Semi Final: Aberdeen vs Celtic

[LuboMoravcik]

Is it still a rule that players should be booked if they go into the crowd btw?

[DC92]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

Because, my point was I've never seen a defender fouled in the box and play allowed to continue for multiple events to happen before its blown for.

So far people are just showing players fouled out the area and then a shot happening with seconds.

In the Livingston example there were two passes between the foul and the shot at goal, then the ref blew the whistle.

The foul was just outside the box since that apparently makes a difference.

[RandomGuy.]

2 minutes ago, The Master said:

If the referee believes it to be a clear-cut decision, they'll still blow for a foul immediately, in the same way that assistants still flag immediately for blatant offsides.

The very fact people are arguing about whether it was or wasn't a foul tells you that it wasn't a clear-cut decision. 

He clearly thought it was clear cut if he blew for that as the foul, otherwise he'd have blown for the penalty, which was a clear foul. 

Otherwise he's just guessing in Celtics favour and weighting things towards them, as if its not a clear foul by the Aberdeen player then VAR can't overturn his decision to give the free kick.

[RandomGuy.]

2 minutes ago, DC92 said:

In the Livingston example there were two passes between the foul and the shot at goal, then the ref blew the whistle.

The foul was just outside the box since that apparently makes a difference.

If the Livingston example is more similar then why bother showing one thats entirely different instead?

[DC92]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

If the Livingston example is more similar then why bother showing one thats entirely different instead?

Sorry.

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, DC92 said:

Sorry.

This is serious business, DC92, mistakes can't be allowed to happen.

[The Master]

5 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

He clearly thought it was clear cut if he blew for that as the foul, otherwise he'd have blown for the penalty, which was a clear foul. 

No, he believed there was a foul but it wasn't clear-cut enough to stop the game while the ball was in an attacking area. In the same way that an assistant can believe a player is offside, but it isn't clear-cut enough to flag immediately.

5 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Otherwise he's just guessing in Celtics favour and weighting things towards them, as if its not a clear foul by the Aberdeen player then VAR can't overturn his decision to give the free kick.

If he had given the penalty then VAR absolutely could intervene to recommend an on-field review for a foul in the build-up. If, after visiting the monitor, the referee agreed there was a foul, the penalty would be overturned and play restarted with the same free-kick we saw.

Edited April 20 by The Master

[Cutty Old]

59 minutes ago, AJF said:

If we want consistency, would we not expect an earlier almost identical foul to be considered in subsequent instances of pretty much the exact same foul?

...and that's the problem; A subjective decision by a referee or VAR couldn't possibly be considered a precedent as no decision is taken account of when a subsequent decision is to be made. That's why the introduction of the VAR system is an utter failure. Rather than eliminating or even reducing controversy, it has merely added another layer of subjectivity. 

[RandomGuy.]

3 minutes ago, The Master said:

No, he believed there was a foul but it wasn't clear-cut enough to stop the game while the ball was in an attacking area. In the same way that an assistant can believe a player is offside, but it isn't clear-cut enough to flag immediately.

If he had given the penalty then VAR absolutely could intervene to recommend an on-field review for a foul in the build-up. If, after visiting the monitor, the referee agreed there was a foul, the penalty would be overturned and play restarted with the same free-kick we saw.

Which would be the correct way of doing it, so the whole play could be reviewed.

Instead he "stopped play" at the free kick, which you yourself admits was inconclusive about whether it was a foul or not, and VAR couldn't over rule the on field decision as it wasn't clearly wrong and so the chances of the penalty being awarded become zero. You yourself admit the referee wasn't certain the foul was a foul yet he decided to make that stopping point for the review instead of the penalty.

Do you understand yet why thats bad refereeing and how it shafted Aberdeen and benefited Celtic?

[The Master]

8 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Which would be the correct way of doing it, so the whole play could be reviewed.

No it's not.

