VAR

[RicoS321]

2 hours ago, tom_widdows said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c4n1ndlknk1o

If they chuck it how long would it take doncaster and co to follow suit?

I don't think they'd dare keep it here if their lords ditched it. It'd be embarrassing if that's what it took for our league to do the right thing. 

I feel a bit for the refs in all this (if that's possible). They've been handed an absolute fucking dud and have taken more shite than they ever got before because of it. Tonight's pen another example of the nonsense that they're forced to deal with. It'll eventually be taken away and they'll be worse off than they were before. Why on earth none of them saw this coming though, I've no idea. They should have been campaigning for better treatment of refs instead of the fucking nonsense of video replays. Idiots.

[OrlandoDon]

Anyone want to attempt to explain/justify the livi penalty?

[RicoS321]

30 minutes ago, OrlandoDon said:

Anyone want to attempt to explain/justify the livi penalty?

I just saw it on the highlights, it hits Sokler's hand. Of course, he knows nothing about it, he doesn't see the ball and is simply raising his hands because of the shove he receives. Nobody claims, ref sees the incident in context and knows that there's nothing to it. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a choice when VAR intervenes. 

They've actually really shot themselves in the foot by changing the handball rule at the same time as introducing VAR. There are so many decisions like today's, involving handball, that could just be overlooked if they were treated as clear and obvious errors based on the old deliberate handball. Instead, we waited four minutes for a nothing decision that no supporter or player saw happening. For the umpteenth time this season, across the continent. 

The decision is correct as per the ridiculous rule. It's clear and obvious that it has hit his hand, and the VAR folk would be in trouble for not spotting it if they didn't give it. Yet, we've got a decision that lacks any sporting integrity or decency. The whole point in VAR was to reduce unsporting decisions, instead they've created an entire category of unsporting incidents by changing the handball rule. It'd be interesting to see the proportion of incidents that are handball related. I expect a lot. When people that lack of sporting integrity, it leaves a sour taste. Nobody will feel that justice was served by giving that pen.

[OrlandoDon]

13 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

I just saw it on the highlights, it hits Sokler's hand. Of course, he knows nothing about it, he doesn't see the ball and is simply raising his hands because of the shove he receives. Nobody claims, ref sees the incident in context and knows that there's nothing to it. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a choice when VAR intervenes. 

They've actually really shot themselves in the foot by changing the handball rule at the same time as introducing VAR. There are so many decisions like today's, involving handball, that could just be overlooked if they were treated as clear and obvious errors based on the old deliberate handball. Instead, we waited four minutes for a nothing decision that no supporter or player saw happening. For the umpteenth time this season, across the continent. 

The decision is correct as per the ridiculous rule. It's clear and obvious that it has hit his hand, and the VAR folk would be in trouble for not spotting it if they didn't give it. Yet, we've got a decision that lacks any sporting integrity or decency. The whole point in VAR was to reduce unsporting decisions, instead they've created an entire category of unsporting incidents by changing the handball rule. It'd be interesting to see the proportion of incidents that are handball related. I expect a lot. When people that lack of sporting integrity, it leaves a sour taste. Nobody will feel that justice was served by giving that pen.

Surely the ref has to consider the foul on sokler before the hand ball? I just don’t understand how that isn’t seen or is ignored.

[OrlandoDon]

Just read about EPL clubs voting whether to scrap VAR. what would it take for Scottish clubs to be able to vote on it? Really curious to why anyone or any club would vote in favor of keeping it.
would love to know if VAR intervention has cost us more goals than given us….? or any team to be truthful.
Today, yet again, a penalty and goal when not a single player or fan paused for a second to claim for a penalty yet VAR creates an incident and pretty much gets the assist on the goal.

[RicoS321]

8 hours ago, OrlandoDon said:

Surely the ref has to consider the foul on sokler before the hand ball? I just don’t understand how that isn’t seen or is ignored.

