KingswellsRed Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 It was about time some of the other clubs got involved. Surely St Johnstone have to be next. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 The SFA have released a statement in response to this. The only issue is no one can read it because their website has broken due to the amount of traffic. Tin pot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanius Mullarkey Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 What a fucking country. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 An utterly scandalous statement from the SFA. Basically saying they’ve retrospectively drawn the lines and it was offside so they’re vindicated. What if they drew the lines and it was onside? Shambles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 Quote The Scottish FA has today received a report from Hawkeye on the incident that occurred at Livingston’s match against Aberdeen, which confirmed that the Broadcast 18-Yard Left Camera suffered a loss of calibration and ceased line tracking on the relevant video frame. During the review, Hawkeye were able to reprocess the data through their system and draw the calibrated offside lines from the disallowed goal, which showed Angus MacDonald to be in an offside position. The VAR made the decision using the technology that was available and this decision was validated by Hawkeye's retrospective recalibration conducted as part of their review. From the SFA website. At least it sorts out the question of offside, as it's not even close. I do wonder if the assistant probably wouldn't have even been able to see the Aberdeen player at the bottom due to three others in an offside position in the middle, so his play-on decision might've been just as dodgy as the VAR making the decision without lines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 3 minutes ago, Ginaro said: From the SFA website. At least it sorts out the question of offside, as it's not even close. I do wonder if the assistant probably wouldn't have even been able to see the Aberdeen player at the bottom due to three others in an offside position in the middle, so his play-on decision might've been just as dodgy as the VAR making the decision without lines. It doesn’t sort out the fact they guessed at the time though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 19 minutes ago, Ginaro said: From the SFA website. At least it sorts out the question of offside, as it's not even close. I do wonder if the assistant probably wouldn't have even been able to see the Aberdeen player at the bottom due to three others in an offside position in the middle, so his play-on decision might've been just as dodgy as the VAR making the decision without lines. It doesn’t sort anything. It looks like it’s ‘probably’ offside, but it really isn’t the point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasda2 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 They could write down a few guesses in envelopes marked penalty, offside, red card etc and send them in. Save a lot of VAR expenses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds are Forever Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said: statement is good but I’d actually say it’s the wrong incident to call for VAR to be removed. If you accept that technology has glitches like the Hawkeye system failing then you’d think it would be easy enough to have a strict protocol saying if the system isn’t working, don’t fucking guess and then lie about why you haven’t released the evidence of the decision. it isn’t something that actually requires the removal of VAR. The removal of VAR is a broader point about the impact on the game and the problems of which it solves none of. That decision on Saturday at livi took a good 5 minutes after celebrating what seemed like a winning goal. And for what? That's what I think. There's perfectly good reasons to remove VAR, but this isn't really one of them. It's just an example of poor procedure, if VAR technology isn't working then you just use the on field decision like we would if VAR didn't exist anyway, it couldn't be much simpler. The statement from the SFA basically saying 'it was the correct decision so stop panicking' completely and utterly misses the point. No-one, apart from Aberdeen (and even they've been very reasonable in their statement), really care whether it was actually the right decision or not. People care that they've not followed any proper protocol and just overturned an onfield decision by guessing, coming out and saying that their guess was correct isn't really going to do much to reassure those fans. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 Of course, this is now the second occasion this season that Aberdeen have screamed "foul" at dreadful VAR decisions. They were livid when the VAR team failed to highlight their double-hit penalty in Paisley. VAR is shite and Aberdeen are hypocrites. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 7 minutes ago, Wilbur said: Of course, this is now the second occasion this season that Aberdeen have screamed "foul" at dreadful VAR decisions. They were livid when the VAR team failed to highlight their double-hit penalty in Paisley. VAR is shite and Aberdeen are hypocrites. Absolutely brilliant 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ginaro said: From the SFA website. At least it sorts out the question of offside, as it's not even close. I do wonder if the assistant probably wouldn't have even been able to see the Aberdeen player at the bottom due to three others in an offside position in the middle, so his play-on decision might've been just as dodgy as the VAR making the decision without lines. That is the shitest picture to justify the decision ever. Those lines when compared to the 18 yard line are the completely wrong angle. Edited April 10 by strichener -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 That's called parallax. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 20 minutes ago, Wilbur said: Of course, this is now the second occasion this season that Aberdeen have screamed "foul" at dreadful VAR decisions. They were livid when the VAR team failed to highlight their double-hit penalty in Paisley. VAR is shite and Aberdeen are hypocrites. No shit sherlock. There's not one club that starts screaming about injustices when decisions go in their favour. It's then that you hear stuff like, 'Well, it's about time one went in our favour' and 'We deserved that one...' and so on. When it's the club getting screwed over, Scottish football clubs, led by Rangers fucking love an injustice statement. The sad thing is, that due to VAR, more and more of these statements have a point. It's a shambles from top to bottom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 8 minutes ago, craigkillie said: That's called parallax. The camera was supposed to be in line with the eighteen yard box so it isn't called pallalax, it's called bullshit. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 (edited) 10 minutes ago, strichener said: The camera was supposed to be in line with the eighteen yard box so it isn't called pallalax, it's called bullshit. The camera is physically in line with with 18-yard line, but it’s not always pointing directly along it. At the moment the ball is kicked, the camera is (rightly) pointing at the play. Edited April 10 by The Master 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said: Absolutely brilliant Speak up. We can't hear you from all the way down there. Seems these games in hand weren't worth a f**k after all. Edited April 10 by FTOF -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 12 minutes ago, FTOF said: Speak up. We can't hear you from all the way down there. Seems these games in hand weren't worth a f**k. Even better 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10menwent2mow Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 Looking at the image the SFA have released, those lines are very confusing. Presuming that the Blue line is the Livingston defender and the offside is given against MacDonald (27). According to that blue line, MacDonald's right foot is slightly ahead of Ester Sokler's (19) right foot. Sokler is standing with his legs spread (Kenneth Gif) and Sokler's left foot is just the other side of the Red line which is apparently in line with MacDonald's shoulder. Now, Macdonald must have been leaning at some angle to only be marginally ahead of Sokler's right foot, yet his shoulder is in line with with where Sokler's left foot is. I hasten to add that this still is the only thing I've seen about the decision, I've not seen a replay in real time to see if MacDonald was indeed leaning at a ridiculous angle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 The dashed lines show who the solid lines are taken from. The furthest back defender was number 5, and the attacker in question was number 27. 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.