

I’m almost certain the announcer said VAR was checking it, but very very quickly said No Goal.  

VAR getting something like that wrong is what gets people paranoid. 

Especially when the same guy spends 204 seconds finding angle that lets him rule out Grieve’s goal.  

Almost like he’s a Morton fan !

[Drew Brees]

On 23/09/2023 at 18:16, djchapsticks said:

 

Cripes. The master race indeed.

Hopefully Hearts fans get this fat, specky baldy dweeb to f**k.

Wtf is going on with his hand, knuckles on both sides? And the c**t next to him looks knackered just sitting down. 

[Munoz]

3 minutes ago, Drew Brees said:

Wtf is going on with his hand, knuckles on both sides? And the c**t next to him looks knackered just sitting down. 

Too much goose stepping has obviously taken its toll.

[billyg]

3 hours ago, Bobby_F said:

I’m almost certain the announcer said VAR was checking it, but very very quickly said No Goal.  

VAR getting something like that wrong is what gets people paranoid. 

Especially when the same guy spends 204 seconds finding angle that lets him rule out Grieve’s goal.  

Almost like he’s a Morton fan !

I watched the ref , he allowed Mandron to continue and score , he then raised his arm for a foul , knowing that VAR would check. The announcement was "VAR are checking for a goal" , so the ref wasn't sure but gave VAR the chance to overrule him. 

[glenburn bud]

1 minute ago, billyg said:

I watched the ref , he allowed Mandron to continue and score , he then raised his arm for a foul , knowing that VAR would check. The announcement was "VAR are checking for a goal" , so the ref wasn't sure but gave VAR the chance to overrule him. 

Seriously if VAR looked at the Mandron goal and saw it as a foul on the Hearts guy, then the game is fucked.

[Arch Stanton]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2217557490/permalink/10160897592107491/

[Bobby_F]

31 minutes ago, billyg said:

I watched the ref , he allowed Mandron to continue and score , he then raised his arm for a foul , knowing that VAR would check. The announcement was "VAR are checking for a goal" , so the ref wasn't sure but gave VAR the chance to overrule him. 

Thanks, thought I'd misremembered, as seen some people say VAR didn't, or couldn't, check.

26 minutes ago, glenburn bud said:

Seriously if VAR looked at the Mandron goal and saw it as a foul on the Hearts guy, then the game is fucked.

This is the thing that gets me most - seemingly VAR just happy to see a foul that nobody else could see and taking no time at all to check properly.  Indeed it was so quick I doubt they actually did bother to watch it again.  Yet, on our third disallowed goal they took forever to chop the goal off.

I've not seen anyone - commentators, journalists, Saints fans, opposition fans - say they thought this was a foul.

How could a VAR official be so sure it was in less than 10 seconds.

Edited September 26 by Bobby_F

[Torfason]

Still at it, now they're letting them shoot after the games finished. 

 

Edited September 26 by Torfason

[houston_bud]

11 hours ago, Bobby_F said:

Thanks, thought I'd misremembered, as seen some people say VAR didn't, or couldn't, check.

This is the thing that gets me most - seemingly VAR just happy to see a foul that nobody else could see and taking no time at all to check properly.  Indeed it was so quick I doubt they actually did bother to watch it again.  Yet, on our third disallowed goal they took forever to chop the goal off.

I've not seen anyone - commentators, journalists, Saints fans, opposition fans - say they thought this was a foul.

How could a VAR official be so sure it was in less than 10 seconds.

It's the whole 'burden of proof'. VAR has to prove that the onfield officials have made a 'clear and obvious error' (unless it's offside where VAR - apparently - is infallible).

Had Walsh not given a foul against Mandron, there's (surely) no chance it the goal would've been disallowed. 

It's a joke though, because to everyone and anyone it was obvious there was no foul, so Walsh had made a clear and obvious error. We got away with one last year against Dundee Utd, with the penalty for a foul on Main that was never a penalty. I'd argue Hearts late equaliser against us last season too, falls into the same category. If VAR is worth it's salt then it needs to intervene on things like this.

[RandomGuy.]

17 hours ago, glenburn bud said:

Seriously if VAR looked at the Mandron goal and saw it as a foul on the Hearts guy, then the game is fucked.

Its because of what happened in the Old Firm game. If the exact same goal isnt ruled out there then your goal stands. 

Suspect in by this time next year youll see goals like that being allowed again.