It's difficult. If the guy challenging Sokler had scored, in my opinion it should have stood. There is possibly a foul, but it's soft and just a good case of the player being stronger. I don't think there is a clear and obvious error to say that it would be a foul. Where it becomes difficult is that the soft foul directly caused Sokler to raise his arms. Because of the stupid rule change, handball is now not really a subjective call, it's more like an offside yes or no type decision - did it touch his hand or not. It changes the way that decisions are made, and I don't know what the ref is actually being asked to check. Are the VAR team saying that there is no clear and obvious error by the ref in not giving Sokler a foul (which I'd agree with), the ref is simply to confirm whether it has hit the player's hand? This is what replays do, and have always done and always will - they segment the play, stripping out all context, into individual decisions that don't affect one another. Unfortunately, there is no quality commentary on this effect, in Scotland (probably the UK). Of course, the easiest thing to do last night was say that it was a handball but the player was victim of a soft foul, so there is no clear and obvious error by the ref that would be allowed to be called back (in other words, you wouldn't call it back for a freekick to Aberdeen).

7 hours ago, OrlandoDon said:

Just read about EPL clubs voting whether to scrap VAR. what would it take for Scottish clubs to be able to vote on it? Really curious to why anyone or any club would vote in favor of keeping it.
would love to know if VAR intervention has cost us more goals than given us….? or any team to be truthful.
Today, yet again, a penalty and goal when not a single player or fan paused for a second to claim for a penalty yet VAR creates an incident and pretty much gets the assist on the goal.

I don't really care how many decisions we get our don't get. I didn't even care whether they got a penalty or not. It's completely non-partisan for me, it's utterly shite in every single way, and was always going to be. Six years in, and we still don't have a definition for clear and obvious, should tell everyone everything they need to know. I'd be interested to know the number of decisions generated by VAR because of VAR alone (stupid handballs and three inch offsides), but those statistics won't exist.

[manc_don]

I did enjoy that it was at the end of the end var flag on the merkland last night. That’s the only thing. VAR is horrendous in Scotland, get it in the bin. 

[Reekie_Red]

15 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

Because of the stupid rule change, handball is now not really a subjective call, it's more like an offside yes or no type decision - did it touch his hand or not

The reason they're looking to bin VAR in England is because these "yes/no" decisions are being blurred by VAR. When everybody in the entire stadium can see that someone is onside, but VAR opts to roll for seven-tenths of a second longer to see a defender now playing the attacker offside AFTER the ball has left the foot of the passer, it really calls the entire system into disrepute.

It was supposed to make referees' jobs easier, but instead it has made it even harder when it is spotting stuff that the refs and both teams haven't seen. It either needs to move to a stance of "VAR is only called into use when the on-field ref requests it, or one of the team-captains requests it. Rugby League has a Captain's Call system, where each team captain gets one VAR Check request per match. If the check proves they were right, they get to keep that Captains Call for another incident in the game .... but if the check fails to pick up anything, they don't get any more Captain's Calls in the game. But having this third referee scrutinizing every fraction of a second in the game for stuff that nobody on-field ha seen is just ruining the game.

[RicoS321]

6 hours ago, Reekie_Red said:

The reason they're looking to bin VAR in England is because these "yes/no" decisions are being blurred by VAR. When everybody in the entire stadium can see that someone is onside, but VAR opts to roll for seven-tenths of a second longer to see a defender now playing the attacker offside AFTER the ball has left the foot of the passer, it really calls the entire system into disrepute.

It was supposed to make referees' jobs easier, but instead it has made it even harder when it is spotting stuff that the refs and both teams haven't seen. It either needs to move to a stance of "VAR is only called into use when the on-field ref requests it, or one of the team-captains requests it. Rugby League has a Captain's Call system, where each team captain gets one VAR Check request per match. If the check proves they were right, they get to keep that Captains Call for another incident in the game .... but if the check fails to pick up anything, they don't get any more Captain's Calls in the game. But having this third referee scrutinizing every fraction of a second in the game for stuff that nobody on-field ha seen is just ruining the game.

Fucking Captain's Call? The only reason that shite would get anywhere is because of sunk cost fallacy. People are too scared just to accept that they were wrong and ditch it. Don't like our failed system? We'll take in even more rules just to make it slightly less shite. Of course, we'd then need to take in another rule to prevent players other than the captain speaking to the ref, lest they cloud his judgement and he is seen to be asking for a review just because he was shouted at. What's that ref? You asked for a review of a Tim's goal but not a Hun one? But there was a push in the build up. We must move back to checking all incidents, before this costs someone the league. And money. Don't forget money. The most important part of football.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with the 7 tenths of a second thing, but surely the one thing that VAR has taught us, is that people who look onside aren't always onside and there is no possible way that everyone in the stadium can tell if someone is on or off in a marginal call.

