Hibs vs. Dons

[RicoS321]

44 minutes ago, tom_widdows said:

Seemed to be timewasting from the moment Duk scored which is pathetic.

This is hibs not brazil 1970 and the longer it takes to put them under pressure in their own half the less likely they will concede

The passing out from the back was an accident waiting to happen as soon as hibs realised the dons were happy to sit back and yet they persisted making the defence work harder than was necessary

I completely understood why we were taking ages. Roos could see that Hibs were going to score unless we saw it out until half time. It was a case of slowing it down to disrupt their flow, but it failed (nearly worked). That weird thing where managers are reluctant to make a sub before half-time and try and wait it out. It was probably made more difficult in that the sub would have had to have been Duk, which would have been harsh on him after his goal. The difficulty with Duk over someone like Watkins, is that you can't ask him to play deeper or help out elsewhere, because it just isn't part of his game. He'll end up causing more problems in his own half due to switching off. The only option was to take him off, which is a shame, but we'd completely surrendered the midfield.

[tom_widdows]

Seen the scales sending off again.
Id still say VAR would have overturned that

Edited September 17, 2022 by tom_widdows

[BigAl]

Goodwin calls it as it is.

Porteous is a cheating cunt.

He'll get what he deserves in the fullness of time.

 

[manc_don]

Fucksake, the score even made it randomly onto the national early morning news. They had decided to pick a random score from the world (yay).

will get round to the lowlights today, but it’s highly frustrating given the international break now. We’ll see a few more of these annoying results no doubt but hibs probably aren’t far from us, we shouldn’t be losing 3-1 to them. Doesn’t sound like a few of the players covered themselves in glory. Nor the manager. Did he shit the bed once we went up?

[DantheDon]

Getting sick of all this talk about the royals. Can we move it to another thread and get back to discussing the football. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/62946934

Here's the analysis of the sending off by sportscene. As they say its the initial tug by Porteus that allows him to get goalside and even when he does go down there is not much in it. 

[manc_don]

47 minutes ago, DantheDon said:

Getting sick of all this talk about the royals. Can we move it to another thread and get back to discussing the football. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/62946934

Here's the analysis of the sending off by sportscene. As they say its the initial tug by Porteus that allows him to get goalside and even when he does go down there is not much in it. 

Will get the relevant stuff moved later today.

[RicoS321]

1 hour ago, DantheDon said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/62946934

Here's the analysis of the sending off by sportscene. As they say its the initial tug by Porteus that allows him to get goalside and even when he does go down there is not much in it. 

It's initial tug bit that I think Scales fucks up on. You get grappling like that all the time, but he's virtually face on to a player that's running in the opposite direction. Porteous just uses his strength to get past him really. It's something (the grappling) I'd want our defenders doing when attacking at a corner, and something Considine and Taylor both did well. He gets beyond Scales far too easily and as soon as he's behind him, Porteous can either dive or attempt to connect with the ball. The reason I don't think var would have overturned it, is that when Scales initially lets him past, he sticks an arm around him to slow him down. That triggers the dive from Porteous, pulling Scales with him to make sure. In a contact sport, that should never be a penalty, but fitba is virtually non contact these days and pens are given for that sort of shite all the time. We've had a lot worse given against us (Bates v Huns last season), and I don't think it was a clear and obvious error from the ref. I suspect that of somebody like McFadden was in the studio rather than Stewart, there'd likely have been the opposite argument made. That's not to say one is right and the other isn't, just that it wasn't that clear either way. Put it this way, if people think var will solve issues like this one, as Stewart hints at, they're deluded. The fact that Goodwin made such a massive thing of it is the most disappointing aspect, that's some serious deflection going on in a game he mismanaged throughout.

[DantheDon]

Cheers Manc! 

Rico might be right about Scales not having the best positioning. I wonder though if the referee goes to the pitch side monitor to examine that with VAR does he make that decision? Its a game defining moment and there is not really anything concrete there for me. 

[sheepheid]

1 hour ago, DantheDon said:

Cheers Manc! 

Rico might be right about Scales not having the best positioning. I wonder though if the referee goes to the pitch side monitor to examine that with VAR does he make that decision? Its a game defining moment and there is not really anything concrete there for me. 

It’s got to be something that would overturned by VAR, as for me there’s a clear and obvious error. The error is that It’s not a penalty, as simple as that. Not sure whether Goodwin should have gone into as much personal detail on Porteous. He could of left it at the ref’s been conned and it was never a penalty. That telling it like it is. 
One of the good thing about Michael Stewart reviewing it in the studio is that he tells it as it is. Never sits on the fence. I like that in him, even if I don’t always agree with him. To many pundits are fence sitters. 

