The Master Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 (edited) 10 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. Yes it is. The VAR protocol make specific reference to assistants delaying flags and referees delaying their decisions. The very fact there was a potential penalty demonstrates precisely why the delay was correct. Edited April 20 by The Master 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjoey Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 First of all, the main thing today from a football point of view was that it was a fabulous match. I've no idea who the VAR was today and couldn't care less, but whoever it was was operating on weird sense of consistency. Kyogo wins the ball for Celtic's first goal by pushing into the back of Macdonald. The VAR has looked at that and decided "not a foul". Fair enough. Same person then looks at the same kind of push, virtually identical, by Hoilett in the box and decided "that's a foul". What chance have you got. I don't care that we did score about 6 minutes later. If we had rightly been given the penalty and scored it, we'd have had six more minutes to try to score a winner, rather than still trying to find an equaliser. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 25 minutes ago, craigkillie said: 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. As much as i hate saying it, i dont think it should be a penalty anyway, vickers is in the act of clearing the ball and hoilett plants his foot in front of vickers before playing the ball, theres a strong argument that he is impeding vickers from playing the ball Switch the roles around, say the ball is rolling along the 6 yard line, striker has an empty net to tap it into, as he goes to strike the ball a defender plants a leg in front of him, not touching the ball and stopping the strikers leg from making contact with the ball and the chance is missed, imo thats a penalty as the striker is impeded while attempting to play the ball 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donte Polvara Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 I think the level of disagreement over the penalty on here shows that at the very least the VAR protocols are a heap of shite and should be binned. Robertson was taking the easy route all game and making sure decisions went the right way so he's not back page news for the next two weeks. Not seen the highlights but I'm sure had Celtics equaliser been the otherway round Robertson would given a foul on McDonald regardless of whether or not it was. I find it bizzare to give so much weight to the referees interpretation of an incident on the pitch but then not to bother getting them across to look at it as part of the review. I'd prefer just getting rid of VAR as a whole but if you're going to waste everyone's time at least to it productively. It's a shame that it's distracted from what was objectively a very good game. Very proud of the players who deserve plaudits for the performance. Obviously gutted with the result but can't say I didn't get value for my money going which certainly hasn't been a given for most of my trips to Hampden. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 It wasn't even close to a foul on MacDonald, it was just shit defending and he knew it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donte Polvara Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 2 minutes ago, craigkillie said: It wasn't even close to a foul on MacDonald, it was just shit defending and he knew it. I didn't think it was a foul to be fair but I think the point people are making is that had the on field decision been a foul on MacDonald it's unlikely to be overturned as there was contact. Brings into question what is the point in VAR if extra weight is still been given to the onfield decision especially if the referees are using it to hedge their bets against giving decisions against the old firm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 25 minutes ago, The Master said: Yes it is. The VAR protocol make specific reference to assistants delaying flags and referees delaying their decisions. The very fact there was a potential penalty demonstrates precisely why the delay was correct. But we are now at the point where refs wont blow for fouls they clearly see, its not a potential slight contact, ref might not have the best angle etc The aberdeen boy jumped, missed the ball along with johnston, but jumped into him, some refs give that some wont, robertson obviously does so just fucking blow the whistle And he didnt do the procedure correctly either, when hoilett went down he immediately gave the free kick, if he's delaying then what for, its not like he allowed VAR to check for a foul in the build up, hoilett went down and he immediately gave the foul on johnston 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 4 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said: But we are now at the point where refs wont blow for fouls they clearly see, its not a potential slight contact, ref might not have the best angle etc The aberdeen boy jumped, missed the ball along with johnston, but jumped into him, some refs give that some wont, robertson obviously does so just fucking blow the whistle As I've said, the fact people are debating whether or not it was even a foul indicates the referee was right to delay. 4 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said: And he didnt do the procedure correctly either, when hoilett went down he immediately gave the free kick, if he's delaying then what for, its not like he allowed VAR to check for a foul in the build up, hoilett went down and he immediately gave the foul on johnston What do you mean "allowed VAR to check for a foul in the build up"? VAR absolutely will have checked for a foul in the build-up - the foul that the referee originally gave. As for the timing of the whistle, I'd have thought that was obvious. The referee believed it could be a penalty, and so awarded the original free-kick (in the same way it would have been awarded if a goal had been scored). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 Just now, The Master said: As I've said, the fact people are debating whether or not it was even a foul indicates the referee was right to delay. What do you mean "allowed VAR to check for a foul in the build up"? VAR absolutely will have checked for a foul in the build-up - the foul that the referee originally gave. As for the timing of the whistle, I'd have thought that was obvious. The referee believed it could be a penalty, and so awarded the original free-kick (in the same way it would have been awarded if a goal had been scored). VAR wont have checked for any foul as robertson gave the free kick, the minute he blew hos whistle and awarded the free kick VAR became redundant in that situation As for the last paragraph, if the ref believed it was a penalty so awarded the original free kick, why let play go on, just award the free kick as it happened 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 2 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said: VAR wont have checked for any foul as robertson gave the free kick, the minute he blew hos whistle and awarded the free kick VAR became redundant in that situation No, the whole reason for delaying was so VAR could review the free-kick should a game-changing event (penalty or goal) occur. At the moment the whistle went to award the free kick, it was still possible for a VAR intervention to lead to a penalty for Aberdeen. 