Chasing VAR out of Scotland

[FTOF]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

Even better

Better?

Not an adjective that your shower of shite have been familiar with this season.

[Thenorthernlight]

3 minutes ago, The Master said:

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. 

Only the furthest back defender was no11

They can’t even lie retrospectively correctly,

F**k the SFA 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Well at least this in incident has confirmed one thing. 
 

St Mirren fans continue to be the leagues biggest bellends.

[The Master]

1 minute ago, Thenorthernlight said:

Only the furthest back defender was no11

Only based on what you think the still shows. But it’s all down to parallax making some players look further to the left of the image than they actually are. 

There’s no reason to distrust the lines,  because it’s not the SFA that placed them (I’m not convinced anyone at the SFA would know how to). It’s Hawk-Eye, and they have no reason to put their reputation on the line by lying. 

[Dons_1988]

9 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Better?

Not an adjective that your shower of shite have been familiar with this season.

Aberdeen being shite isn’t really relevant to you still being raging over a marginal refereeing decision from back in August. 

[Theyellowbox]

What the whole situation shows is that those in charge of the game here have made an absolute hash of VAR. The technology used in the right way isn't a problem as such. Ironically, offside is one of these black and white calls and we still manage to make it as complicated and grey as possible.

Conflating two hot topics here, but if we rightly want Dundee to be held responsible for not being able to provide a key tool for the game (pitch), we should expect the same from the authorities (VAR). 

[RawB93]

I've got a mate that works for Hawkeye and he says they f**k about with the lines all the time.

[houston_bud]

Having now seen the lines there's a little bit of me that thinks, fair play to the VAR officials who called it correctly without the lines.

I'm not convinced they could do so with any real certainty though. With the naked eye he does look, just, offside but we've seen a lot of decisions that with the naked eye seem one way or the other, only for the VAR lines to contradict.

We had a shout for a goal against Dundee that, with the naked eye seemed (at least to me) to have crossed the line. We were told then that there wasn't enough evidence to overrule the onfield decision - which is the right call in the circumstances. Seems they've changed that for this decision. 

[RandomGuy.]

11 hours ago, Ginaro said:

 

Just me who thinks that they've definitely meant Sokler (in the middle) is the one they think is clearly offside, but they keep claiming it's MacDonald as they don't want to admit they both guessed and announced the wrong player?

The line from MacDonald looks completely wrong seeing as it looks like he's leaning forward rather than sideways, and his run after this still suggests that too. The line of him should be at his feet if not just beyond them rather than a yard away.

[Thenorthernlight]

9 hours ago, The Master said:

Only based on what you think the still shows. But it’s all down to parallax making some players look further to the left of the image than they actually are. 

There’s no reason to distrust the lines,  because it’s not the SFA that placed them (I’m not convinced anyone at the SFA would know how to). It’s Hawk-Eye, and they have no reason to put their reputation on the line by lying. 

You can see a yellow socked player on the red line 

And it’s not the player they’ve drawn the lines against. 

As I say, the SFA can’t even lie properly to cover up their ineptitude.

And their statement makes no reference to the fact Matthew MacDermid on VAR went against protocols by overruling an onfield decision with NO evidence available to him. 

[VincentGuerin]

What Aberdeen say here is fair enough, just like Motherwell's statement. But what we need next is a club to make similar points in a week when they haven't been on the wrong end of a bad call.

[Eatmygoal]

12 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

What Aberdeen say here is fair enough, just like Motherwell's statement. But what we need next is a club to make similar points in a week when they haven't been on the wrong end of a bad call.

Or for other clubs who weren't directly involved to support the original statements. 

[Dons_1988]

Worth saying to anyone who’s been on this thread saying contacting their club is pointless - it’s clear the clubs aren’t happy with VAR and at the very least want change to its implementation. 

Get your club told what you really think of it. Increase the pressure. 

[Swello]

What was the reasoning that they gave Sportscene for not sharing the shot with the lines drawn? Was not along the lines of "it's so obvious, we don't need to"? (if you can believe what Steven Thompson said). Kind of a different story with the official statement.

VAR has a credibility issue with the clubs as well as the supporters now - some feedback from die-hards during season ticket campaigns certainly can't hurt. 

[DukDukGoose]

5 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Just me who thinks that they've definitely meant Sokler (in the middle) is the one they think is clearly offside, but they keep claiming it's MacDonald as they don't want to admit they both guessed and announced the wrong player?

The line from MacDonald looks completely wrong seeing as it looks like he's leaning forward rather than sideways, and his run after this still suggests that too. The line of him should be at his feet if not just beyond them rather than a yard away.

No but didn't want to come off like an Old Firm fan

[Ginaro]

5 hours ago, Thenorthernlight said:

14 hours ago, The Master said:

 

You can see a yellow socked player on the red line 

And it’s not the player they’ve drawn the lines against. 

I thought that at first (whether there was something yellow amongst all the red) but if you look at the actual footage after the ball is kicked none of the Livingston players feet are where it's been circled.

 

[Pens_Dark]

3 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

Worth saying to anyone who’s been on this thread saying contacting their club is pointless - it’s clear the clubs aren’t happy with VAR and at the very least want change to its implementation. 

Get your club told what you really think of it. Increase the pressure. 

If there's ever a time to do it, it's off the back of a statement like that from Aberdeen. I will be writing to my club today to reinforce that point. Who knows, maybe we could sort our pitch out with the money we save....

[The Master]

1 hour ago, Ginaro said:

I thought that at first (whether there was something yellow amongst all the red) but if you look at the actual footage after the ball is kicked none of the Livingston players feet are where it's been circled.

 

I would agree with this. It looks more like the Aberdeen number 15's knee, with the yellow pixel being a compression artefact.

Even if it is the leg of a Livi player, there's no guarantee it's on the pitch. If it's in the air, then there's every chance it might appear in front of the blue line, even though in reality it's not. 

[craigkillie]

As was mentioned above, I don't think there is any incentive whatsoever for Hawkeye to get involved in a lie here, their reputation is not worth whatever the SFA pay them. Therefore, MacDonald probably was offside, but there's still no way that decision should have been made without access to the technology.

[Eatmygoal]

11 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

As was mentioned above, I don't think there is any incentive whatsoever for Hawkeye to get involved in a lie here, their reputation is not worth whatever the SFA pay them. Therefore, MacDonald probably was offside, but there's still no way that decision should have been made without access to the technology.

Exactly. Whether he was offside or not is academic. Essentially they have tossed a coin and overruled the on field decision and then appear to have attempted to cover it up.