The "correct way" is for the referee to make the decision he would have done had VAR not been involved - possibly with a delay.  The role of VAR is then to determine if the referee has made an error.

8 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Instead he "stopped play" at the free kick, which you yourself admits was inconclusive about whether it was a foul or not, and VAR couldn't over rule the on field decision as it wasn't clearly wrong and so the chances of the penalty being awarded become zero.

By the same argument, had he not given the free kick then VAR couldn't have overruled that either and so the chances of the penalty being awarded were significantly higher.

The referee has to make a decision on the field. The referee's decision was that there was a foul on the defender, and the delay was absolutely the right thing to do to ensure that a "clear and obvious error" wasn't made in coming to that decision if something potentially "game changing" went on to develop.

8 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

You yourself admit the referee wasn't certain the foul was a foul yet he decided to make that stopping point for the review instead of the penalty.

I never said he wasn't certain it was a foul. I said it wasn't clear-cut enough to stop play when the ball was in an attacking area. Those two things are not the same.

8 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Do you understand yet why thats bad refereeing and how it shafted Aberdeen and benefited Celtic?

It's not bad refereeing. It was, in terms of process, very good refereeing because it's exactly what the VAR protocol sets out. 

Whether the outcome was ultimately correct is a separate debate.

Edited April 20 by The Master

[RandomGuy.]

9 minutes ago, The Master said:

No it's not.

The "correct way" is for the referee to make the decision he would have done had VAR not been involved - possibly with a delay.  The role of VAR is then to determine if the referee has made an error.

The whole point of the delay now is so VAR can check an entire sequence. Trying to referee the "same way" as before VAR by stopping the play at the start of a move, while including a delay, is entirely counter-intuitive and defeats the entire point of it.

Quote

By the same argument, had he not given the free kick then VAR couldn't have overruled that either and so the chances of the penalty being awarded were significantly higher.

The penalty was more clear cut than the foul, so it that not the fairer decision? He couldve balanced it towards a more middle solution rather than making it 100% certain there could be no penalty.

Quote

I never said he wasn't certain it was a foul.

You literally said in the post I'd previously quoted that any referee who sees a foul as clear cut will blow for it instantly, yet now you're saying he was certain it was a foul from the moment it happened?

Edited April 20 by RandomGuy.

[The Master]

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

The whole point of the delay now is so VAR can check an entire sequence. Trying to referee the "same way" as before VAR by stopping the play at the start of a move, while including a delay, is entirely counter-intuitive and defeats the entire point of it.

Who said anything about stopping the play at the start of a move while including a delay? Those things are contradictory - either play is stopped at the start of a move, or there is a delay. It can't be both.

I also never said referees referee in the "same way" as before VAR. I said they make their decisions as they would have done.

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

The penalty was more clear cut than the foul, so it that not the fairer decision? 

No, because it happened after the incident that the referee believed was a foul on the defender.

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

You literally said in the post I'd previously quoted that any referee who sees a foul as clear cut will blow for it instantly, yet now you're saying he was certain it was a foul from the moment it happened?

You're the one who introduces the notion of a referee being "certain" or not.

As has been said repeatedly, it's exactly the same principle as assistants delaying their flags.

[RandomGuy.]

Just now, The Master said:

Who said anything about stopping the play at the start of a move while including a delay? Those things are contradictory - either play is stopped at the start of a move, or there is a delay. It can't be both.

By blowing for the foul, that happened at the start of everything, VAR then couldn't do anything beyond that point. 

He delayed for the best part of a minute, let play unfold, then decided to make sure that whole part was ignored and he would blow for a foul he wasn't sure about instead and make the decision free kick or not free kick.

Why do that and delay when you're not sure about that, when you can blow for the penalty you're not sure about and they can check the foul and penalty at the same time, give him another chance to view the whole play, then decide?

[The Master]

10 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

By blowing for the foul, that happened at the start of everything, VAR then couldn't do anything beyond that point.