[RicoS321]

Great to have a game without VAR today, with the offside goal looking to be a good call. A tedious three minute wait for that would have been zero improvement.

Interestingly the Huns now the only other team to benefit from a ref giving a "maybe a freekick" call (the other being the Tims benefitting from the opposite overturn in the semi against us). It stands to reason that refs are reffing their games to a different standard. Letting the game play at a freekick incident (not offside, obviously) is just fucking ridiculous. If the ref blows for a freekick then it's because he thinks it's a freekick. He hasn't missed the incident. Thus, by definition, it (using VAR) cannot be anything but re-reffing the game. People (stupid people) will argue that it's great that you let the play roll and let the goal stand and allow the ref a second look, but there is absolutely no way to apply this logic with any consistency - because it completely ignores the silent evidence. In order for this to be fair, you'd have to take into account all those decisions where very soft freekicks were given for a foul by an attacker, and imagine what might have occurred had the ref allowed play to continue. It makes no sense whatsoever. The ref should just have given the freekick as happens in all other circumstances, because that was his decision. 

[BigAl]

Sokler was a couple of feet onside.

Not a fan of VAR but if in operation today, for once it would have righted a wrong

[OrlandoDon]

26 minutes ago, BigAl said:

Sokler was a couple of feet onside.

Not a fan of VAR but if in operation today, for once it would have righted a wrong

From your perspective in real time of proven through replay??

[BigAl]

[OrlandoDon]

25 minutes ago, BigAl said:

Wow! Thanks for clarity!!

[RicoS321]

8 hours ago, BigAl said:

I don't think that would be the frame they'd have chosen. I suspect there'd be another one after that when the ball is last touched, that would possibly take the player's shoulder beyond the leg of the defender. The point is that it's not a terrible decision by the linesman, who made his call quickly, and gave immediate clarity for everyone in the ground, and with zero complaints. It highlights perfectly the fallibility of VAR too, in that frame selection is absolutely vital. I suspect the automatic frame selection in the very expensive VAR would produce a different answer to the manual frame selection very regularly, and I'd argue that for these types of close call it's just as accurate to go with the linesman's call as it is the lines. We simply don't need the pretend millimetre precision of the shitey lines.

[Tyrant]

On 16/05/2024 at 10:22, manc_don said:

I did enjoy that it was at the end of the end var flag on the merkland last night. That’s the only thing. VAR is horrendous in Scotland, get it in the bin. 

This is a common viewpoint now but I don't understand it. My viewpoint is "stop fucking using it like a bunch of fucking idiots". Why are we hoping it's binned rather than getting it sorted out? There was talk of ex professionals being in the VAR rooms to consult with but I don't see why that's needed. I've not played 11 a side football since I was 12 but I feel I could go in there and do a significantly better job than what we often see. The example being the Livi penalty. It's never a handball in a million years and it's the contact from the Livi player that causes Sokler's contact with the ball. The ref was sent over to the screen but we all know that 99 times out of a 100 the on field ref will cave to the VAR ref but he doesn't have to. It was the wrong decision for me. IMO VAR is a step in the right direction but it's been used horrendously up here and south of the border too at times. When it came in I was worried that it would be used to help the old firm (or the re-incarnations thereof) and we saw that at Pittodrie when they successfully managed to find a fucking non-incident in injury time to get The Rangers a much needed penalty to save Clement's unbeaten start. I'm not a fan of basing decisions on how much or little one team has claimed something but fuck me that was a bad decision. Nothing but a gift. That's the sort of thing that would convince me to bin VAR. So, aye. I'll probably be in agreement by Christmas. 

[RicoS321]

48 minutes ago, Tyrant said:

This is a common viewpoint now but I don't understand it. My viewpoint is "stop fucking using it like a bunch of fucking idiots". Why are we hoping it's binned rather than getting it sorted out? There was talk of ex professionals being in the VAR rooms to consult with but I don't see why that's needed. I've not played 11 a side football since I was 12 but I feel I could go in there and do a significantly better job than what we often see. The example being the Livi penalty. It's never a handball in a million years and it's the contact from the Livi player that causes Sokler's contact with the ball. The ref was sent over to the screen but we all know that 99 times out of a 100 the on field ref will cave to the VAR ref but he doesn't have to. It was the wrong decision for me. IMO VAR is a step in the right direction but it's been used horrendously up here and south of the border too at times. When it came in I was worried that it would be used to help the old firm (or the re-incarnations thereof) and we saw that at Pittodrie when they successfully managed to find a fucking non-incident in injury time to get The Rangers a much needed penalty to save Clement's unbeaten start. I'm not a fan of basing decisions on how much or little one team has claimed something but fuck me that was a bad decision. Nothing but a gift. That's the sort of thing that would convince me to bin VAR. So, aye. I'll probably be in agreement by Christmas. 

