VAR ( merged )

[Ex member of the SaS]

Not been on flumps.net for a long time but had a quick glance and saw that their game against St J will be the first for VAR. Just another to add the long list for them eh? Obviously they will experiment with " smaller " teams and not the OF games. The very games they need VAR for.

[milky_26]

it is getting used in all premiership games from next weekend and the hibs st j game is first since it is on friday

[Ex member of the SaS]

7 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

it is getting used in all premiership games from next weekend and the hibs st j game is first since it is on friday

Ok didn't know that! 

[been here before]

15 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

Not been on flumps.net for a long time but had a quick glance and saw that their game against St J will be the first for VAR. Just another to add the long list for them eh? Obviously they will experiment with " smaller " teams and not the OF games. The very games they need VAR for.

 

Elvis has died too.

[Ex member of the SaS]

4 minutes ago, been here before said:

 

Elvis has died too.

You have to be joking! My world just collapsed.

[Van Wilder]

Surely it’s a ridiculous decision to implement it midway during a season?

 

 

[jock _turd]

I will laugh my dick off if they are the first team in Scotland to lose a last minute winner because of VAR 😂

[Wee Mikey]

1 minute ago, jock _turd said:

I will laugh my dick off if they are the first team in Scotland to lose a last minute winner because of VAR 😂

 

Even funnier if it's a last minute equaliser.

[MattyK82]

Apparently it’s been operated without goal line technology 😳

[Rc55]

If VAR works  it will  see red  cards   for Boyle - simulation,  Newell - thuggery  and Porteous - cheating.

 

Will  Petrie be able to save  them this time?

[Pasquale for King]

For those that haven’t had a laugh at this yet, been on an island without WiFi maybe. From their official page. 

[Dean Winchester]

14 minutes ago, Van Wilder said:

Surely it’s a ridiculous decision to implement it midway during a season?

 

 

It is but this is Scottish football we're talking about.

[Wee Mikey]

Just a thought. If all these games are getting VARed simultaneously, then who is doing it? Surely there aren't enough refs available.

[milky_26]

14 minutes ago, MattyK82 said:

Apparently it’s been operated without goal line technology 😳

in england isnt the goal line technology a different system to VAR?

[DETTY29]

VAR Friend or Foe is now on iPlayer looking at the Scottish perspective and how it will be introduced.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001dm9v

 

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

22 minutes ago, MattyK82 said:

Apparently it’s been operated without goal line technology 😳

 

We had goal line technology in the cup final a couple of years ago without VAR, I don't know if been used ever since then. 

[MattyK82]

14 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

in england isnt the goal line technology a different system to VAR?

I think so, but it seems crazy having VAR without GLT too! 🤯 Considering the aim of the game is to score goals! 😂

[MattyK82]

10 minutes ago, Stupid Sexy Flanders said:

 

We had goal line technology in the cup final a couple of years ago without VAR, I don't know if been used ever since then. 

Yep. Had it in the covid final. Wonder if it’s a further cost clubs weren’t willing to/couldn’t pay 

[Wee Mikey]

35 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

VAR Friend or Foe is now on iPlayer looking at the Scottish perspective and how it will be introduced.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001dm9v

 

 

Thanks for the link. Well worth watching.

 

It's Interesting for us that their first 'real-life' example was that Celtic goal v Hearts. Two possible offsides ruled out, but the 'attacking phase of play' was ruled as a foul in our favour, hence 'no goal'.

 

All of us in attendance (admittedly with our maroon specs on) spotted the foul.

 

We wuz robbed!

[jock _turd]

I think it has already been said but for all but two of the teams in Scotland nothing much will change because the people operating the technology are the same bent *******s that have been bending the rules in favour of the same two teams ... I think that everybody knows that though.

[Wee Mikey]

44 minutes ago, MattyK82 said:

Yep. Had it in the covid final. Wonder if it’s a further cost clubs weren’t willing to/couldn’t pay 

 

I was under the impression that goal line technology was a sensor in the ball that buzzed the ref's watch. Surely pennies compared to VAR?

 

Edit: this article from 2018 is interesting.

 

https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/goal-line-technology-precise-positioning/#:~:text=The sensor inside the moving,alert on the referee's watch.