Of course VAR could - that was the whole point of delaying.

10 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

He delayed for the best part of a minute,

Seven seconds elapsed between the foul on the defender and the referee giving the free kick.

10 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

let play unfold, then decided to make sure that whole part was ignored and he would blow for a foul he wasn't sure about instead and make the decision free kick or not free kick.

What do you mean "a foul he wasn't sure about"?

He believed it was a foul, otherwise he wouldn't have given it. However, he delayed the decision long enough to ensure that, if necessary depending on the subsequent play, VAR could intervene to ensure he was correct. This is exactly what happened.

10 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Why do that and delay when you're not sure about that, when you can blow for the penalty you're not sure about and they can check the foul and penalty at the same time, give him another chance to view the whole play, then decide?

Because that's not how this works. The referee has to give the decision he believes is the correct one. 

He believed there was a foul on the defender, but (per VAR protocol) let play unfold to ensure that if he were wrong, any subsequent game-changing incidents would be allowed to stand.

Edited April 20 by The Master

[Dons_1988]

[DrewDon]

All VAR and referee process chat aside, the challenge from Hoilett on Johnston is one of those that feels like it is given 50% of the time, and let go the other 50% of the time. Celtic fans claiming it is absolutely blatant are at it, but so are some of our fans I have seen claiming that it is 'never' a foul or the most scandalous decision ever. 

Carter-Vickers on Hoilett is a foul, but it's the sort of foul that seems to be becoming increasingly common, especially inside the penalty box, and I'm not sure I like it. Shades of Phillips/Gordon in the Newcastle v West Ham game a few weeks back, and no doubt numerous other examples. 

[still_game]

Quote

it's exactly the same principle as assistants delaying their flags.

No its not, its manipulating the rules t suit a given situation, and then attempting to hide behind the rules to cover up the obvious cock up made.

We all know that VAR is designed to essentially 'legally cheat' or influence the results for the bigger clubs. Today was a prime example of it. The Strathclyde FA could not have Aberdeen in the final, they want their OF final for marketing purposes. Watch Hearts get rammed tomorrow by some dodgy decision from the VAR.

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

Which would be the correct way of doing it, so the whole play could be reviewed.

Instead he "stopped play" at the free kick, which you yourself admits was inconclusive about whether it was a foul or not, and VAR couldn't over rule the on field decision as it wasn't clearly wrong and so the chances of the penalty being awarded become zero. You yourself admit the referee wasn't certain the foul was a foul yet he decided to make that stopping point for the review instead of the penalty.

Do you understand yet why thats bad refereeing and how it shafted Aberdeen and benefited Celtic?

The correct way, as specified in the laws of the game, is for the referee to make an on-field decision. If he thinks it was a foul then he has to give the foul.

[craigkillie]

2 minutes ago, still_game said:

No its not, its manipulating the rules t suit a given situation, and then attempting to hide behind the rules to cover up the obvious cock up made.

We all know that VAR is designed to essentially 'legally cheat' or influence the results for the bigger clubs. Today was a prime example of it. The Strathclyde FA could not have Aberdeen in the final, they want their OF final for marketing purposes. Watch Hearts get rammed tomorrow by some dodgy decision from the VAR.

If the SFA are willing to go to those lengths to get an Old Firm final for marketing reasons, then it's obviously been the worst conspiracy of all time given that they haven't played each other in a Scottish Cup final in 22 years and have been drawn together in the semis on several occasions in the intervening period.

[craigkillie]

17 minutes ago, DrewDon said:

Carter-Vickers on Hoilett is a foul, but it's the sort of foul that seems to be becoming increasingly common, especially inside the penalty box, and I'm not sure I like it. Shades of Phillips/Gordon in the Newcastle v West Ham game a few weeks back, and no doubt numerous other examples. 

I actually thought it was different to those types of ones, I thought it was a genuine overstretch for the ball from Hoilett rather than an attempt to buy the contact.