Var .....superthread

[merrymac]

2 hours ago, billybalfour said:

It won'r be binned as I am pretty sure the ref's aren't going to be considered for the later rounds in Europe and internationals if they aren't familiar with it in their home country.

I noticed in the weekend press that the Swedes are thinking of binning it for all the reasons stated on the thread.Interesting to see if they do. 

That was a farce on Saturday after the Gino goal.I thought they were checking that but apparently it was Robbie who was getting checked for the yellow card.Two minutes later yellow to him,kick off and final whistle blown whilst we all waited with baited breath for a possible handball.

I am sure the refs are loving it

Napier spent that much time with his fingers on his ear, I thought he was ordering a Pizza, checking his bank balance, and doing his weekly shopping😧

 

[colinmaroon]

 

The problem with VAR, as I predicted, is it still relies on idiots/bias making decisions, or not!!!

 

Prime example, when Gino was brought down in the box - nothing, nada, zich.  If ever a possible penalty should have been checked . . . !!!

Edited November 14, 2022 by colinmaroon

[postage-stamp]

I've said it before, the only way out is to give teams challenges to use when they want.   A nice thing will happen when those challenges run out....no more var for rest of the game 👏👏👏👏

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 13/11/2022 at 16:15, AC Mallin_51 said:

A tennis style challenge system would maybe be better. Each side gets 3 chances a game to refer an incident to VAR for another look

 

2 hours ago, postage-stamp said:

I've said it before, the only way out is to give teams challenges to use when they want.   A nice thing will happen when those challenges run out....no more var for rest of the game 👏👏👏👏

 

 

 

Exactly. When "instant replay review" (VAR) was first introduced in the NFL, it was utter chaos and everyone hated it. The refs on the field felt undermined by the refs in the booth and lost control of the game. Teams were utterly confused as to why some plays were reviewed and some weren't. They actually introduced it for several seasons, scrapped it completely for a several seasons, then re-introduced it with a challenge system. This is an interesting read for those curious—so many of the same concerns coming up in football today. https://operations.nfl.com/officiating/instant-replay/history-of-instant-replay/

 

On 13/11/2022 at 16:24, LarrysRightFoot said:

The problem with that is decisions are still subjective. Therefore you could have the VAR and ref watching a replay saying one thing and the manager who has made the challenge still disagreeing after also watching - could make for some scraps on the touch line right enough. 
 

At the least in the good old days the ref made his decision on viewing it once in real time, therefore there was a degree (albeit a small one) of understanding when you didn’t agree with decisions. 
 

I really think it needs scrapped and all clubs should be reimbursed by those who thought it could somehow work in football in the first place. 

 

The role of the VAR should always be equivalent to the role of the linesman or 4th official. They can tell the referee what they see, but it's the ref's job to make the final call.

 

And yes, all judgments are subjective. One of the things about the way this has played out in leagues with the challenge system is that there's a limited amount of time after the play for it to be challenged, and most teams have a staffer watching the video feed to see if there's obvious evidence. If it's blatant, you use your challenge. If you think it's the right call but it's too hard to see (say, the penalty on Gordon for his collision with Moult), you keep your challenge.

 

It also solves the goal celebration problem, particularly if you use a system like the NFL has where managers are given a red challenge flag to throw on the field. You're not waiting for the invisible eye in the sky to judge it, you're waiting to see if the opposite manager is willing to take a bet on using a challenge. Most of the time they won't.

 

The current system is a mess, though, and the SPFL needs to admit that sooner rather than later.

 

FWIW, here's stats from the NFL on how the current system has fared since it was re-introduced in 1999 using the challenge system. An average of just a little over 1 review per game, and more recently over half the calls are overturned, which means they're not pointless reviews. (Mostly due to NFL coaches learning when to challenge and when not to.)