Ah, the "its not the technology, its the people using it" line. VAR is the people using it, because every decision is subjective (although offside to a much lesser degree). I don't understand why people think that a product of poor referees isn't going to be poor. It was pointed out a thousand times before it was introduced, with evidence from all over the world. It's shite in every country and at tournaments, with supposedly the best refs in the world on the best version of the technology, it still adds absolutely nothing to the game, with the negatives far outweighing the positives. The only way to get VAR to work would be to have sensors all over the players' bodies and make it a non contact sport, with every touch a foul. Offside would have to remove any notion of interfering with play, and just return to offside being yes or no. The decisions would be lightening quick and undeniably correct. The game would be shite. Until someone can define the parameters of clear and obvious (which is impossible), it cannot work as an effective system, and that has been obvious from the moment it was mentioned. The next point people make is that it should only be used when it's really obvious, which cannot be defined either, but what they usually refer to is something so infrequent that the cost of the system could never justify it (it then becomes a goal-line technology equivalent). It probably does work for offside, if you're comfortable with the three minute wait, but it goes entirely against the spirit of the rules. 

It has been an overall negative for the fans of the game in every country in which it's been introduced. It needs to be binned.

[Tyrant]

Yes, that line because that is the case. The technology can and should be used differently. I just don't buy into that our choices are keeping VAR as it is now (shite) or bin it completely. There's a whole lot of middle ground in between that we should be looking towards. I'm not saying there's a way of getting it perfect. Very difficult when so many decisions are subjective but there is a lot of improvement that can and should be made in the meantime. For example I'm hearing the the handball rule has changed (again) but it sounds like a step in the right direction. Time will tell how that will pan out. Another obvious improvement required is the time that it can take. Personally I don't mind waiting 3 minutes if the right decision is reached. The frustration comes from when an offside call is obvious (one way or the other) and VAR then takes umpteen minutes to check it. That needs to be sorted and I believe it can be, with and without additional tech. At the top of the games we have automated offside decisions I believe which were proving to be a real time saver during the Euros. But having said that I believe these offside decisions can be sped up without the need to invest in even more technology. But for me, speeding things up is near the bottom of the list of priorities. Get the calls right and the time taken matters less. Far too soon to be binning VAR completely IMO my opinion. 

[RicoS321]

5 hours ago, Tyrant said:

Yes, that line because that is the case. The technology can and should be used differently. I just don't buy into that our choices are keeping VAR as it is now (shite) or bin it completely. There's a whole lot of middle ground in between that we should be looking towards. I'm not saying there's a way of getting it perfect. Very difficult when so many decisions are subjective but there is a lot of improvement that can and should be made in the meantime. For example I'm hearing the the handball rule has changed (again) but it sounds like a step in the right direction. Time will tell how that will pan out. Another obvious improvement required is the time that it can take. Personally I don't mind waiting 3 minutes if the right decision is reached. The frustration comes from when an offside call is obvious (one way or the other) and VAR then takes umpteen minutes to check it. That needs to be sorted and I believe it can be, with and without additional tech. At the top of the games we have automated offside decisions I believe which were proving to be a real time saver during the Euros. But having said that I believe these offside decisions can be sped up without the need to invest in even more technology. But for me, speeding things up is near the bottom of the list of priorities. Get the calls right and the time taken matters less. Far too soon to be binning VAR completely IMO my opinion. 

Do you go to games? Speeding up decisions is essential, it's fucking awful sitting through a decision (unlike watching on telly, when the space is filled with the actual VAR process with various replays). The general consensus around me at games is that everyone is ground down by the time a call is made, and nobody gives a fuck by the end of the process. There is no such thing as a correct call for most things VAR intervenes on (offside excluded, of course), they are all contextual and subjective, and could be argued either way, usually convincingly. They have not changed the handball rule, just the advice to referees, but that misses the point. They changed the rule specifically because VAR was introduced, and have now partly backtracked because it was so fucking shite. What they've backtracked to, is less VAR, because VAR was fucking shite. We can take handball as a good example, the number of actual handballs, clear and obvious in the spirit of the game, that referees miss is miniscule. The last two I can think of involving the Dons were Jenks against St Johnstone and Shankland for utd against us. Anything else is just contrived shite that are accidental, point-blank, nonsense. 