[houston_bud]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

Its because of what happened in the Old Firm game. If the exact same goal isnt ruled out there then your goal stands. 

Suspect in by this time next year youll see goals like that being allowed again.

It was nothing like Roofe's disallowed goal.

[RandomGuy.]

18 minutes ago, houston_bud said:

It was nothing like Roofe's disallowed goal.

Player gets ball nicked off their toes and goes down?

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

7 hours ago, houston_bud said:

 

Had Walsh not given a foul against Mandron, there's (surely) no chance it the goal would've been disallowed. 

 

You mean like against Dundee Utd when the goal was given by the ref but VAR chopped it off for a non existent foul by Baccus about half an hour earlier?

[houston_bud]

28 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Player gets ball nicked off their toes and goes down?

The foul was given against Dessers' because he puts his leg in front of Lagerbielke, whilst Lagerbielke is in the motion of playing then ball. Therefore Lagerbielke kicks into Dessers' leg and falls over. I'm not convinced that should be a foul, but according to the laws it is. Rangers had a goal chalked off against Dortmund because Morelos did exactly the same thing. There was an incident with Ayunga against Rangers too (always seems to be Rangers) when they got a free kick when we all screamed for a penalty.

The Mandron goal on Saturday was completely different. At no point did he put his leg in front of Kent to impede him. Kent slipped under a tiny bit of pressure, I don't think it's conclusive that there was any contact.

10 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

You mean like against Dundee Utd when the goal was given by the ref but VAR chopped it off for a non existent foul by Baccus about half an hour earlier?

I'd forgotten about that. In my defence I did say 'surely'.

[Bobby_F]

1 hour ago, houston_bud said:

The foul was given against Dessers' because he puts his leg in front of Lagerbielke, whilst Lagerbielke is in the motion of playing then ball. Therefore Lagerbielke kicks into Dessers' leg and falls over. I'm not convinced that should be a foul, but according to the laws it is. Rangers had a goal chalked off against Dortmund because Morelos did exactly the same thing. There was an incident with Ayunga against Rangers too (always seems to be Rangers) when they got a free kick when we all screamed for a penalty.

The Mandron goal on Saturday was completely different. At no point did he put his leg in front of Kent to impede him. Kent slipped under a tiny bit of pressure, I don't think it's conclusive that there was any contact.

I'd forgotten about that. In my defence I did say 'surely'.

Spot on.  The Dessers foul nothing like the Mandron incident.  

And on the goal we got chopped off against Dundee United, that was the opening VAR weekend, and they don’t go that far back any more.  

Well, aside from the goal we had ruled out against Aberdeen a couple of weeks ago !

[Captain_Sensible]

4 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Its because of what happened in the Old Firm game. If the exact same goal isnt ruled out there then your goal stands. 

Suspect in by this time next year youll see goals like that being allowed again.

I actually agree with you

While *do* think the Dessers one was indeed a foul to Celtic and I don’t think the Mandron one was a foul….. the issue is that Rangers had a goal disallowed that, on a superficial level anyway, looked similar to the Mandron goal….. and we can’t be having that!!!

Re the Ayunga / Sands one last season, I think that was different again.
 

Unlike Lagerlielke who had possession when Dessers fouled him, neither Sands or Ayunga had possession. Ayunga got his foot in front of Sands and Sands then kicked his leg. I think that was a penalty. But of course, it was Rangers. So free kick to them. 

[RandomGuy.]

2 hours ago, houston_bud said:

Tl;dr

Aye, its technically different but looks similar. Refs in England have already admitted to making decisions via VAR to relieve pressure off fellow refs, so it wouldnt be a surprise if they looked at that incident as a chance to help relieve pressure of the ref who got huge pelters for the decision in the OF game.

[Bobby_F]

3 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Aye, its technically different but looks similar. Refs in England have already admitted to making decisions via VAR to relieve pressure off fellow refs, so it wouldnt be a surprise if they looked at that incident as a chance to help relieve pressure of the ref who got huge pelters for the decision in the OF game.

My first experience of Willi Collum was when Artur Boruc kicked Craig Dargo about 6 feet in the air, just outside the box, and he only gave a yellow card.  [Boruc then made a wonder save from the freekick and Celtic won 1-0].

A few months later a Killie keeper did exactly the same thing, and Collum just gave a yellow.

No chance he'd have not red carded the Killie keeper if he hadn't been lenient on Boruc earlier.

So yes, I'm sure these things stick in refs minds, at least for a few months.