 

Edited November 15, 2022 by Led Tasso

[LarrysRightFoot]

On 15/11/2022 at 02:33, Led Tasso said:

 

 

Exactly. When "instant replay review" (VAR) was first introduced in the NFL, it was utter chaos and everyone hated it. The refs on the field felt undermined by the refs in the booth and lost control of the game. Teams were utterly confused as to why some plays were reviewed and some weren't. They actually introduced it for several seasons, scrapped it completely for a several seasons, then re-introduced it with a challenge system. This is an interesting read for those curious—so many of the same concerns coming up in football today. https://operations.nfl.com/officiating/instant-replay/history-of-instant-replay/

 

 

The role of the VAR should always be equivalent to the role of the linesman or 4th official. They can tell the referee what they see, but it's the ref's job to make the final call.

 

And yes, all judgments are subjective. One of the things about the way this has played out in leagues with the challenge system is that there's a limited amount of time after the play for it to be challenged, and most teams have a staffer watching the video feed to see if there's obvious evidence. If it's blatant, you use your challenge. If you think it's the right call but it's too hard to see (say, the penalty on Gordon for his collision with Moult), you keep your challenge.

 

It also solves the goal celebration problem, particularly if you use a system like the NFL has where managers are given a red challenge flag to throw on the field. You're not waiting for the invisible eye in the sky to judge it, you're waiting to see if the opposite manager is willing to take a bet on using a challenge. Most of the time they won't.

 

The current system is a mess, though, and the SPFL needs to admit that sooner rather than later.

 

FWIW, here's stats from the NFL on how the current system has fared since it was re-introduced in 1999 using the challenge system. An average of just a little over 1 review per game, and more recently over half the calls are overturned, which means they're not pointless reviews. (Mostly due to NFL coaches learning when to challenge and when not to.)

 

I get what you are saying and whilst it’s better than what we have I still think VAR should be scrapped completely. 
 

Im not going to profess to know much about American Football but are fouls as subjective as they are in football?

 

Also football is far more fluid than the likes for American Football which is all set plays. I could envision a challenge system being used tactically to stop counter attacks in football for example. 
 

That’s another thing that I forgot to mention when replying to another poster earlier in the thread. VAR is already effecting the flow of the game. Yes the ball apparently needs to go out it play for a VAR review however I’d the review comes to nothing it may have stopped a quick throw/counter attack and allowed the opposition players to get back into position. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by LarrysRightFoot

[postage-stamp]

49 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

I get what you are saying and whilst it’s better than what we have I still think VAR should be scrapped completely. 
 

Im not going to profess to know much about American Football but are fouls as subjective as they are in football?

 

Also football is far more fluid than the likes for American Football which is all set plays. I could envision a challenge system being used tactically to stop counter attacks in football for example. 
 

That’s another thing that I forgot to mention when replying to another poster earlier in the thread. VAR is already effecting the flow of the game. Yes the ball apparently needs to go out it play for a VAR review however I’d the review comes to nothing it may have stopped a quick throw/counter attack and allowed the opposition players to get back into position. 

But it would only be to stop the game while challenges remain.  After they are used up we get our old game back.

 

3 each for example.

[LarrysRightFoot]

56 minutes ago, postage-stamp said:

But it would only be to stop the game while challenges remain.  After they are used up we get our old game back.

 

3 each for example.

I get that but I don’t understand how it would work in practice. I mean theory behind the current incarnation of VAR is nothing like the reality. 
 

As I say could an opposition manager stop a counter attack by throwing a flag on the pitch? 

 

Im not into American sports really and the only thing I’d want us to adopt is their ability to keep their sports competitive, however we don’t have college drafts etc so don’t know how it would work, 

[Footballfirst]

On 15/11/2022 at 02:33, Led Tasso said:

 

 

Exactly. When "instant replay review" (VAR) was first introduced in the NFL, it was utter chaos and everyone hated it. The refs on the field felt undermined by the refs in the booth and lost control of the game. Teams were utterly confused as to why some plays were reviewed and some weren't. They actually introduced it for several seasons, scrapped it completely for a several seasons, then re-introduced it with a challenge system. This is an interesting read for those curious—so many of the same concerns coming up in football today. https://operations.nfl.com/officiating/instant-replay/history-of-instant-replay/

 

 

The role of the VAR should always be equivalent to the role of the linesman or 4th official. They can tell the referee what they see, but it's the ref's job to make the final call.