2 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said: As for the last paragraph, if the ref believed it was a penalty so awarded the original free kick, why let play go on, just award the free kick as it happened The delay was so that if a game-changing event subsequently occurred, VAR could review the award of the free-kick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Golden God Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 4 hours ago, kingjoey said: No he wasn’t, there was a Celtic player on the opposite side of the pitch playing him on. I’ve not seen any sort of replay and only watched in live time so you may be right. From my view he was well off but I’m not going to try and over rule anyone with a replay or a better view. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 Just now, The Master said: No, the whole reason for delaying was so VAR could review the free-kick should a game-changing event (penalty or goal) occur. At the moment the whistle went to award the free kick, it was still possible for a VAR intervention to lead to a penalty for Aberdeen. The delay was so that if a game-changing event subsequently occurred, VAR could review the award of the free-kick. So you believe when robertson awarded the free kick, VAR checked back to the free kick incident and in a split second checked all the angles and agreed with him? Your last paragraph is correct, only issue is robertson didn't award the game changing event decision, what should have happened is Robertson sees potential foul on johnston, but allows play to continue Robertson sees vickers foul hoilett, awards penalty but indicates to VAR that johnston might have been foul (VAR will check back anyway as per its procedure) Free kick is spotted after a VAR delay and robertson indicates celtic free kick But he never once awarded the penalty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 (edited) 6 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said: So you believe when robertson awarded the free kick, VAR checked back to the free kick incident and in a split second checked all the angles and agreed with him? You and @RandomGuy. seem to have opposing perceptions of time. He thought the referee played on for almost a minute (it was seven seconds), and you think everything was done and dusted in "a split second". There was a full VAR check, announced in the stadium. That check will have included reviewing the incident that the referee deemed to be a foul that led to the award of the free kick. 6 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said: Your last paragraph is correct, only issue is robertson didn't award the game changing event decision, what should have happened is Robertson sees potential foul on johnston, but allows play to continue Robertson sees vickers foul hoilett, awards penalty but indicates to VAR that johnston might have been foul (VAR will check back anyway as per its procedure) Free kick is spotted after a VAR delay and robertson indicates celtic free kick But he never once awarded the penalty A potential game-changing event did arise, which is what led him to award the free-kick for the original foul. There is no obligation for the referee to give the penalty for VAR to intervene. He makes whatever decision he thinks is correct, and if VAR disagrees they can call him to the monitor. It's fundamentally no different to a player putting the ball in the net, then the linesman flags and the referee gives a free kick for offside. The referee doesn't need to award the goal for the offside to be checked (the only difference is there's no subsequent call to the monitor if the on-field decision is incorrect). Edited April 20 by The Master 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raab Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 Our first goal wasn't a foul. If a defender dallys on the ball, for me, he is making his own bed (within reason). There was nothing unreasonable about us winning the ball. I thought that today, and I thought that when Lagerbielke dallied on the ball against Rangers (and I thought we got off with that). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2426255 Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 7 minutes ago, Raab said: Our first goal wasn't a foul. If a defender dallys on the ball, for me, he is making his own bed (within reason). There was nothing unreasonable about us winning the ball. I thought that today, and I thought that when Lagerbielke dallied on the ball against Rangers (and I thought we got off with that). Agreed. It was a very good steal from Furuhashi. I don't see any case for it being a foul. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogbrush1903 Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 (edited) I made the mistake of visiting 'The Hat' and it's a piley on Shayden Morris. I won't deny that he did nothing apart from one cross but that one effort was more than that shitebag Duk did on the whole 70 minutes he was on the park Edited April 21 by Bogbrush1903 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 6 hours ago, The Master said: It's fundamentally no different to a player putting the ball in the net, then the linesman flags and the referee gives a free kick for offside. This is my last post on this because it's clear you're just refusing to see the point. But it's nothing like this. Offside are black or white matters with VAR. They're either offside or onside, so letting play continue there is fine as you know that the correct offside decision can be made. A foul, especially in the air, has far more shades of grey in it and is open to "I can't see it's clearly wrong so we'll stick with the on field decision" decisions by the VAR. By awarding the foul, that he didn't seem sure was a foul (you claimed any ref who saw a foul of that style and thought it was a clear foul would blow and not delay) he automatically makes it massively likely no penalty can be awarded as the type of foul it was means there's almost no chance the on field decision is overturned. He saw the entire play, that ends in a penalty for Aberdeen, and decided to weight it entirely in Celtics favour by awarding them a free kick, for a foul he wasn't 100% convinced was a foul, that VAR was never going to overturn. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
still_game Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 i dont see anyone commenting on Kyogos kick out at the Aberdeen player and that not being reviewed? Yet again VAR is only being used when the need to help the ugly sisters occurs. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molotov Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 Why is there no VAR evidence supplied to the TV broadcasters (as we see down south in the EPL or UEFA tournaments)? Had they shown the VAR evidence to backup the referee decision of the “foul” on Alistair Johnston by Junior Hoilett then I’m sure this would be less controversial. Given this game was at Hampden I’d assumed that the best VAR system in the country would be available to supply the TV broadcasters. I was watching on Premier Sports but I only ever saw one angle of the “foul”on the Celtic player Johnston. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 1 hour ago, still_game said: i dont see anyone commenting on Kyogos kick out at the Aberdeen player and that not being reviewed? Yet again VAR is only being used when the need to help the ugly sisters occurs. In fairness, just because it hasn’t been mentioned on TV or replays of it shown, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been reviewed. In all likelihood it would’ve been reviewed while play was ongoing and deemed not a clear and obvious error. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.