The point about middle ground is nonsense too, there is no middle ground unless you can define what clear and obvious means. Can you even define what a middle ground is? There is no such thing, and it is an ever moving position, because if the Tims get a middle ground decision one week, then the Huns will claim their non penalty was middle ground the next, and then everyone complains about consistency, officials then start intervening more and so on. If you can define clear and obvious is, with examples, you'd be the first.

In terms of offside speed, there is no such thing as an obvious offside call. What people think is obvious is usually not nearly as obvious after the lines are drawn because of parallax. If offside is certain (as opposed to obvious) then the play is stopped by the linesman flagging, this happens regularly. The rest are not worth his job to be getting it wrong - they always have to err on the side of caution. The process then has to be exactly the same whether it's two millimetres offside or a metre onside. You identify the last touch, the lines are presented and the decision made, alongside any calls on interfering with play etc. You can't just look at a camera and claim "daylight" or some pish, because that isn't remotely accurate. Technology is the only possibility to improve the speed of offside calls. Unless you have some other method? Then it comes down to whether you want to spend an absolute fortune on the latest technology. Even then, you still have the game being ruined for a 3% increase in accuracy. It just hasn't been worth it.

The reason I get annoyed by and say that we should bin it, is that all of these things were stated in advance and evidenced wherever it was implemented. There is no middle ground and never could be for very obvious reasons (hence why nobody can ever define what that would be). The supposed increase in accuracy is only ever going to be incidental, with the detriment to the game for the actual people in the ground, significant. That gap will never be bridged, ever. Not without changing the rules to suit the technology (thus making the game shite). The most frustrating thing is that we didn't need to do it. We could easily have insisted that broadcasters tone down their discussion on refs, and managers, players and interviewers. We could have made a point of discussing missed chances or poor defending in the same breath as poor refereeing decisions. For there to be a general acceptance that refs make mistakes. We didn't, we let lazy arseholes decide what's best for the fans. Again. The TV elevating the VAR soap opera to a thing in and of itself. 

Edited August 22 by RicoS321

[RicoS321]

"For me, it's a horrendous decision. It's extremely harsh. I don't think it's a clear and obvious error. It surprised everybody when he was asked to go over."

So, Derek, can you tell us what clear and obvious actually means? No? 

It's just the Scottish referees and down South though. They just use it wrong. The system is fine.

[RicoS321]

Another honking VAR decision today in our game. Re-reffing once again and making the final part of the game a nothing affair. Nobody was calling for a red. Because it wasn't one. 

[KWT15]

8 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

Nobody was calling for a red. Because it wasn't one. 

Yes, it was.  Off ground, no contact on ball, caught Sokler high on shin.  Ref's mistake was not giving the red straight away (after not allowing the advantage).

[Jute]

3 minutes ago, KWT15 said:

Yes, it was.  Off ground, no contact on ball, caught Sokler high on shin.  Ref's mistake was not giving the red straight away (after not allowing the advantage).

Have to disagree. Did not look like a red card a normal speed. Even after replays there was nothing that showed the Killie player catching Sokler him off the ground. I would be raging if we had a player sent off for that. 

[RicoS321]

21 minutes ago, KWT15 said:

Yes, it was.  Off ground, no contact on ball, caught Sokler high on shin.  Ref's mistake was not giving the red straight away (after not allowing the advantage).

Actually, you could be correct, I would fundamentally disagree though, but that's fine. The point I should have made was that it isn't what anyone wanted VAR brought in for. It was absolutely not a clear and obvious error by any normal person's view point, and not in the spirit of the game. The referee had a clear view, with full context of how the tackle was made, the entire movement, the speed, the intent, the force etc. He was in full possession of the facts when he made the call, and that incident was re-refereed. You might have walked away from today's game saying "that guy could have had a red for that tackle", but nobody in their right mind would have been calling it an outrageous decision and asking for retrospective punishment for the player. 

The creep of VAR in every country and tournament is undeniable, and it's ruining games (we were very comfortable today but the red ended it as a contest). Yet again, because nobody can define clear and obvious, we're getting re-reffing by slow motion replay. Inevitably, of course.