needs to be improved.
the camera angles were having to try and see things from is pretty poor.
I do like that we seem to be a little more lenient with VAR in general than other countries.
At its worst......biased against Celtic
At its best....... inconsistent, giving impression that people in charge don't know the rules.......
Makes our game a laughing stock
Early doors, but the thing that fwcks me off the most is why 6 cameras to other leagues 16?
Is the entire league that skint that they have to have the watered down version which will always be open to accusations of bias? If that’s the case, then better off without it.
We have to invest more and the bigger clubs take the bigger share of the costs.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
Early doors, but the thing that fwcks me off the most is why 6 cameras to other leagues 16?
Is the entire league that skint that they have to have the watered down version which will always be open to accusations of bias? If that’s the case, then better off without it.
We have to invest more and the bigger clubs take the bigger share of the costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yup pretty much what I think also
Biased against Celtic
Ffs, if you opened your eyes you'd see every team has a grievance against it. We had to appeal a red card given via VAR ffs, never mind the stonewall penalty overturned via VAR in the Craig Gordon injury incident.
One of the big issues for me is that we aren't privvy to the discussion between ref and var. Make that available for broadcasters and it becomes much more accountable and acceptable.
Hopefully things will settle down as it becomes more embedded, and echo the points from ging and whodunnit. Big thing for me too is the lack of transparency around decisions made using it. As a clear example, the lies about “hawkeye” were absolutely cringeworthy and obviously nonsense wrt the Jota offside at Fir Park. Unfortunately, without proper transparency I don’t have much hope for improvements in performance of refs or their use of VAR.
Big fan of it. For once an OF game with no big referee mistakes being the centre of focus, helped get all the big calls right.
My only gripe is going nuts when a goal is scored then waiting to see if it counts or have it ruled out but maybe over time it will get quicker.
No big referee mistakes except the Goldson handball.
I'm agnostic on VAR general and do agree that the time taken for some decisions is mental considering it's meant to be clear and obvious IF the ref has missed it.
That wasn't a mistake Hector, correct decision. VAR doesn't change the rules unfortunately.
If that was a title deciding game and Rangers went on to win the title, I would hope Celtic would take the SPFL to court.
comment by Zico đ´ó §ó ˘ó łó Łó ´ó ż (U21900)
posted 11 seconds ago
If that was a title deciding game and Rangers went on to win the title, I would hope Celtic would take the SPFL to court.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club wouldn’t though. It’s just as well rangers are as garbage as they are.
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 1 minute ago
That wasn't a mistake Hector, correct decision. VAR doesn't change the rules unfortunately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a mistake, incorrect decision.
Any other game, any other team, that's a pen. Refs change the rules to suit themselves unfortunately,
It wasn't a mistake. Check the rules. There's a reason 2 referees came to the same conclusion after a video review.
comment by Zico đ´ó §ó ˘ó łó Łó ´ó ż (U21900)
posted 1 minute ago
If that was a title deciding game and Rangers went on to win the title, I would hope Celtic would take the SPFL to court.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they took the SPFL to court then they should have to forfeit their prize money and their qualification for European football.
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 36 seconds ago
It wasn't a mistake. Check the rules. There's a reason 2 referees came to the same conclusion after a video review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Respectfully disagree, his arms are away from his body and in doing so, particularly given they’re out in front, create an unnaturally larger frame. It’s the same reason why goalies can’t come off their line closer to the ball as it creates a larger frame to block the goal. Watching it again in real time it’s not one that can be coherently explained away IMO.
His arms don't create a larger frame ffs, he puts them in front of his face. If he doesn't he takes it in the pus.
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 9 seconds ago
His arms don't create a larger frame ffs, he puts them in front of his face. If he doesn't he takes it in the pus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They do though if they’re right out in front away from his body. It’s not as if he’s got them touching his face. It’s basic geometry.
You can disagree with me no problem but it doesn't change the fact that the laws state it wasn't a penalty. The only alternative conclusion is that several officials watched it several times and decided not to give it because they didn't want to.
"It wasn't a mistake. Check the rules. There's a reason 2 referees came to the same conclusion after a video review."
