VAR

[kila]

1 minute ago, TheBigO said:

Clear foul in lead youp to their first goal. Not looked at.

 

Two stonewall penalties against Japan. Not looked at.

 

Three penalties against us all given by VAR.

 

This inconsistency of use will prevail. I'm out.

 

Imagine it up here.

 

We've had a taster from the compliance officer role already, that is bad enough

 

 

[Jeff]

5 minutes ago, Gambo said:

Supposed to be.

You have to ask what is the point of the tv that the ref eventually looks at. If it is so obvious a word in the ear from the video ref to game ref telling them what to award/do, no need for them to have to have a look also if the incident is obvious.

 

There was a recent(ish) video of an Australian ref who was mic'd up and you heard the VAR ref tell him the decision and he said something along the lines of ok that's fine, I'll go and look at it on the screen so that the players would believe it... mental

[TheBigO]

Just now, kila said:

 

We've had a taster from the compliance officer role already, that is bad enough

 

 

Exactly. Just enough against each OF to make it "fair", make sure neither suffer, eff the alsorans.

[Robbo-Jambo]

1 minute ago, McCrae said:

 

Both the penalty and retake we clearly correct decisions going on the rules.

If that is the case from now on in there is going to be a hell a lot of retakes. 

 

Have a look at a load of penalties that are saved and both the goalies feet are mostly off the line but the save stands. 

 

It's maybe the rules but how often do you see it implemented in games? 

[Central Belt 1874]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

     VAR will be used to justify the same honking decisions.

 

It can't be wrong... VAR was used.    Referee was asked to review it / referee didn't need to review it.   Referee corrected their own decision / referee was able to back up their decision.     

 

 

 

Tonight's game sums up exactly what you have said. It was a stonewall penalty, yet the ref took 5+ mins watching it over and over again from multiple angles on a tv screen.

 

She never checked for the penalty retake though. Or in the build up to the incident.

 

They just pick and choose and people defending it because it is 'right' have lost the plot.

 

 

[Peebo]

2 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

If it's clear why 5 mins after watching VAR to award the penalty. The ref had doubt. If doubt then you cannot award the penalty. VAR is farcical. Full stop.

Exactly.

 

But probably now is that refs are relying on it to actually make decisions, rather than it being used to correct their decisions. 

 

For me, there would have been no complaints if the ref had awarded it in real time. The use of VAR to subsequently reverse the non-award was farcical as the footage was not at all clear.

[SpruceBringsteen]

Suffering christ, are folk REALLY that naive to think VAR will help against the Old Firm?

 

That's a land of make believe with elves, fairies and little frogs with funny green hats that I'd like to live in.

 

 

[Nookie Bear]

3 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

If it's clear why 5 mins after watching VAR to award the penalty. The ref had doubt. If doubt then you cannot award the penalty. VAR is farcical. Full stop.

 

I believed that, if VAR was to be used, that if the tv is inconclusive after 60 seconds then the original decision has to stand. 

[FJT]

17 minutes ago, Bellion said:

Generally a bad idea. But iIf you're going to introduce these things, you've got to be sensible about how. The rule about keepers not coming off the line is an absolute disaster. Who the **** came up with that? Literally every penalty save is going to be rewound again and again to check the keeper wasn't millimetres off the line? **** off. Absolutely mad. 

 

 

Correct. And jesus wept, it cannot be that difficult to stop the f&ing watch when var is being consulted 

[Peebo]

1 minute ago, Robbo-Jambo said:

If that is the case from now on in there is going to be a hell a lot of retakes. 

 

Have a look at a load of penalties that are saved and both the goalies feet are mostly off the line but the save stands. 

 

It's maybe the rules but how often do you see it implemented in games? 

The new rule was introduced on 1 June. We’ve already seen a few examples. When we see shitloads on Match of the Day, the moaning will be off the scale. 

[Robbo-Jambo]

4 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

If it's clear why 5 mins after watching VAR to award the penalty. The ref had doubt. If doubt then you cannot award the penalty. VAR is farcical. Full stop.