 

As is this one:-

 

https://www.scienceabc.com/innovation/how-does-the-goal-line-technology-work.html

Edited October 15, 2022 by Wee Mikey

[DETTY29]

1 hour ago, Wee Mikey said:

 

Thanks for the link. Well worth watching.

 

It's Interesting for us that their first 'real-life' example was that Celtic goal v Hearts. Two possible offsides ruled out, but the 'attacking phase of play' was ruled as a foul in our favour, hence 'no goal'.

 

All of us in attendance (admittedly with our maroon specs on) spotted the foul.

 

We wuz robbed!

Yep.

 

However, Allan said the ref would be told on the Monday it should have been a free kick.

 

Not that he fully expected the VAR to rule the goal out as a clear and obvious error.

 

It's these subtleties I still have key doubts about.

 

Edit - it is worth a watch to get a basic understanding of the approach such as it like as it appears, one ref and two assistants could be trying to watch six games at once.

Edited October 15, 2022 by DETTY29

[Dean Winchester]

15 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Edit - it is worth a watch to get a basic understanding of the approach such as it like as it appears, one ref and two assistants could be trying to watch six games at once.

 

[Wee Mikey]

1 hour ago, Wee Mikey said:

I was under the impression that goal line technology was a sensor in the ball that buzzed the ref's watch. Surely pennies compared to VAR?

 

Edit: this article from 2018 is interesting.

 

https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/goal-line-technology-precise-positioning/#:~:text=The sensor inside the moving,alert on the referee's watch.

 

As is this one:-

 

https://www.scienceabc.com/innovation/how-does-the-goal-line-technology-work.html

 

Apologies for replying to myself but after that 3rd Celtic Goal a few minutes ago the commentator said that the refs get a buzz on their watch. So, surely goal linr technology is already in place?

[Rudi Hates Hibees]

Not that it matter really but I’m not sure Hibs were first to play under floodlights. 
Caledonian FC had them in 1933 for a short period of time. 
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11009701/amp/Scotlands-football-floodlights-moved-hunt-Loch-Ness-Monster.html

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

4 hours ago, Wee Mikey said:

 

Apologies for replying to myself but after that 3rd Celtic Goal a few minutes ago the commentator said that the refs get a buzz on their watch. So, surely goal linr technology is already in place?

 

On the radio earlier, it sounded like there was a bit of controversy in today's Livingston v St Johnstone game, about whether a ball had crossed the line or not. I might have picked it up totally wrong but if that's the case, we must not be using GLT. 

[hughesie27]

7 hours ago, MattyK82 said:

Apparently it’s been operated without goal line technology 😳

Because GLT isn't a part of VAR.

 

GLT required cameras dotted around the stadium. I doubt many Scottish stadiums ha e stands tall enough for them to be placed high enough for it to work.

5 hours ago, jock _turd said:

I think it has already been said but for all but two of the teams in Scotland nothing much will change because the people operating the technology are the same bent *******s that have been bending the rules in favour of the same two teams ... I think that everybody knows that though.

A lot harder to do that when you have access to replays.

[davemclaren]

I think we should all go into it with an open mind...then tear it to shreds after the first round of matches. 😎

[John Findlay]

14 hours ago, davemclaren said:

I think we should all go into it with an open mind...then tear it to shreds after the first round of matches. 😎

Sounds like a fair plan to me.

[jock _turd]

15 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

Because GLT isn't a part of VAR.

 

GLT required cameras dotted around the stadium. I doubt many Scottish stadiums ha e stands tall enough for them to be placed high enough for it to work.

A lot harder to do that when you have access to replays.

 

We have access to replays in many games now and even the pundits find it hard to go against the OF when it comes to pointing the finger! It is always a jumble of muttered aye maybe it was but it is difficult to see to be honest I think we have you give the benefit of the doubt blah blah blah. If the remit of VAR in Scotland is to correct clear and obvious errors, then I really doubt that the people operating the system will spot any because they are the duffers that have been making clear and obvious errors for their entire career's as referees and linesmen .

[Thomaso]

Nothing will change. VAR will be monitored by the same OF supporting ex referees we have suffered for years!