 

And yes, all judgments are subjective. One of the things about the way this has played out in leagues with the challenge system is that there's a limited amount of time after the play for it to be challenged, and most teams have a staffer watching the video feed to see if there's obvious evidence. If it's blatant, you use your challenge. If you think it's the right call but it's too hard to see (say, the penalty on Gordon for his collision with Moult), you keep your challenge.

 

It also solves the goal celebration problem, particularly if you use a system like the NFL has where managers are given a red challenge flag to throw on the field. You're not waiting for the invisible eye in the sky to judge it, you're waiting to see if the opposite manager is willing to take a bet on using a challenge. Most of the time they won't.

 

The current system is a mess, though, and the SPFL needs to admit that sooner rather than later.

 

FWIW, here's stats from the NFL on how the current system has fared since it was re-introduced in 1999 using the challenge system. An average of just a little over 1 review per game, and more recently over half the calls are overturned, which means they're not pointless reviews. (Mostly due to NFL coaches learning when to challenge and when not to.)

 

That's actually a great set of stats, which I would like repeated here for the success or otherwise of VAR.

 

The NFL stats are revealing in showing both an increasing success rate of challenges and a reduction in the time taken for reviews.  That points to coaches becoming more savvy about their challenges and the review officials being much more efficient in how they carry out reviews.

 

I'd like to think that VAR, while it continues in Scotland, becomes a much more rapid process over the season.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

I get what you are saying and whilst it’s better than what we have I still think VAR should be scrapped completely. 
 

Im not going to profess to know much about American Football but are fouls as subjective as they are in football?

 

Also football is far more fluid than the likes for American Football which is all set plays. I could envision a challenge system being used tactically to stop counter attacks in football for example. 
 

That’s another thing that I forgot to mention when replying to another poster earlier in the thread. VAR is already effecting the flow of the game. Yes the ball apparently needs to go out it play for a VAR review however I’d the review comes to nothing it may have stopped a quick throw/counter attack and allowed the opposition players to get back into position. 

 

I'd see it much like a substitute. The manager would notify the fourth official (within a reasonable amount of time) and then the next dead ball the fourth official stops for the review, but with a little more urgency. 

 

As far as the subjectivity, a lot of the fouls are subjective, like personal fouls, and for that reason the most subjective calls are not reviewable. The most reviewed ones involve the placement of the ball or the relationship of feet and balls to the line—in other words, things that either happened or didn't, and are easier to see on video than not. That's where I see VAR being best used. Was a player offside? Did the ball cross the line? Did it hit a hand?

 

It helps that most American sports have the concept of a time out, which are often two minutes in length so are roughly equivalent to the disruption from a review, and which  are charged if a call is not overturned. I have no doubt that football managers would use reviews this way, but that's why you limit it to a set number, and to me it's no worse than a player rolling around on the ground in mysterious injury to stall for time or putting on substitutes in stoppage time (a practice that should be banned anyway and wastes as much time as a review).

 

To me though a major problem is that certain rules in football are just inherently poorly defined and need clarification. I've still never seen anyone explain exactly why and in what circumstance "winning the ball" on a foul matters as from what I can tell that widely followed convention has never been codified as an actual law of the game. I think unclear rules are not just a problem for VAR, but a source of a lot of the frustration with refereeing in the game. I believe most referees have clear standards in their heads as to what they'll call, but it varies so much between them.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

That's actually a great set of stats, which I would like repeated here for the success or otherwise of VAR.

 

The NFL stats are revealing in showing both an increasing success rate of challenges and a reduction in the time taken for reviews.  That points to coaches becoming more savvy about their challenges and the review officials being much more efficient in how they carry out reviews.

 

I'd like to think that VAR, while it continues in Scotland, becomes a much more rapid process over the season.

Agreed, but that means the SFA and SPFL will need to actually go through evaluation, and not just dig in their heels that the system is great. Hope springs eternal . . . 

[postage-stamp]

7 hours ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

I get that but I don’t understand how it would work in practice. I mean theory behind the current incarnation of VAR is nothing like the reality. 
 

