RicoS321

I thought it was okay, however they missed the fact that the ref was pointing towards our goal for the penalty incident, and they failed to find out, or show what the actual decision was given for. Also, MacLeod has a weird erection for all things Celtic for a Dons fan. Waxing lyrical about the number of finals, winners medals for McGregor etc without any hint towards the huge structural bias in their favour is just weird. Otherwise, it was decent I thought. Like almost every other provider these days, they can't have a second to breathe in their coverage, which is really frustrating. Every moment the ball is out of play must be filled with player close-ups, fan close-ups, manager close-ups, which means you don't get to see any of the positional play - how quick we are to gain shape, if we're pressing high on throws or whatever. I hold the BBC to a higher standard, as it's not just there to hold viewer's attention like the private channels, but I realise that's extremely unfair. I suspect they don't do their own production anyway these days.

I think their opinion on Scales has significantly changed for the worse over the last few months. I don't see him being in their starting eleven next year. The long stint in their first team will have put him beyond our means now though, which is fine - he would see us as a big step down, and will likely get a shot down South or abroad based on his initial performances. Which brings us to our defence. Somebody like Scales would be exactly what we need. Gartenmann had a really good game at the weekend, as he's had in many of the bigger games, but he struggles against the big lad that a lot of our crappier opponents deploy. We need that physical presence that Rubezic (or someone like him) offers to compliment a guy like Gartenmann. Howwver, Rubi is right footed, and that means Gartenmann having to play on his left. Given that he's just a loanee, I'd think that keeping him on is not good business for us unfortunately. MacDonald should be backup for Rubezic, Jensen should be let go, and we go into the market for a left sided centre back to play alongside Rubi. He should be good on the ball, with a good reading of the game, to balance out Rubezic's obvious flaws.

He's already downed tools, doesn't give a fuck. He's Aberdeen through and through now, just going through the motions with those Swedish losers.

The foul in the build up never gets called though, the Miovski one you mention was a VAR call after the event that the ref missed. There is no option for VAR to stop play that quickly. The ref on Saturday seems to be an outlier, in that he saw a foul and didn't blow. That only occurs for offside normally. Agree about the manufacturing of fouls. The Scales one on Saturday would have been such a case if it had been given. A total unintentional handball at point blank range, which everyone can see in real time that the player knows little about. Slow it down and repeat it enough, with the instruction to find a foul in this incident, and you can quickly remove all context and give a penalty. That type of thing wouldn't have even made the highlights a few years ago, and nor would Miovski have been claiming for it. Now, even the most anti-VAR of us are discussing these types of incident in a different way "we've seen them given" etc. We've been drawn into the VAR way of discussing the game. First, let's be clear, Bobby Madden is a dick. Secondly, he's talking absolute shite. We've had these discussions from way before VAR's introduction, it was obvious to anyone that it is impossible to limit VAR to those incidents that are "clear and obvious", because there is no possible definition of what that means. Why is anyone even suggesting that after seeing the thing in action? Is he fucking deluded? How, exactly, do you define the Henry incident (the lampard one is easily covered by goalline technology)? Where is the defining marker that makes Henry's incident a "big error", and one that isn't? What happens when the Tims get an error defined as big enough to intervene, and the Huns don't? The answer is that they slowly move back towards where we are now, as was predicted by me and everyone else that discussed VAR before it poisoned our game (in any country). There is no such thing as a clear and obvious error, it has no definition, so Madden can fuck off. Why on earth does he want the game ruining, time wasting, offside shite still to exist too? Is a guy 6mm offside a clear and obvious error that has gained the attacker an unsporting advantage? 20mm? A yard? Are there really that many offside decisions so egregious, where a player has gained a huge advantage, that the technology is worth it? Of course not, because Madden's world doesn't exist. If it did exist, then it'd only intervene in about four occasions per season and would be as worthless as goalline technology.

The idea is that you allow the attacking team to finish their move in case the original call is incorrect. It makes sense (sort of) for offside, as that is an exact yes/no call. It makes zero sense in a subjective call for a foul. You're basically then VARing for a subjective foul and then any other subsequent subjective events afterwards. If the referee sees a foul, then he should always blow for it. I've not seen an incident like ours before, and I'm not sure if the ref's approach was correct. The reason that you should just blow for a freekick, is otherwise there are two potential ways that exactly the same incident can be refereed. The referee could have let the incident play out and called the penalty (it was a penalty, apparently, that wasn't in question), thus VAR is making the decision on whether there was a foul in the build up. The referee's approach meant he was going to VAR saying: I have given a foul, is that a clear and obvious error. I have no doubt that in this instance, the two approaches would have garnered different results. Quite simply, if the referee thinks something is a freekick, then he gives a freekick. If he isn't sure, then it isn't a freekick. VAR offers nothing with his approach, and all he has done is sought to sway VAR's more accurate decision. Remember, in the case of offside being allowed to continue, the decision made by the onfield linesman has (and can have) no bearing on VARs decision, which is the important distinction. The linesman only actually raises his flag if a goal is scored in order to signal to the crowd, and also to make his decision in case of an issue with the technology. I'm glad you took this into the VAR thread, as I don't think the decision necessarily had an impact on the match, and it's not a case of partisan sore loserness, it's just a comment on the technology itself and how it was used.

Both calls were as they were if VAR hadn't been there. The Hoilett one saw Robertson blow for a freekick near the spot, making it look like he had given a penalty. He allowed play to continue (in a first for me) to see if we'd score, which caused all the confusion. That is VAR protocol and wouldn't exist without it.

