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 4 hours 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?

[rigger]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

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

No, VAR is hardware and mechanics showing the physical facts. The people using VAR are interpreting the results, using the laws of the game.

[DE.]

It's difficult to define clear and obvious errors, as everyone will have their own opinion on what is clear and obvious. I think VAR is an all or nothing kind of thing - either it is used to implement the laws of the game down to the most minute detail, or it just isn't used at all. Some kind of vague middle ground is just asking for trouble and discontent. 

On balance I'd probably be rid of it as I think judging everything on the smallest of details goes against the spirit of the game. Football shouldn't be broken down with mathematical precision, as imo that ruins the spectacle and what makes it such a compelling sport to follow. Some of the greatest moments of lore in the game come from refereeing mistakes, good and bad. It's part of what fuels discussions and debates. 

Hawkeye is enough for me. If they could implement something else for blatant offsides as well, then I'd be fine with just having those as technological assistance. 

[wilsdenrover]

23 minutes ago, rigger said:

No, VAR is hardware and mechanics showing the physical facts. The people using VAR are interpreting the results, using the laws of the game.

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#principles
 

[wilsdenrover]

For me, I think the VAR should get one replay, at full speed, from the nearest angle to which the ref had.

If that isn’t enough to show an error then, in my eyes, a clear and obvious one can’t have occurred. 

[Upside Down]

5 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

For me, I think the VAR should get one replay, at full speed, from the nearest angle to which the ref had.

If that isn’t enough to show an error then, in my eyes, a clear and obvious one can’t have occurred. 

Totally agree. 

They're going to miss things, that's just natural but standing round for 10 minutes watching numerous slow motion replays is just bollocks. If it's clear and obvious then it should be apparent from the first viewing at full speed. If a decision can't be made then the original decision stands and the game continues.

[Hasta]

8 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

For me, I think the VAR should get one replay, at full speed, from the nearest angle to which the ref had.

If that isn’t enough to show an error then, in my eyes, a clear and obvious one can’t have occurred. 

So if from the refs angle you cant tell what the ball has hit because there is a crowd of people, and from the reverse angle it’s clearly handball, why would you not want to use the better angle?

 

[Upside Down]

1 minute ago, Hasta said:

So if from the refs angle you cant tell what the ball has hit because there is a crowd of people, and from the reverse angle it’s clearly handball, why would you not want to use the better angle?

 

That's fair do's, I just don't think they should be able to get multiple replays in slow motion. 

If you need to watch it in slow motion then it's not obvious.

[DE.]

The other issue with VAR is that it makes complaints a lot more magnified - especially if the decision appears to be wrong.

Pre-VAR there was always plausible deniability for the officials. It's easy to miss something if your view was obstructed, there was a crowd of players, you didn't have the best view of the incident, and so on. You'd still get comments of "how could a ref, linesman and fourth official miss THAT?" but there is some latitude for explaining decisions which appeared to be or were incorrect. 

When you've got multiple angles in slow motion and minutes to analyse them then what excuse is there? Mistakes simply cannot happen in that situation, because it's either incompetence from multiple officials or a genuine intent from multiple officials to fail to uphold the laws of the game. There aren't really any other feasible explanations that can be given. It starts to break down into "interpretation" and at that point we aren't really much further from where we started. You loop back to the "it should only be used for clear and obvious errors" argument, and everyone will have their own view of what that constitutes. 

Most memories I have of people being genuinely incensed by decisions come from two main problems - goals that should have stood but didn't (Lampard's goal against Germany, for example) and clear offsides. Hawkeye has already solved problem one, and I can't believe technology doesn't exist that could effectively eliminate problem two without the need for VAR. I sometimes think VAR is the proverbial sledgehammer being used to crack open a nut. 

There are some other situations I can think of outside of the above two - Henry's handball goal for France against the Irish, Maradona's "hand of God", some reckless tackles/assaults that should have seen red but were missed - but how often do such egregious situations actually occur? Do they happen enough to justify VAR as a comprehensive solution? 

Football clubs would probably say so, to be fair. At the highest levels especially the key factor is money and if VAR means that an unjust decision doesn't cost you points and potential relegation then that would probably be considered worth the sacrifice from a financial point of view, spectacle of the game be damned. For fans though, I'm not so sure. 

Feels like I'm starting to argue against myself now so I'll stop before I develop a split personality, but it's certainly an interesting topic with all sorts of valid arguments for and against. 

 

Edited 50 minutes ago by DE.

[Giant]

Great out outcome for Scotland, and fully deserved for their fantastic fans. Football is more popular in Scotland than any other country in Europe if you base it on the per capita of population who go to watch it at the top level. Scottish PL 18.5 per 1000 people in 2024, the best in Europe, English PL 6.9 per 1000.

Edited 42 minutes ago by Giant

[Bronzed A Donis]

As much as I enjoyed the total stunned silence when Denmark equalised a 2nd time, it was difficult not to get wrapped up in that finale. This Scotland side have dug deep a few times.

Ive only been to 1 game on Scotland (not old firm and pre VAR) but i found it refreshingly less sterilised than in England and bit more like football 20/30 years ago.

Plus 'a view from the terrace' is very decent viewing.

[Mattyblue]

I’m not sure it’s that easy to extrapolate, English football has a pyramid with four figure crowds reported down in the 8th tier, not replicated anywhere in the world.

Take away the Old Firm and is that top flight figure any better than that of a Belgium or a Sweden? There are hugely supported football clubs outside the PL in England but clubs like Bournemouth in it.

A proper football country, to be sure, then so is England.