Let's hear it then......I've yet to hear a reason that makes it a sound decision.
Because if it didn't hit his hands it hits his face. There's no advantage being denied or sought by it hitting his hand.
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 30 seconds ago
You can disagree with me no problem but it doesn't change the fact that the laws state it wasn't a penalty. The only alternative conclusion is that several officials watched it several times and decided not to give it because they didn't want to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is the laws don’t unequivocally state that it’s not a penalty. There’s interpretation. And I appreciate given your username you’ve interpreted the rules in a way that favours your own team. That’s grand. I’ve outlined above why it meets the criteria of creating a larger unnatural frame (unless you’ve a forehead like jolean Lescott) which would make it a penalty.
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 47 seconds ago
Because if it didn't hit his hands it hits his face. There's no advantage being denied or sought by it hitting his hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks like it’s going over his head if you look at the replays.
https://youtu.be/PpznJj8ZXMY
Highlights here
In which case it's going to create a dangerous precedent........'doing a Goldson' to stop the ball hitting your face and expecting to get away with it.. it's a nonsense
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown đ¤ (U14177)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 30 seconds ago
You can disagree with me no problem but it doesn't change the fact that the laws state it wasn't a penalty. The only alternative conclusion is that several officials watched it several times and decided not to give it because they didn't want to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is the laws don’t unequivocally state that it’s not a penalty. There’s interpretation. And I appreciate given your username you’ve interpreted the rules in a way that favours your own team. That’s grand. I’ve outlined above why it meets the criteria of creating a larger unnatural frame (unless you’ve a forehead like jolean Lescott) which would make it a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've interpreted it the way the law is applied and the way the officials agreed on it. Only one of us is interpreting it differently based on the team they support.
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR
Page 1 of 3
posted on 3/1/23
needs to be improved.
the camera angles were having to try and see things from is pretty poor.
I do like that we seem to be a little more lenient with VAR in general than other countries.
posted on 3/1/23
At its worst......biased against Celtic
At its best....... inconsistent, giving impression that people in charge don't know the rules.......
Makes our game a laughing stock
posted on 3/1/23
Early doors, but the thing that fwcks me off the most is why 6 cameras to other leagues 16?
Is the entire league that skint that they have to have the watered down version which will always be open to accusations of bias? If that’s the case, then better off without it.
We have to invest more and the bigger clubs take the bigger share of the costs.
posted on 3/1/23
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
Early doors, but the thing that fwcks me off the most is why 6 cameras to other leagues 16?
Is the entire league that skint that they have to have the watered down version which will always be open to accusations of bias? If that’s the case, then better off without it.
We have to invest more and the bigger clubs take the bigger share of the costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yup pretty much what I think also
posted on 3/1/23
Biased against Celtic
Ffs, if you opened your eyes you'd see every team has a grievance against it. We had to appeal a red card given via VAR ffs, never mind the stonewall penalty overturned via VAR in the Craig Gordon injury incident.
One of the big issues for me is that we aren't privvy to the discussion between ref and var. Make that available for broadcasters and it becomes much more accountable and acceptable.
posted on 3/1/23
Hopefully things will settle down as it becomes more embedded, and echo the points from ging and whodunnit. Big thing for me too is the lack of transparency around decisions made using it. As a clear example, the lies about “hawkeye” were absolutely cringeworthy and obviously nonsense wrt the Jota offside at Fir Park. Unfortunately, without proper transparency I don’t have much hope for improvements in performance of refs or their use of VAR.
posted on 3/1/23
Big fan of it. For once an OF game with no big referee mistakes being the centre of focus, helped get all the big calls right.
My only gripe is going nuts when a goal is scored then waiting to see if it counts or have it ruled out but maybe over time it will get quicker.
posted on 3/1/23
No big referee mistakes except the Goldson handball.