Exactly its meant to be clear and obvious and she gawked at the TV screen for about 5 mins. 

 

Then she forgot to add on the 5 mins to the injury time. 

[luckyBatistuta]

4 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

Clear foul in lead youp to their first goal. Not looked at.

 

Two stonewall penalties against Japan. Not looked at.

 

Three penalties against us all given by VAR.

 

This inconsistency of use will prevail. I'm out.

 

Imagine it up here.

 

So Willie, why did you not give a penalty to Hearts?…Lookng back on it, I can see it was, but I didn’t have a clear view I’m afraid??‍♂️

 

So Willie, why did you not just go to VAR if you didn’t have a clear view?…They did try to tell me, but my earpiece wasn’t working I’m afraid??‍♂️

 

 

 

They will still shaft us on the big decisions that matter, one way or another.

 

 

[Jeff]

2 minutes ago, SpruceBringsteen said:

Suffering christ, are folk REALLY that naive to think VAR will help against the Old Firm?

 

That's a land of make believe with elves, fairies and little frogs with funny green hats that I'd like to live in.

 

 

 

John Beaton would struggle to work the rewind/fast forward function

[Peebo]

2 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

I believed that, if VAR was to be used, that if the tv is inconclusive after 60 seconds then the original decision has to stand. 

Presumably the ref remembered that when she decided when to end injury time. 

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, SpruceBringsteen said:

Suffering christ, are folk REALLY that naive to think VAR will help against the Old Firm?

 

That's a land of make believe with elves, fairies and little frogs with funny green hats that I'd like to live in.

 

 

 

Levein was pro-VAR.    I predict now he'll review his stance.

[FJT]

that referee was abysmal- looked as if she couldn’t get off the pitch fast enough 

[Robbo-Jambo]

1 minute ago, Peebo said:

The new rule was introduced on 1 June. We’ve already seen a few examples. When we see shitloads on Match of the Day, the moaning will be off the scale. 

It's a farcical rule then because goalies deserve a bit of leeway surely. 

 

Unless they are parked miles out of goal when the ball is struck. 

 

On the positive side we might score a  few more of our penalties though ?

[Malinga the Swinga]

VAR as an idea is great. VAR in practice and operated by useless ****wits is hopeless. VAR operated by a corrupt organisation such as FIFA, UEFA or the SPL/SFA would be catastrophic.

[FJT]

Still for var, but bloody hell, how and when it’s used needs urgent attention 

[TheBigO]

2 minutes ago, luckyBatistuta said:

 

So Willie, why did you not give a penalty to Hearts?…Lookng back on it, I can see it was, but I didn’t have a clear view I’m afraid??‍♂️

 

So Willie, why did you not just go to VAR if you didn’t have a clear view?…They did try to tell me, but my earpiece wasn’t working I’m afraid??‍♂️

 

 

 

They will still shaft us on the big decisions that matter, one way or another.

 

 

Willie, why didn't you overturn the penalty for Celtic when Eduoard looks like he dived? It wasn't a clear enough error, which is what VAR is for. Ah fair enough.

 

Andrew, why didn't you overturn the decision that Uche had dived, when the keeper had clearly caught him? It wasn't a clear enough error, which is what VAR is for. Erm...

 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

VAR as an idea is great. VAR in practice and operated by useless ****wits is hopeless. VAR operated by a corrupt organisation such as FIFA, UEFA or the SPL/SFA would be catastrophic.

 

The final word.    Should be pinned at the top of all VAR threads.   

[Robbo-Jambo]

1 minute ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

VAR as an idea is great. VAR in practice and operated by useless ****wits is hopeless. VAR operated by a corrupt organisation such as FIFA, UEFA or the SPL/SFA would be catastrophic.