As I say could an opposition manager stop a counter attack by throwing a flag on the pitch? 

 

Im not into American sports really and the only thing I’d want us to adopt is their ability to keep their sports competitive, however we don’t have college drafts etc so don’t know how it would work, 

You wouldn't be allowed to stop play with a challenge I assume.  Must wait till the break in play or when asked if you want to use one.   4th official would be the man to ask 

[DETTY29]

A few points from SATF @Laurie and @This is My Story Podcast  podacasts.

 

Donaldson is convinced Celtic will get it binned and are getting their strategic ducks in a row to do so.  

 

Laurie mentioned that the Eastons know quite a bit in advance when VAR has been invoked and what for but need to wait for a signal to put it on screen.  Surely to God that's a simple change.  The Livingston penalty which was the correct decision and surely that could have been put up pretty quickly 'away team penalty review' instead of all the confusion.

 

Corbett (I'm sure) that the refs are too pally and don't want to throw each under the bus. 

 

I could be wrong but from our games, I do feel that the ref should have been to the monitor a bit more often so there us a bit of merit in not to make the on field ref appear not up to it. 

 

Do we now have a problem in that 'clear and obvious error' is subjective too, however?

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, DETTY29 said:

A few points from SATF @Laurie and @This is My Story Podcast  podacasts.

 

Donaldson is convinced Celtic will get it binned and are getting their strategic ducks in a row to do so.  

 

Laurie mentioned that the Eastons know quite a bit in advance when VAR has been invoked and what for but need to wait for a signal to put it on screen.  Surely to God that's a simple change.  The Livingston penalty which was the correct decision and surely that could have been put up pretty quickly 'away team penalty review' instead of all the confusion.

 

Corbett (I'm sure) that the refs are too pally and don't want to throw each under the bus. 

 

I could be wrong but from our games, I do feel that the ref should have been to the monitor a bit more often so there us a bit of merit in not to make the on field ref appear not up to it. 

 

Do we now have a problem in that 'clear and obvious error' is subjective too, however?

If and to me it is a big IF that Celtic want it binned, it will be interesting to see exactly what their strategic ducks are.

[Rogue Daddy]

1 hour ago, DETTY29 said:

A few points from SATF @Laurie and @This is My Story Podcast  podacasts.

 

Donaldson is convinced Celtic will get it binned and are getting their strategic ducks in a row to do so.  

 

Laurie mentioned that the Eastons know quite a bit in advance when VAR has been invoked and what for but need to wait for a signal to put it on screen.  Surely to God that's a simple change.  The Livingston penalty which was the correct decision and surely that could have been put up pretty quickly 'away team penalty review' instead of all the confusion.

 

Corbett (I'm sure) that the refs are too pally and don't want to throw each under the bus. 

 

I could be wrong but from our games, I do feel that the ref should have been to the monitor a bit more often so there us a bit of merit in not to make the on field ref appear not up to it. 

 

Do we now have a problem in that 'clear and obvious error' is subjective too, however?

I feel the same also - 2 clear VAR 'opportunities' that didn't happen in our favour (and wasn't mentioned on this weeks show) was the handball incident in the Rangers game, and the double penalty claim against Livi when (in the second half) Gino was held back and Shankland was grappled in a wrestling hold - both at the same time!

Now, my issue here is - if the ref doesn't see these 'infringements', surely VAR should be giving the incidents more than a cursory glance... if they even did that!

The Rangers handball - ball appears to hit the hand of a Rangers player at head height, ball is on target and in real-time, granted,  it's hard to be conclusive. AC even brings it to the attention of Beaton who just dismisses it (the shock!) The ball has gone out of play, immediately, for a corner and no VAR review takes place. If VAR had looked at it again, play would have been halted immediately as the ball was out of play. But this didn't happen. So, to conclude - either VAR didn't notice the incident (even though our player brings it to the refs attention). Or didn't deem the incident worthy of reviewing. Both are completely unacceptable and render VAR pointless going forward if this is to continue.

