Willie Collum; good guy? complete dick? corrupt? / ..and should (Old Firm) clubs "have the power to ban him"?

[Spring Onion]

Is this shite still going on.  You got beat, get over it.  Whinging for more than a week isn't going to change it.  

[Jinky67]

1 hour ago, bennett said:

 

 

Jinkynory.

 

 

Ok mate

[18May1991]

9 hours ago, bennett said:

 

 

Jinkynory.

 

 

Fair play. 

[willywastecoat]

18 hours ago, AJF said:

Which means the on-field referee didn’t see the handball as Johnstone hit it last and it would therefore have been a corner if he didn’t deem it to be a handball. So maybe I should rephrase by saying there was no on-field decision made regarding potential handball.

 

18 hours ago, AJF said:

Ah right, aye essentially we agree. What Rangers are practically doing is arguing “Collum would’ve denied us a potential penalty review wrongly (because the on-field referee didn’t see it) if there was no offside. But because there was an offside, it renders it a moot point.

WOW FFS,it's took you a week to understand what happened,when it took Collum under a minute to give Celtic possession back,whether the game started with a by-kick or a free-kick is just as irrelevent as your club's mince all week.
The main issue for players,managers and fans is it takes too long to make a decision and disrupts the flow of the game,Collum got it correct who gives a flying feck about the process M8.

[Wee jeemie]

Every fan in the country squirms when they see he is ref for their game , it’s a sure sign he’s not biased he’s just a useless chunt , and shouldn’t be anywhere near a professional football match 

[craigkillie]

On 06/01/2024 at 12:23, AJF said:

I’m not so sure. The fact that the SFA have admitted that they will be reviewing how they communicate these things in the future tells you they likely aren’t happy with how it went down.

I think, if I interpret it right, Collum never followed the correct process because he judged there to be no clear and obvious error. But from what I can see, as a goal kick was given, that meant the on-field ref never actually seen the handball (because if he did he would’ve awarded a corner kick) so the APP should’ve been reviewed at the time for the offside.

As the on-field ref never seen the potential offence they haven’t made a decision on it, either no foul or foul.

VAR is said to recommend a review if they believe there has been a clear and obvious error or if they believe a serious incident has been missed. I’d suggest that missing a potential handball would be considered a serious incident has been missed. So (again this is only the way I am interpreting the IFAB guidance which may well be wrong) it should’ve been one of two outcomes:

1) the potential penalty was ruled out due to offside after a review of the APP or

2) the on-field ref asked to review the incident on the monitor as they never seen the handball incident

Clearly option 1 is the correct answer due to the offside. That never happened which is why Rangers are trying to call into question Collum’s competence publicly, which they shouldn’t be IMO. But as you allude to, it leaves things open for people to suggest the offside review was only added after the fact to mask that the incorrect process was followed.

Ultimately it would never have been a penalty and it should never have got to this stage.

You are basing this on a bit of a false premise here, specifically that VAR has to always ask the referee to review every incident that he didn't see on the field. Just because the referee didn't see a potential handball doesn't mean they *have* to ask him to review it. There still has to be evidence that the decision not to give a penalty was an obvious error.

[AJF]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

You are basing this on a bit of a false premise here, specifically that VAR has to always ask the referee to review every incident that he didn't see on the field. Just because the referee didn't see a potential handball doesn't mean they *have* to ask him to review it. There still has to be evidence that the decision not to give a penalty was an obvious error.

Aye, like I said it was based on my interpretation of the IFAB guidance which may well be wrong.

I was working on the assumption that this…

Quote

 

if the VAR believes a ‘clear and obvious error’ has been made or something serious has been missed, the referee is informed through the communication headset and then makes a ‘TV signal’ to indicate that an incident is being reviewed.

If the incident is factual (e.g. offside position or if a foul occurred inside or outside the penalty area) the referee can correct an error without looking at the replays based on information from the VAR - this is a 'VAR only review'.

If the incident involves judgement (e.g. if a foul is serious enough  for a red card or if there is a handball offence) the referee will go to the referee review area (RRA) on the side of the pitch to look at the video replays on a monitor

 

…meant that if the VAR believes a clear and obvious error has been made OR a serious incident has been missed (I may have incorrectly assumed that missing the incident would qualify) and as handball is a subjective decision then it would’ve been referred - only after a check of the APP had been undertaken.

https://www.footballrules.com/technology/var/#:~:text=In principle%2C the original decision,an incident is being reviewed.

Edited January 7 by AJF

[craigkillie]

The serious incident being missed is more likely an off-the-ball red card or something like that. I don't think there is ever an expectation that every potential handball would require an onscreen review just because the ref didn't see it - for example a ball flicking up off someone's hand which is by their side in a busy box wouldn't require the ref to be called over just to say "no penalty".

I do think the actual incident in the game being discussed was something that many referees would have given as a penalty, even though I think that it absolutely shouldn't ever be a penalty under any sensible handball rule.

[AJF]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

The serious incident being missed is more likely an off-the-ball red card or something like that. I don't think there is ever an expectation that every potential handball would require an onscreen review just because the ref didn't see it - for example a ball flicking up off someone's hand which is by their side in a busy box wouldn't require the ref to be called over just to say "no penalty".

I do think the actual incident in the game being discussed was something that many referees would have given as a penalty, even though I think that it absolutely shouldn't ever be a penalty under any sensible handball rule.

Yeah I did consider that as well, but given that it went on to list a possible handball offence as an example then I took it to mean those kind of decisions would be included if the ref missed it.

Ultimately it wouldn’t have been reviewed anyway as the APP would’ve been checked which would’ve been identified the offside so it matters very little I suppose.

Edited January 7 by AJF

[Carol Anne]

18 hours ago, Spring Onion said:

Is this shite still going on.  You got beat, get over it.  Whinging for more than a week isn't going to change it.  

[Cardle is Magic]

He’s not corrupt but even if he was it’s certainly not up to an individual club to dictate which referees are in charge of which matches.

Rangers should have long since been charged with bringing the game into disrepute over this nonsense.