I thought Robertson had a decent game in general, but the second pen is definitely a failure of some sort of protocol. Robertson let play go on as if it were an offside call, only giving the foul when the penalty incident occurred. He gave the decision in advance of the VAR check, which isn't the done thing, he should have given the penalty and let VAR decide on the foul, as he clearly wasn't certain on it. Because he made the call, the VAR can then just play the not clear and obvious card and avoid the call. Had he not made the decision, I'm absolutely certain VAR wouldn't have given that as a foul - because it fucking wasn't one. Again, just another inconsistency of VAR that makes it impossible for anyone to understand and follow what's going on.

Looking at the penalty one again, it appears that the ref let play go and called it once the penalty incident occurred, in the same way as linesmen are told to let close offsides go for the play to develop for the attacking team. Is that a first in football (that a ref has allowed play to develop following a foul rather than an offside)? I've never seen or heard of it before. It's intriguing. There's a good five seconds between the incident and him giving it, that's just not the done thing, anywhere.

No need for the personal attack. Anyone that's ever had cramp (everyone?) recognises that you can't just run it off or whatever. It's a fairly sudden thing that pretty much disables you in position. He could have hopped out of the way and lay beside the goals for treatment, but I suspect that'd have been equally as off putting - there was no good answer in that situation. I actually really like Roos, comes across as a decent guy off the pitch. However, his six month spell of being the best keeper in the SPFL seems to have been the anomaly as he's been terrible this season, and he wasn't that great in his first few months at Pittodrie either. It's frustrating, as I think there's a goalie in there somewhere, but his confidence is zero. It's too important a position to hope that he might get his form back, but it's also a huge role of the dice looking for a new keeper. I don't trust the data approach with goalies, I think we have to hope that Thelin has seen someone he can trust.

It's not even remotely a foul, nor was the St Johnstone own against us. If those are fouls then heading should be banned, it was two players going for the ball. I agree, though, it was the ref taking an age to decide and then blow. Factoring in the consequences of denying a scum final before making the call, in my opinion. He could have easily left that to the VAR and called the pen. There's absolutely no way that had he given the penalty VAR would have overruled it for a foul in the build up. I'm not convinced that there's a camera angle that can show in or out of the box for Scales' arm. I think it's in, but it's not clear and obvious. Either way, both decisions were called as they were and a world without VAR would have been fine in the circumstances.

Morris was already down the tunnel hiding. Saying that, despite being the most disinterested player on the pitch, he did put in a great cross for the Hoilett penalty incident. Just saw the ridiculous decision to award a freekick in the build up before the pen, it's unbelievable. I'm assuming that because the freekick was awarded that the penalty can't be and that VAR were just discussing the rules. I suspect that they can't overturn the freekick, as that's not within VAR's remit and that's why the pen couldn't be given? The only thing I'm not sure about is whether the timing was an issue, in that the ref didn't actually blow for the freekick until after Hoilett was fouled? A terrible decision all round. I'm not convinced that there was enough evidence to say whether Scales was in the box, VAR is certainly right not to intervene there, for the same reasons as it shouldn't have against Livingston. The Tims would have got both those today though, VAR would have found a way.

We weren't soft today, in general, and didn't lack character. There's a strong chance that Gartenmann just isn't great at pens, or maybe was struggling. McKenzie looked knackered too, so I suppose it's fair enough. Morris aside, I think we showed good bottle. Duncan showed a lot of bottle too, his was just unlucky really. I think they'd done their homework on Roos too, he always seems to move and for all their pens they just waited. Oh aye, without doubt. I wasn't convinced by the Scales one. The second was apparently a penalty, but the ref gave a foul for the challenge before Hoilett's apparently. I haven't seen it back since that was explained, and wasn't looking for it in real time, but I suspect it was a terrible decision.

Aye, and we still had Morris to take too. Thought Gartenmann and McKenzie would have been ahead of Phillips. Phillips isn't really the ball kicking type.

Phillips was never going to be the guy for pens. Nevermind.

Dicks

Jesus, some game. Deserve this one.

Shame, we look fucked. Honking marking from Hoilett though. I'd take pens now, probably won't win it in the remaining 15.

Get in. What a cross.

Our midfield being bypassed this half. Polvara reached his useful limit I think, but nothing on the bench.

Good game so far, we're setup well and working hard. Been good in possession and reasonably solid in defence. Good discipline in the shape. Duk had a few moments of not holding position and dribbling out of defence, but his overall contribution has been positive. Polvara has done okay without doing much positive, just safe passing, which is fine. More of the same (apart from you, MacDonald).

That's the issue with MacDonald on his wrong foot.

I made it in, approximately 6 seconds before kick off. Some goal. There are few players in the SPFL making that pass that Clarkson did. He's such a top class player.

No need to rub it in. Absolutely hating that I'm missing this one now. My daughter will be being driven home soaking wet from swimming in order to make the kick off on the telly. I'll probably get held up and it'll be 3-0 by the time I get in. I hate watching on the telly too, always showing close ups of players and replays when the ball is in play. I'd be far more relaxed at Hampden.

What I'm reading from this is that you're very happy with Jayden Richardson, and would maybe even like us to build our team around him.

It's fucking easy to blame them for it, it's a fucking rancid attitude that proliferates our game (and politics). We're asking for a free and fair opportunity to sell 50% of a neutral venue in pursuit of fairness and neutrality. That should be the absolute guiding principle of our governing body. Instead, the guiding principle of our governing body is to cater to the needs of the strongest two clubs in the country to the detriment of all others. We're living through the worst period in Scottish football history because of the continued unfairness. The court of arbitration should be designed to deliver fairness, because that's the purpose of sport, and so it's not a bad idea to take it to them. In reality, we'd need a concerted effort from forty clubs to withdraw their services from games at Hampden unless fifty fifty is the default offering.