Very good point

[2205ian]

3 minutes ago, kila said:

 

We've had a taster from the compliance officer role already, that is bad enough

 

 

With the best example of Moreles being cleared of 3 clear yellow card offences in The Rangers vs Ceptic game at New Year after watching video evidence

The penalty rule is nuts, agree with poster who suggests it will be difficult to miss a penalty, subject to taker hitting the target!!

 

The "added time" aspect is also a nonsense in VAR decision. Tonight is the worst encountered, they did not even indicate the amount of added time on screen, especially considering the game finished after 95+ minutes.

 

The time taken in deciding "obvious error", substitutions (including where Scottish player not being time to take position before game restarted) was certainly more than 5 minutes.

 

I can accept the concept of VAR, but not a "fan". Imagine the time a penalty shoot out will take, if every "save" is reviewed.

 

[OTT]

Just now, Malinga the Swinga said:

VAR as an idea is great. VAR in practice and operated by useless ****wits is hopeless. VAR operated by a corrupt organisation such as FIFA, UEFA or the SPL/SFA would be catastrophic.

 

I think you're quite right, I also think that the self-important arseholes at FIFA making referees jobs harder with over technical rules isn't helping. 

 

Football has been around long enough for us to have settled on what the rules should be. We do not need FIFA suits tinkering with aspects of it (IMO its so they can have a assemble a 'committee' and pay themselves a shit ton for their 'insight') . I think we need a review of all the rules within the game and to make an assessment on what rules can be stripped back to reduce the burden on referees to make their jobs simpler. 

 

Technology has developed to a point where it can aid in decision making, but it still needs to follow the spirit of the game and I think some ground rules need to be established on when VAR can and cannot be used. Take that penalty retake tonight, the infraction was so unnoticeable the referee couldn't spot it with the naked eye despite only being 12 yards away. The replays show its so minor its embarrassing.

 

The lack of common sense here is frightening. 

[Unknown user]

38 minutes ago, kila said:

 

Momentum will carry them on though, especially on a wet pitch. If they are doing that along the goal line instead of in front, risk of smacking their head eventually I think!

 

The distance between the posts is 7m 32cm, I won't spend much time worrying about it!

[RudiHMFC]

46 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

I'm Northern Irish and couldn't give a **** about the fortunes of the Scottish Women's team. But I absolutely hate what this shambles of a system means for the game I love.

 

*Goal scored*

"Wait lads, just need to spend 6 minutes to decide whether the goal should stand. Bear with me."

 

That's not football.

 

I'm with you on every post you've made on this thread, absolutely agree. Folk who think it is is entertaining or adds to the excitement don't get football, never have and never will.

[been here before]

I havent seen tonights VAR shambles (cant be arsed watching womens football) and Ill be the first to admit the OP is generally a slaver but there is aspects of VAR I agree with him on. 

 

Infact I posted this over 2 years ago, something I still stand by...

 

 

  On 30/04/2017 at 19:25, been here before said:

I think Im one of the few people who think its a good idea but dont want to see it introduced.

 

One of the ingrained passions that make football the game it is is the controversies, the debates, the feeling of being persecuted, the belief in conspiricies etc etc.

 

There's still debate 50 year later about Hursts 1966 goal, Leigh Griffiths free kick goal that never was in the derby a few years ago.

 

Contencious decisions and human falibility are part and parcel of the game and have been for well over 140 years.

 

Over the years the game has changed to almost a non contact sport, played in all seated stadia in a more and more sterile atmosphere. We need the controversy, we need the 'we wuz robbed', we need the feelings of paranoia and we all need the decisions that we see better from 100 yards away than a referee and linesman who are 6ft away.

 

For me video refs and the like run the risk of removing that.

[Thommo414]

41 minutes ago, smartinmaroon said:

that referee was abysmal- looked as if she couldn’t get off the pitch fast enough 

Shafting Scotland out a world Cup and scurrying straight off the pitch? Sounds familiar...

 

2015 RWC for anyone who doesn't know the reference 

[geomac]

58 minutes ago, McCrae said:

 

Both the penalty and retake we clearly correct decisions going on the rules.