[amadjambo]

Wish we were resisting the introduction of VAR. won’t change anything as the officials reviewing the VAR will have the same bias as they do on the pitch. There will still be a fear to make any decision that adversely affects one of the OF, so what’s the point.

[Dazo]

22 hours ago, DETTY29 said:

 

 

Edit - it is worth a watch to get a basic understanding of the approach such as it like as it appears, one ref and two assistants could be trying to watch six games at once.

Don’t think that’s right. Surely each game will have its own VAR refs ? Would be impossible time wise for one set of refs to watch all the games at the same time. 

[Dazo]

On 15/10/2022 at 12:58, DETTY29 said:

VAR Friend or Foe is now on iPlayer looking at the Scottish perspective and how it will be introduced.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001dm9v

 

Decent watch. The final test game though really showed potential problems over the penalty incident. 3 of them looking at it weren’t sure and changed their mind several times before basically saying **** it penalty stands. If they weren’t sure it really should have been no pen imo. 

[Rampant]

On 15/10/2022 at 12:58, DETTY29 said:

VAR Friend or Foe is now on iPlayer looking at the Scottish perspective and how it will be introduced.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001dm9v

 

Thanks for sharing this, an interesting watch this morning.  A few thoughts from watching.

 

They've done a good job in the edit to ensure that the actual conclusion to the VAR investigation, in the example of Celtic's goal against Hearts, was that Celtic benefited from poor refereeing and the goal shouldn't have stood.  Would have been fun to see what more was said of that in the room.

 

Then we have the closing piece, the penalty debate in the kids game where there's a debate in the VAR room, and the refs are going back and forward between whether it was or wasn't a penalty, whether they should have sent the ref to the screen or not.  Nevermind the in game sequence, where the VAR asks to see it back again and again before confirming the refs decision.  I raise this for two reasons.

 

Throughout the rest of the programme, and for as long as we've had VAR in football, the objective has been noted as only overturning "clear and obvious errors".  If a fully qualified ref sitting in the VAR room is needing to watch something over and over again, they're evidently not certain if it's the right or wrong decision.  If they're not certain if the decision is correct or not, surely it can't be a clear and obvious error?  One of the gripes of VAR is the disruption it causes.  It wouldn't be a perfect system, but why not have 10/20 second limit on the review, because if the VAR can't tell in that time if the decision is wrong, then it's reasonable to conclude it mustn't be a clear and obvious error.  Then we move on and if after 5 minutes of analysis, the defence is exactly the line that we've heard with VAR since its inception.

 

It was also no shock to hear a ref in the VAR room comment that this was just a junior game, but to imagine escalating that to an old firm game.  Aye, it's not as important to get the procedure right, to get every decision accurate for a junior game, but we can't be having any mistakes when it comes to the old firm.  Documented evidence that the old firm are refereed differently.  We all know this of course, but would be great if the majority of the media and the old firm fans alike could stop acting like it's a completely level playing field.

[Dazo]

9 minutes ago, Rampant said:

Thanks for sharing this, an interesting watch this morning.  A few thoughts from watching.

 

They've done a good job in the edit to ensure that the actual conclusion to the VAR investigation, in the example of Celtic's goal against Hearts, was that Celtic benefited from poor refereeing and the goal shouldn't have stood.  Would have been fun to see what more was said of that in the room.

 

Then we have the closing piece, the penalty debate in the kids game where there's a debate in the VAR room, and the refs are going back and forward between whether it was or wasn't a penalty, whether they should have sent the ref to the screen or not.  Nevermind the in game sequence, where the VAR asks to see it back again and again before confirming the refs decision.  I raise this for two reasons.

 

Throughout the rest of the programme, and for as long as we've had VAR in football, the objective has been noted as only overturning "clear and obvious errors".  If a fully qualified ref sitting in the VAR room is needing to watch something over and over again, they're evidently not certain if it's the right or wrong decision.  If they're not certain if the decision is correct or not, surely it can't be a clear and obvious error?  One of the gripes of VAR is the disruption it causes.  It wouldn't be a perfect system, but why not have 10/20 second limit on the review, because if the VAR can't tell in that time if the decision is wrong, then it's reasonable to conclude it mustn't be a clear and obvious error.  Then we move on and if after 5 minutes of analysis, the defence is exactly the line that we've heard with VAR since its inception.