I'm agnostic on VAR general and do agree that the time taken for some decisions is mental considering it's meant to be clear and obvious IF the ref has missed it.
posted on 3/1/23
That wasn't a mistake Hector, correct decision. VAR doesn't change the rules unfortunately.
posted on 3/1/23
If that was a title deciding game and Rangers went on to win the title, I would hope Celtic would take the SPFL to court.
posted on 3/1/23
comment by Zico đ´ó §ó ˘ó łó Łó ´ó ż (U21900)
posted 11 seconds ago
If that was a title deciding game and Rangers went on to win the title, I would hope Celtic would take the SPFL to court.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club wouldn’t though. It’s just as well rangers are as garbage as they are.
posted on 3/1/23
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 1 minute ago
That wasn't a mistake Hector, correct decision. VAR doesn't change the rules unfortunately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a mistake, incorrect decision.
Any other game, any other team, that's a pen. Refs change the rules to suit themselves unfortunately,
posted on 3/1/23
It wasn't a mistake. Check the rules. There's a reason 2 referees came to the same conclusion after a video review.
posted on 3/1/23
comment by Zico đ´ó §ó ˘ó łó Łó ´ó ż (U21900)
posted 1 minute ago
If that was a title deciding game and Rangers went on to win the title, I would hope Celtic would take the SPFL to court.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they took the SPFL to court then they should have to forfeit their prize money and their qualification for European football.
posted on 3/1/23
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 36 seconds ago
It wasn't a mistake. Check the rules. There's a reason 2 referees came to the same conclusion after a video review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Respectfully disagree, his arms are away from his body and in doing so, particularly given they’re out in front, create an unnaturally larger frame. It’s the same reason why goalies can’t come off their line closer to the ball as it creates a larger frame to block the goal. Watching it again in real time it’s not one that can be coherently explained away IMO.
posted on 3/1/23
His arms don't create a larger frame ffs, he puts them in front of his face. If he doesn't he takes it in the pus.
posted on 3/1/23
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 9 seconds ago
His arms don't create a larger frame ffs, he puts them in front of his face. If he doesn't he takes it in the pus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They do though if they’re right out in front away from his body. It’s not as if he’s got them touching his face. It’s basic geometry.
posted on 3/1/23
You can disagree with me no problem but it doesn't change the fact that the laws state it wasn't a penalty. The only alternative conclusion is that several officials watched it several times and decided not to give it because they didn't want to.
posted on 3/1/23
"It wasn't a mistake. Check the rules. There's a reason 2 referees came to the same conclusion after a video review."
Let's hear it then......I've yet to hear a reason that makes it a sound decision.
posted on 3/1/23
Because if it didn't hit his hands it hits his face. There's no advantage being denied or sought by it hitting his hand.
posted on 3/1/23
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 30 seconds ago
You can disagree with me no problem but it doesn't change the fact that the laws state it wasn't a penalty. The only alternative conclusion is that several officials watched it several times and decided not to give it because they didn't want to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is the laws don’t unequivocally state that it’s not a penalty. There’s interpretation. And I appreciate given your username you’ve interpreted the rules in a way that favours your own team. That’s grand. I’ve outlined above why it meets the criteria of creating a larger unnatural frame (unless you’ve a forehead like jolean Lescott) which would make it a penalty.
posted on 3/1/23
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 47 seconds ago
Because if it didn't hit his hands it hits his face. There's no advantage being denied or sought by it hitting his hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks like it’s going over his head if you look at the replays.
posted on 3/1/23
https://youtu.be/PpznJj8ZXMY
Highlights here
posted on 3/1/23
In which case it's going to create a dangerous precedent........'doing a Goldson' to stop the ball hitting your face and expecting to get away with it.. it's a nonsense
posted on 3/1/23
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown đ¤ (U14177)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 30 seconds ago
You can disagree with me no problem but it doesn't change the fact that the laws state it wasn't a penalty. The only alternative conclusion is that several officials watched it several times and decided not to give it because they didn't want to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is the laws don’t unequivocally state that it’s not a penalty. There’s interpretation. And I appreciate given your username you’ve interpreted the rules in a way that favours your own team. That’s grand. I’ve outlined above why it meets the criteria of creating a larger unnatural frame (unless you’ve a forehead like jolean Lescott) which would make it a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've interpreted it the way the law is applied and the way the officials agreed on it. Only one of us is interpreting it differently based on the team they support.
Page 1 of 3