 

yes, the rules are wrong

[McCrae]

Just now, geomac said:

 

yes, the rules are wrong

 

I would agree with the retake... harsh.  It was a stonewall penalty.

[geomac]

1 minute ago, McCrae said:

 

I would agree with the retake... harsh.  It was a stonewall penalty.

 

Agree it was a penalty - ignoring the stuff about free kick being taken during the substitution, which I hadn't noticed and thought it was a penalty, it was a good save by any standard of the last thirty years of watching penalties, why change it now?

[Maroon Sailor]

I've said before there is not much point in having an onfield referee now.

 

They can make the decisions for little fouls in the middle of the park but anything in the penalty area is scrutinised on TV monitors to the nth degree for an enternity.

 

Every single penalty now has to be reviewed for encroachment by a big toe or the goalkeeper moving a millimetre off their line 

[JyTees]

Just read the first few posts. Is this got anything to do with decisions made in the women's game tonight? 

[CJGJ]

I like the idea of VAR

 

I hate the way it seems to be used at present......far in excess of how it was sold to the public

 

I dislike incompetent officials who will not apply the rules and who fail to use their own judgement as well as considering VAR advice

 

Offside for example is pretty straight forward..you are or you are not offside

 

A foul is a judgement call not a factual call (though of course many are straightforward decisions)

 

Hand ball is a judgement even under the new stupidly brought in laws

[OTT]

10 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

I like the idea of VAR

 

I hate the way it seems to be used at present......far in excess of how it was sold to the public

 

I dislike incompetent officials who will not apply the rules and who fail to use their own judgement as well as considering VAR advice

 

Offside for example is pretty straight forward..you are or you are not offside

 

A foul is a judgement call not a factual call (though of course many are straightforward decisions)

 

Hand ball is a judgement even under the new stupidly brought in laws

 

Surely a central refereeing body which could oversee continuity of training and standards would help?

 

I feel like there are far too many inept referees that are stealing a career because they happen to not have any competition. A central body which appointed referees would bypass this system and ensure that all referees meet the same standards. 

 

Just looking at our own game domestically, we literally don't have any good referees. Week after week we're praying for the least worse option. I don't believe these guys should have jobs, simply because they happen to be Scottish and willing to do it. That is not how you appoint people to roles successfully. 

[Julie1957]

Old firm would never allow it.VAR is based on fact.

[ri Alban]

I thought VAR would be a good thing. Not now. I don't think I'll be celebrating a goal anymore, just in case.

[ri Alban]

VAR is gonnae cause a riot!

[The Internet]

Even as an idea its a bit shit. It's not like var in its current form is at all sophisticated or even technological. It's a couple of guys in a room looking at replays. It's so half-arsed. 

[ri Alban]

Let's see if pk takers as ordered to retake, if they change their run up before hitting the ball.

[portobellojambo1]

22 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

Even as an idea its a bit shit. It's not like var in its current form is at all sophisticated or even technological. It's a couple of guys in a room looking at replays. It's so half-arsed. 

 

I think maybe we in Scotland got a bit excited about the possible introduction of VAR given how poor/bent the standard of refereeing is up here. But as you say it isn't a system where, for example, a computerised system, with the laws of the game forming the basis of its programming, is refereeing the game at the same time as the onfield officials. It is a system operated by people looking at TV screens and making judgements based on their opinions of what happens. It is down to the interpretation of those watching the TV screens and possibly then telling the referees their interpretation of what they saw is different. In such a situation, if VAR is to go ahead then rather than every decision of the referee being questioned, which in itself could suggest that the general standard of refereeing is pretty crap, it might be better if it was worked on the same basis as the review options which exist in tennis and cricket for example, where the two players/teams are restricted to the number of reviews available to them, in one day cricket it is restricted to one per team while they are batting and bowling and in tennis I think the players have two or three challenges allowed, possibly per set. Up here the VAR people who are sitting in the studios watching the games will in the main have affiliations toward the OF, the breakdown of the population tends to govern that, so where VAR is used while we may have thought it might reduce the number of questionable decisions given in their favour it could potentially increase them.