 

It was also no shock to hear a ref in the VAR room comment that this was just a junior game, but to imagine escalating that to an old firm game.  Aye, it's not as important to get the procedure right, to get every decision accurate for a junior game, but we can't be having any mistakes when it comes to the old firm.  Documented evidence that the old firm are refereed differently.  We all know this of course, but would be great if the majority of the media and the old firm fans alike could stop acting like it's a completely level playing field.

Yep completely agree with your last paragraph, that caught my attention too when that comment was made. 
 

Regarding the penalty incident I’m not keen on the clear and obvious terminology. Seems like a get out clause for further mistakes. They weren’t sure it was a penalty so the right decision is surely no penalty. 

[Rampant]

4 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Regarding the penalty incident I’m not keen on the clear and obvious terminology. Seems like a get out clause for further mistakes. They weren’t sure it was a penalty so the right decision is surely no penalty. 

I think that ultimately comes down to the objective of VAR.  The objective has always been to prevent clear and obvious errors, whilst maintaining the authority of the referee on the park.  So within the remit of VAR, the referee's decision stands and so the penalty is given.  Essentially the same decision is made as if VAR wasn't there, which is what we have now so presumably that's what the people opposing VAR would prefer?  Everybody wins if they stick to the remit.

 

My first issue is with how long it seems to take to execute that objective, when the time taken itself is, to me, such a useful measure of whether something is clear and obvious.  And it avoids the delays in stadiums.  You'd have fans cheering for 10 seconds, and before they've finished enjoying themselves VAR would've said to the ref, decision can stand, and it's like there was no VAR check even.

 

My second issue is with the application of VAR.  The inconsistencies between games/leagues/moments since VAR has come is is why so many people feel uneasy with it's introduction to Scottish football.  These inconsistencies have confused the fans/players/managers/media and our expectations have not been managed well at all.  It's not a tool to eradicate every incorrect refereeing decision, but just to increase the proportion of decisions made that are right, especially key, game changing decisions.

 

I think the time limit would actually help on both these points.  If the VAR knows they have x amount of time to review an action, then they focus on that action and assistance is given as necessary.  Less space for inconsistency.  If we have a similar situation arise in two different games, we could have one VAR that spends longer investigating and ends up with different judgement being made.  It doesn't breed confidence when you have inconsistencies like that.  Ok, that might mean a penalty is awarded that after 20 angles and 10 minutes we would realise should not have been, but it's an unreasonable expectation for VAR to correct those, whilst not ruining the game of football.  Otherwise, it makes perfect sense in that scenario to stick with the original decision.  That way we end up with the exact same outcome as we currently would have.

[Dazo]

5 minutes ago, Rampant said:

I think that ultimately comes down to the objective of VAR.  The objective has always been to prevent clear and obvious errors, whilst maintaining the authority of the referee on the park.  So within the remit of VAR, the referee's decision stands and so the penalty is given.  Essentially the same decision is made as if VAR wasn't there, which is what we have now so presumably that's what the people opposing VAR would prefer?  Everybody wins if they stick to the remit.

 

My first issue is with how long it seems to take to execute that objective, when the time taken itself is, to me, such a useful measure of whether something is clear and obvious.  And it avoids the delays in stadiums.  You'd have fans cheering for 10 seconds, and before they've finished enjoying themselves VAR would've said to the ref, decision can stand, and it's like there was no VAR check even.

 

My second issue is with the application of VAR.  The inconsistencies between games/leagues/moments since VAR has come is is why so many people feel uneasy with it's introduction to Scottish football.  These inconsistencies have confused the fans/players/managers/media and our expectations have not been managed well at all.  It's not a tool to eradicate every incorrect refereeing decision, but just to increase the proportion of decisions made that are right, especially key, game changing decisions.