The double assault against Livi - same as above. Ref doesn't see either (even though he's 100 yards closer to the players than I am) and VAR (clearly) doesn't deem the incident(s) worthy of a review.

What's the point in having VAR, if this is how it's going to be used (or not, as the case may be!)

[Rogue Daddy]

12 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

If and to me it is a big IF that Celtic want it binned, it will be interesting to see exactly what their strategic ducks are.

They've already had the SFA issuing apologies over the use of VAR for one of their (correctly called) offsides against Jota. Something to do with a camera angle... I mean, WTF. The SFA should have told them to GTF!... but no, they have to come out and apologise to the mhanks, when the rest of us would have been charged with bringing the game into disrepute.

[McCrae]

2 hours ago, Rogue Daddy said:

I feel the same also - 2 clear VAR 'opportunities' that didn't happen in our favour (and wasn't mentioned on this weeks show) was the handball incident in the Rangers game, and the double penalty claim against Livi when (in the second half) Gino was held back and Shankland was grappled in a wrestling hold - both at the same time!

Now, my issue here is - if the ref doesn't see these 'infringements', surely VAR should be giving the incidents more than a cursory glance... if they even did that!

The Rangers handball - ball appears to hit the hand of a Rangers player at head height, ball is on target and in real-time, granted,  it's hard to be conclusive. AC even brings it to the attention of Beaton who just dismisses it (the shock!) The ball has gone out of play, immediately, for a corner and no VAR review takes place. If VAR had looked at it again, play would have been halted immediately as the ball was out of play. But this didn't happen. So, to conclude - either VAR didn't notice the incident (even though our player brings it to the refs attention). Or didn't deem the incident worthy of reviewing. Both are completely unacceptable and render VAR pointless going forward if this is to continue.

The double assault against Livi - same as above. Ref doesn't see either (even though he's 100 yards closer to the players than I am) and VAR (clearly) doesn't deem the incident(s) worthy of a review.

What's the point in having VAR, if this is how it's going to be used (or not, as the case may be!)

A lot of the problems with VAR could be down to poor communication. Maybe the incidents were reviewed? We just don’t know what is happening and that is a major source of frustration.

[Rogue Daddy]

16 minutes ago, McCrae said:

A lot of the problems with VAR could be down to poor communication. Maybe the incidents were reviewed? We just don’t know what is happening and that is a major source of frustration.

Heres the thing though, IF they were reviewed, I really don't know how they don't give a penalty to us for either the Gino or Shankland 'takedowns', as both were as clear as day in real-time, let alone having the benefit of watching it back... it was that blatant. The Rangers one... lets face it, we were never going to get it - so why even bother. VAR was supposed to bring a bit of fairness back to football... it just seems to be highlighting just how incompetent/bent our officials actually are. 

You're right, it's the not knowing that's hugely frustrating - these officials are getting a second/third/fourth opportunity to get these big decisions correct... yet, nothing! I'd feel much happier if VAR was 'outsourced' to another football organisation because I have even less faith in our current bunch of idiot officials than I did a month ago.

[Laurie]

5 hours ago, DETTY29 said:

A few points from SATF @Laurie and @This is My Story Podcast  podacasts.

 

Donaldson is convinced Celtic will get it binned and are getting their strategic ducks in a row to do so.  

 

Laurie mentioned that the Eastons know quite a bit in advance when VAR has been invoked and what for but need to wait for a signal to put it on screen.  Surely to God that's a simple change.  The Livingston penalty which was the correct decision and surely that could have been put up pretty quickly 'away team penalty review' instead of all the confusion.

 

Corbett (I'm sure) that the refs are too pally and don't want to throw each under the bus. 

 

I could be wrong but from our games, I do feel that the ref should have been to the monitor a bit more often so there us a bit of merit in not to make the on field ref appear not up to it. 

 

Do we now have a problem in that 'clear and obvious error' is subjective too, however?

 

I don't think it was Mark who said anything about Celtic trying to get it binned, that was maybe from someone on This Is My Story? I've not heard their latest episode yet. 

 

I did mention that Graeme and Keith are as frustrated as anyone with the delays, as they can't put anything on screen for the fans until they get a signal from the VAR room; which isn't always very quick in updating. 