[RicoS321]

2 hours ago, sheepheid said:

It’s got to be something that would overturned by VAR, as for me there’s a clear and obvious error. The error is that It’s not a penalty, as simple as that. Not sure whether Goodwin should have gone into as much personal detail on Porteous. He could of left it at the ref’s been conned and it was never a penalty. That telling it like it is. 
One of the good thing about Michael Stewart reviewing it in the studio is that he tells it as it is. Never sits on the fence. I like that in him, even if I don’t always agree with him. To many pundits are fence sitters. 

I do agree, it's good to here him be forthright in his opinion, but he doesn't "tell it like it is", as that would suggest there is only one way to look at it. He doesn't spot Scales putting his arm round Porteous after he loses him, which I think is fairly clear (apologies for the poor screenshot). A fairly glaring omission from his analysis, despite the fact he says it in a firm manner.

Again, I personally don't think people should be getting penalties for minor tussles like this. When considering VAR, I think that we have to remember how refs (and all humans, especially me!) are wired and how difficult it is to get them to change their mind once they've decided on something. When a ref goes to the TV screens having made a decision like that, he's not going there to change his mind (unless he's already having doubts and looking for a way out, which I don't think was the case yesterday), he's looking for something, anything, that will back his original decision. For me, it's another fault in the giant list of faults that VAR posseses. I don't think it's clear and obvious, because Scales puts his arm round the player's neck as soon as he loses him. The fact that Porteous drags Scales down is utterly irrelevant at that point, because Scales would already have fouled him (in the ref's eyes), which nullifies most of Stewart's analysis. Thus the only thing that VAR can legitimately look at to overturn the decision would be the initial tug on Scales, and I think if we're giving fouls for that then the game's gone.

I think this highlights VAR's ineptitude perfectly. If I can make a good case, then so can the ref. I'd hate to see VAR being used to turn over decisions like this, it really isn't obvious enough to warrant it. There is no correct decision here, merely an interpretation of the incident. The number of incidents that can be "solved" by VAR is minimal. Similarly, I could build a very good case for McRorie and Polvara's incidents not being penalties, but had VAR existed I think at least one of those would have been given.

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by RicoS321

[OxfordDon]

37 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

I think this highlights VAR's ineptitude perfectly. If I can make a good case, then so can the ref. I'd hate to see VAR being used to turn over decisions like this, it really isn't obvious enough to warrant it. There is no correct decision here, merely an interpretation of the incident. The number of incidents that can be "solved" by VAR is minimal. Similarly, I could build a very good case for McRorie and Polvara's incidents not being penalties, but had VAR existed I think at least one of those would have been given.

 

Is this not the wrong way round to use VAR though?  The onus is surely on the ref to spot a clear foul to justify a decision of that magnitude - if a VAR replay then shows it is as inconclusive as you (quite rightly) point out, that should be reason enough to overturn the onfield decision.

[RicoS321]

2 hours ago, OxfordDon said:

Is this not the wrong way round to use VAR though?  The onus is surely on the ref to spot a clear foul to justify a decision of that magnitude - if a VAR replay then shows it is as inconclusive as you (quite rightly) point out, that should be reason enough to overturn the onfield decision.

Yes. Isn't that the way it's used though (the wrong way round)? The ref makes his decision as he sees it, then VAR corrects? I'm guessing that a ref is less likely to make a call knowing he has VAR as a backup, so that could indeed have happened on this occasion. There's little doubt though that the ref did spot what he thought was a clear foul, and it's very likely that he saw Scales put his arm round the player, hence he was pretty quick to give the penalty. Unless you think that refs are holding back on decisions under the VAR system? I've only seen it once in the flesh, so it's difficult to tell without seeing the actions of the ref. In the Scotland v Israel game, for one of the goals, the gave a foul (by Dykes for high feet, from memory) but immediately signalled that he was going to VAR. On that occasion, it looked to me like he wouldn't have given a foul but for the fallback of VAR that he knew he could rely on. However, on the telly it looks like refs are making decisions and then being asked to look at them by the VAR team. Your suggested way sounds like how it should occur, are you certain that's how it does happen? I don't know, as I say.

That said, I could well imagine the ultra slow motion VAR cunts seeing Scales' arm go round the player and give the pen. I'm basing that on decisions I've seen in England and internationals, where the merest of contact in a contact sport is penalised.