Scottish Football

[wilsdenrover]

34 minutes ago, arbitro said:

The referee didn't even think it was a foul so nothing would have been given without VAR.

Given the speed it is almost impossible in real time to determine whether it was in or out of the penalty area. I don't like VAR but you have to say on this occasion it did its job.

The ref saw it so it can’t have been a serious missed incident and it certainly wasn’t a clear and obvious error.

Does that not constitute VAR getting involved when it shouldn’t?

[roverandout]

4 hours ago, oldjamfan1 said:

Yeah he got two massive decisions wrong there for me. 
 

Some game/ending though all the same. 

The disallowed goal was laughable the sending off was a complete disgrace even the penalty was dubious 

[arbitro]

3 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

The ref saw it so it can’t have been a serious missed incident and it certainly wasn’t a clear and obvious error.

Does that not constitute VAR getting involved when it shouldn’t?

One of the few things VAR can get involved in as a result of a clear and obvious error is a penalty.

The referee, having seen the replay gave the penalty. A clear indication that he was wrong in the first Instance as he could easily have stuck with his decision of no foul.

[waynerovers]

That was some game

[wilsdenrover]

28 minutes ago, arbitro said:

One of the few things VAR can get involved in as a result of a clear and obvious error is a penalty.

The referee, having seen the replay gave the penalty. A clear indication that he was wrong in the first Instance as he could easily have stuck with his decision of no foul.

I thought it was a penalty when it happened but I don’t think the ‘error’ in not awarding it was clear and obvious.

I’m also not a fan of them using slow mo, freeze frames or closeups - for me that just proves the original decision can’t have been obviously wrong.

Personally I’d scrap VAR as I think there’s more bad to it than good.

 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by wilsdenrover

[RevidgeBlue]

7 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I thought it was a penalty when it happened but I don’t think the ‘error’ in not awarding it was clear and obvious.

I’m also not a fan of them using slow mo, freeze frames or closeups - for me that just proves the original decision can’t have been obviously wrong.

Personally I’d scrap VAR as I think there’s more bad to it than good.

 

 

 

The worst aspect of VAR is offside. It's obviously not a "clear and obvious error" if an offside isn't given onfield but endless slow motion checks eventually conclude a player has a toe nail or an arm pit offside yet you'll get some former official or other triumphantly celebrating the decision to rule out a brilliant goal by declaring the player was "clearly" off.

The offside rule wasn't designed or intended to survive such microscopic examination. At one time the attacker was meant to receive the benefit of the doubt.

I could just about live with VAR if Arsene Wenger's suggestion that there should be clear daylight was adopted. However like you, on balance I dont like it and would scrap it although realistically that obviously isnt happening.

[wilsdenrover]

10 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

The worst aspect of VAR is offside. It's obviously not a "clear and obvious error" if an offside isn't given onfield but endless slow motion checks eventually conclude a player has a toe nail or an arm pit offside yet you'll get some former official or other triumphantly celebrating the decision to rule out a brilliant goal by declaring the player was "clearly" off.

The offside rule wasn't designed or intended to survive such microscopic examination. At one time the attacker was meant to receive the benefit of the doubt.

I could just about live with VAR if Arsene Wenger's suggestion that there should be clear daylight was adopted. However like you, on balance I dont like it and would scrap it although realistically that obviously isnt happening.

As we’re now fully off topic and you mentioned offside…

Why can an attacking player be considered to be not interfering with play but a defensive one cannot?

 

[arbitro]

44 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I thought it was a penalty when it happened but I don’t think the ‘error’ in not awarding it was clear and obvious.

I’m also not a fan of them using slow mo, freeze frames or closeups - for me that just proves the original decision can’t have been obviously wrong.

Personally I’d scrap VAR as I think there’s more bad to it than good.

 

 

 

The 'clear and obvious' aspect of VAR is what leaves much ambiguity and as you allude to causes much debate. When VAR was introduced with the clear and obvious instruction I thought after a while they would drop that and allow the officials a certain amount of latitude through dialogue.

VAR has become stagnant and should have moved on and learned from errors.

[rigger]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

I thought it was a penalty when it happened but I don’t think the ‘error’ in not awarding it was clear and obvious.

I’m also not a fan of them using slow mo, freeze frames or closeups - for me that just proves the original decision can’t have been obviously wrong.

Personally I’d scrap VAR as I think there’s more bad to it than good.

 

 

 

I don't think the problem is with VAR, but with the people using it.

[wilsdenrover]

11 minutes ago, rigger said:

I don't think the problem is with VAR, but with the people using it.

Isn’t that, to a point, the same thing?