 

Anyway, just wanted to clear the above up; Mark can fair waffle on at times so I had to double check he never said the above as I couldn't remember it 😅

[DETTY29]

1 hour ago, Laurie said:

 

I don't think it was Mark who said anything about Celtic trying to get it binned, that was maybe from someone on This Is My Story? I've not heard their latest episode yet. 

 

I did mention that Graeme and Keith are as frustrated as anyone with the delays, as they can't put anything on screen for the fans until they get a signal from the VAR room; which isn't always very quick in updating. 

 

Anyway, just wanted to clear the above up; Mark can fair waffle on at times so I had to double check he never said the above as I couldn't remember it 😅

Thanks Laurie and apologies to Mark.

 

Listened to both pods back to back while driving so looks like I've got mixed up.

[HMFC01]

Sportsound going on about VAR.   Never mentioned the Hearts v Livingston match for lack of good decisions.   

 

Some arguments though 😂 Getting insulting with each other. 

 

Bunch of half wits on that channel.   I don't know their names.   I only recognise K Miller, W Miller,  L Crichton. 

Edited November 19, 2022 by HMFC01

[maroonsgotop]

On 18/11/2022 at 09:36, Rogue Daddy said:

I feel the same also - 2 clear VAR 'opportunities' that didn't happen in our favour (and wasn't mentioned on this weeks show) was the handball incident in the Rangers game, and the double penalty claim against Livi when (in the second half) Gino was held back and Shankland was grappled in a wrestling hold - both at the same time!

Now, my issue here is - if the ref doesn't see these 'infringements', surely VAR should be giving the incidents more than a cursory glance... if they even did that!

The Rangers handball - ball appears to hit the hand of a Rangers player at head height, ball is on target and in real-time, granted,  it's hard to be conclusive. AC even brings it to the attention of Beaton who just dismisses it (the shock!) The ball has gone out of play, immediately, for a corner and no VAR review takes place. If VAR had looked at it again, play would have been halted immediately as the ball was out of play. But this didn't happen. So, to conclude - either VAR didn't notice the incident (even though our player brings it to the refs attention). Or didn't deem the incident worthy of reviewing. Both are completely unacceptable and render VAR pointless going forward if this is to continue.

The double assault against Livi - same as above. Ref doesn't see either (even though he's 100 yards closer to the players than I am) and VAR (clearly) doesn't deem the incident(s) worthy of a review.

What's the point in having VAR, if this is how it's going to be used (or not, as the case may be!)

sadly the common factor in our last 2 games was cheetin' Beaton. 

[Rogue Daddy]

1 hour ago, maroonsgotop said:

sadly the common factor in our last 2 games was cheetin' Beaton. 

Yip… wish he was from Port Seton!

[His name is]

After watching the last 2 televised (scottish) games it looks like the number of VAR checks has decreased dramatically. Is this a conscious decision from the SFA? 

 

Ranger had an appeal for a penalty which would have been a 5 min VAR stoppage prior to the world cup break but the game continued. I'll try and link the clip below, I'd be looking for a pen if it was us.

 

https://twitter.com/NaeBull/status/1605313109505282050?t=fzG0Kr9NGI0_RXT0R49Vqg&s=19

[postage-stamp]

Hope it's binned forever 

[comradejambo]

Bored at work waiting to go on holiday. My Var suggestion.

 

Each team has 2 challenges. When a challenge is submitted - a reason needs to be cited to 4th official…..

 

Then - decision goes to VAR. Exisiting referee call is 1) Overturned 2) Upheld challenge kept (close call) 3) Rejected - lose a challenge 

 

If a decision is rejected this can then be reviewed post match. If a team has clearly thrown in a review to waste time they are then suspended from reviews in their next league match. (Would be a deterrent to challenge for no reason).

 

This would force officials to “go upstairs” and fully review incidents such as Devlin incident v livi (keeper taking him out). 

 

Thoughts? I realise isn’t perfect but it’s better than at the moment imo 

Edited December 23, 2022 by comradejambo