Edited June 20, 2019 by portobellojambo1

[babywhalo]

8 hours ago, Robbo-Jambo said:

And how many do have a foot on the line when they save it. Virtually none and the save stands. 

I dont get your point. If the keeper has a foot on the line when the ball is struck and dives forward and saves it, the save stands 

[babywhalo]

8 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Are goalies still allowed to move laterally on the line? 

Yes. But not be touching the posts or the bar

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Bottom line is that Scotland shat it last night.

[jumpship]

In two minds here, 

 

FIFA probably knew VAR and the new rules would struggle so they thought, let use it in the women's game first. 

 

So, theres a chance they will turn around at the end of the world cup and say, it's not working so we will put it on hold for now. Mens game avoids the farce.

 

But at the same time VAR seems to have only benefited the bigger teams, magic VAR can make sure only the big teams progress, thus making us more money... 

 

I am now 100% against VAR. 

VAR makes it easy to rig a game. 

[portobellojambo1]

1 minute ago, jumpship said:

In two minds here, 

 

FIFA probably knew VAR and the new rules would struggle so they thought, let use it in the women's game first. 

 

So, theres a chance they will turn around at the end of the world cup and say, it's not working so we will put it on hold for now. Mens game avoids the farce.

 

But at the same time VAR seems to have only benefited the bigger teams, magic VAR can make sure only the big teams progress, thus making us more money... 

 

I am now 100% against VAR. 

VAR makes it easy to rig a game. 

 

1 minute ago, jumpship said:

In two minds here, 

 

FIFA probably knew VAR and the new rules would struggle so they thought, let use it in the women's game first. 

 

So, theres a chance they will turn around at the end of the world cup and say, it's not working so we will put it on hold for now. Mens game avoids the farce.

 

But at the same time VAR seems to have only benefited the bigger teams, magic VAR can make sure only the big teams progress, thus making us more money... 

 

I am now 100% against VAR. 

VAR makes it easy to rig a game. 

 

Everything that FIFA and UEFA do is done in the long term to make them money, through the likes of television rights and advertising etc. More teams in the World Cup, not to benefit the smaller countries, but to create more games to show on TV, increase TV income and money being generated from advertising at those games and on TV, the Champions League came in, same sort of idea, more football on TV, increased TV rights, more advertising. VAR can, and possibly will, be used in the way you suggest, to help make sure the right teams get through, not in terms of who should get through but whose continued involvement in tournaments will keep interest high in a number of certain countries.

[loveofthegame]

9 hours ago, Phil Dunphy said:

Anyone who supports its introduction doesn't understand football.

 

Football isn't the sport for you. Sorry.

 

I actually think Tom English was spot on - VAR isn’t the problem, it’s the folk that use it.

[The Internet]

1 minute ago, jumpship said:

In two minds here, 

 

FIFA probably knew VAR and the new rules would struggle so they thought, let use it in the women's game first. 

 

So, theres a chance they will turn around at the end of the world cup and say, it's not working so we will put it on hold for now. Mens game avoids the farce.

 

But at the same time VAR seems to have only benefited the bigger teams, magic VAR can make sure only the big teams progress, thus making us more money... 

 

I am now 100% against VAR. 

VAR makes it easy to rig a game. 

 

It's been in the mens game much longer than the women's. It's going to be trialled in the epl next season. 

[Maroon Sailor]

To penalise a goalkeeper for being millimetres off their line when the ball is kicked at a penalty is farcical.

 

The whole point of that rule is to stop the keepers being 2 or 3 yards off their line.

 

 

 

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

6 minutes ago, loveofthegame said:

 

I actually think Tom English was spot on - VAR isn’t the problem, it’s the folk that use it.

 

Nah, that’s bollocks. Both decisions were right. The rules are the problem.