 

I think the time limit would actually help on both these points.  If the VAR knows they have x amount of time to review an action, then they focus on that action and assistance is given as necessary.  Less space for inconsistency.  If we have a similar situation arise in two different games, we could have one VAR that spends longer investigating and ends up with different judgement being made.  It doesn't breed confidence when you have inconsistencies like that.  Ok, that might mean a penalty is awarded that after 20 angles and 10 minutes we would realise should not have been, but it's an unreasonable expectation for VAR to correct those, whilst not ruining the game of football.  Otherwise, it makes perfect sense in that scenario to stick with the original decision.  That way we end up with the exact same outcome as we currently would have.

I don’t agree with the objective in that case. For me it should be about getting to the correct decision rather clear and obvious errors, especially in the box. If you’re going to give a penalty you need to be sure there was a foul. They couldn’t agree if it was a penalty or not. Guess I’m not keen on the objective of VAR.  
 

I agree regarding the length of time being spent on decisions and as you say if they are still unsure after various replays and angles then move on. 

[Tommy Brown]

On 15/10/2022 at 12:27, been here before said:

 

Elvis has died too.

Murdered by Stokes?

Or is just impersonators he assaults.

 

Was not another player done something similar?

[kila]

 

 

 

[Smoked-Glass]

Chaos 

[HMFC01]

Just watched Sevilla v Valencia on free sports.    Nice incident at the end.    Goal scoring opportunity denied, red card.   Then changed to a yellow for a penalty.    The player that pushed the attacker sent off. 

 

😁 

 

Yes, if its anything like that it will be chaos alright.   I've seen worse. 😂 not joke. 

[The Hogfather]

I've been pretty open about my hatred for this system from day one, but one thing I picked up from Open All Mics on Saturday that has me even more concerned is the removal of the term "clear and obvious". During a meeting with the referee chiefs, they spoke about removing the phrase "clear and obvious" because they feel it's misleading. For me, that's a route to even more controversy.

 

The fact they're doing it without goal line technology is laughable. This will be an unmitigated disaster.

[Pasquale for King]

So Collum to oversee Clancy in charge of Hibs, well isn’t that a friendly and cozy threesome. St Johnstone are ****ed, they’ll be lucky to finish with 9 men..

[Saint Jambo]

14 hours ago, The Hogfather said:

I've been pretty open about my hatred for this system from day one, but one thing I picked up from Open All Mics on Saturday that has me even more concerned is the removal of the term "clear and obvious". During a meeting with the referee chiefs, they spoke about removing the phrase "clear and obvious" because they feel it's misleading. For me, that's a route to even more controversy.

 

The fact they're doing it without goal line technology is laughable. This will be an unmitigated disaster.

 

The SFA still say it is for "a clear and obvious error or a serious missed incident" on their news story published last week.

 

The incidents it will be used for relate to:

- Straight red cards

- Penalty area incidents

- Goals

- Mistaken identity

 

As an aside, it also means we will get improved TV coverage of games. There will be a minimum of 6 cameras at all games now, so highlights should be better from games that aren't being shown live.

[Australis]

Only two sides in Scotland will constantly benefit from VAR.

 

The cheating will continue on all the big screens for everyone to see.

 

 

[Sertse]

Was just thinking there that it's going to be chaos. Anything against the OF will be scrutinised by VAR, anything for them won't. It's going to be a shambles and we all know it.

[jr ewing]

Gives RN a ready made excuse post match for Saturday. 

[WheatfieldWarrior]

On 15/10/2022 at 15:43, Rudi Hates Hibees said:

Not that it matter really but I’m not sure Hibs were first to play under floodlights. 
Caledonian FC had them in 1933 for a short period of time. 
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11009701/amp/Scotlands-football-floodlights-moved-hunt-Loch-Ness-Monster.html

 

First team to have a relegation party and get relegated themselves.  Truely innovators.

[brux]

On 18/10/2022 at 20:24, The Hogfather said:

I've been pretty open about my hatred for this system from day one, but one thing I picked up from Open All Mics on Saturday that has me even more concerned is the removal of the term "clear and obvious". During a meeting with the referee chiefs, they spoke about removing the phrase "clear and obvious" because they feel it's misleading. For me, that's a route to even more controversy.

 

The fact they're doing it without goal line technology is laughable. This will be an unmitigated disaster.

I GLT not already in operation with the watch buzz anyway?