VAR in Scottish Football

[Kmcalpin]

There are a lot of grey areas, which we don't know yet if VAR will address.  For example, a player deliberately dives and the "culprit", who is already on a yellow card is given a second one, and thereby dismissed. Thats only one example.  Does that fall into the category of a major incident?   

[joewarkfanclub]

If it is only used to correct "clear and obvious" errors, then I think we should be ok.

If we start measuring offside decisions by the bawhair and penalties by interperetaion, then it could quickly turn into a farce.

Hopefully it will enhance the game. Fingers crossed.

[weeyin]

We are apparently using a "thicker line" for the offside decisions - we'll see how that helps.

I've always said that if VAR can't make a decision in 20 seconds or so then there was no clear and obvious error so the ref's decision should stand. The escapades down south where they have incidents that are reviewed for 3 or 4 minutes are ridiculous.

[texanwellfan]

Exactly. If  you’re not sure in 20 seconds the call on the field stands 

Just As an example that VAR can still screw up I’m sure west ham git 2 goals last weekend that involved handball in the lead up. One was difficult to tell but the other one they never even looked at and was a stick on hand ball 

[dennyc]

3 hours ago, Spiderpig said:

In the premiership games that don't involve the uglies VAR will operate and there will be the usual early dodgy calls, but in general nobody will notice or care if Motherwell or any other team were denied a goal or gave away a penalty etc.

But be prepared for the media and social media shit storm that every foul, corner kick, potential penalty  or goal given/ disallowed will generate for every game the uglies play. They will want every tackle examined and will be on screaming about how VAR is not fit for purpose every time a call goes against them.

I think it will eventually improve the refereeing in Scotland  and the game in General but the 1st few months will be interesting viewing.

My main concern is that, as is the case in England, we will see a circling of the wagons when obvious refereeing errors are ignored for no logical reason. I agree with you that in time VAR should improve the standard of refereeing. But it might be a wee bit painful to start with until several egos are able to cope with having to accept that "to err is human". I also hope we do not go down the EPL route of putting our own slant on VAR, which caused confusion from day one and resulted in Uefa asking them to simply apply the Laws of the game as they stand.

I had thought it would be preferable to have ex players involved in the VAR studio in support of current/retired referees, Having listened recently to former players confirm an embarrassing ignorance of the Laws of the game I am not so sure. And no amount of the co commentator pointing out that football has moved on makes any difference. Steve McManaman being a classic example. 

[Yorkyred]

7 hours ago, GazzyB said:

This is either going to help solve the poor refereeing standard in our game or be an absolute disaster, quietly hoping it’s the former. 

The decisions now are a disaster in game after game, look at the blatent pen not given which would have gone to Var. I don’t like the way it breaks up the flow of a game but it’s been shown without doubt to get the vast  majority of decisions correct. There will always be cases of the wrong call still being made but my god it’s got to be better than the shambles in Scottish football that we have now.  I personally don’t care about the debate on the old firm and their influence, what’s important is improving the level of overall refereeing decisions.

[Stuwell2]

5 hours ago, dennyc said:

I had thought it would be preferable to have ex players involved in the VAR studio in support of current/retired referees, Having listened recently to former players confirm an embarrassing ignorance of the Laws of the game I am not so sure. And no amount of the co commentator pointing out that football has moved on makes any difference. Steve McManaman being a classic example. 

Not into ex players being involved as they might be biased and I’d have rather set up the VAR review down in England using retired English referees who might have less interest standing by their fellow Scottish referees or in giving certain teams the benefit of the doubt that smaller teams might not get from Scottish referees. 

[GazzyB]

6 hours ago, Yorkyred said:

The decisions now are a disaster in game after game, look at the blatent pen not given which would have gone to Var. I don’t like the way it breaks up the flow of a game but it’s been shown without doubt to get the vast  majority of decisions correct. There will always be cases of the wrong call still being made but my god it’s got to be better than the shambles in Scottish football that we have now.  I personally don’t care about the debate on the old firm and their influence, what’s important is improving the level of overall refereeing decisions.

Yeah that’s exactly why I’m quietly hoping it’s going to help. I haven’t seen the highlights of the Hibs game but apparently there was a stonewall pen missed on Shields. Things like that that our refs seem to miss so often being picked up on can surely only be good for the game. 

[santheman]

8 hours ago, weeyin said:

We are apparently using a "thicker line" for the offside decisions - we'll see how that helps.

I've always said that if VAR can't make a decision in 20 seconds or so then there was no clear and obvious error so the ref's decision should stand. The escapades down south where they have incidents that are reviewed for 3 or 4 minutes are ridiculous.

I'd go further than a thicker line and say there should be clear daylight between the defender and forward.

How being an inch in front of a defender gives any sort of advantage to a forward beats me.

[Yorkyred]

3 hours ago, GazzyB said:

Yeah that’s exactly why I’m quietly hoping it’s going to help. I haven’t seen the highlights of the Hibs game but apparently there was a stonewall pen missed on Shields. Things like that that our refs seem to miss so often being picked up on can surely only be good for the game. 

I would say to anyone that’s against var in Scottish football, what’s the alternative ? Carry on as we are with the truly dreadful standard of decision making we have now ? Everyone just shutting up and accepting the refs will make awful mistakes game after game ? One or two refs up here are seen as a joke, you only have to sit around others rather than just watch games on tv to hear the comments. If I honestly thought standards could start to improve I would  be fine without it, does anyone honestly think that could happen ?

[weeyin]

4 hours ago, santheman said:

I'd go further than a thicker line and say there should be clear daylight between the defender and forward.

How being an inch in front of a defender gives any sort of advantage to a forward beats me.

I'm with you on that one.

I'm sure most fans would prefer the advantage going to the striker rather than getting called offside because a big toe is ahead.

I'd be fine if they just used it for reviewing penalty and red card decisions and left it at that.

[cambo97]

9 hours ago, weeyin said:

I'm with you on that one.

I'm sure most fans would prefer the advantage going to the striker rather than getting called offside because a big toe is ahead.

I'd be fine if they just used it for reviewing penalty and red card decisions and left it at that.

The thing is it doesn't matter how you define offside there will still be two lines drawn and the same arguments, it would  just be that the big toe stops there being clear daylight

[weeyin]

1 hour ago, cambo97 said:

The thing is it doesn't matter how you define offside there will still be two lines drawn and the same arguments, it would  just be that the big toe stops there being clear daylight

I also agree with that.

Which goes back to one of my original thoughts that if you can't make a call in 20 seconds or less then the decision on the pitch stands. In a lot of the VAR reviews I have seen, the "big toe" decisions often take a minute or two to decide. That is far too long in my mind and I'd much rather the benefit is given to the attacking player.

I know I'm an old man these days, but when I first learned the laws of the game the offside rule was written using the phrase that the player had to be "Seeking to gain an advantage".  By that standard, having a toe 2cm in front of a defender's toe does not meet that standard.

Of course, they took that wording out, but I think the same spirit should be applied.

I hope I'm wrong and everything goes well with VAR, but I'll need some convincing. My biggest beef with it is how it kills the moment of celebration when you score and need to wait 2 minutes for a check before a goal is awarded.

[Yabba's Turd]

7 hours ago, weeyin said:

I know I'm an old man these days, but when I first learned the laws of the game the offside rule was written using the phrase that the player had to be "Seeking to gain an advantage".  

 

But never interpreted that way

[texanwellfan]

3 hours ago, Yabba's Turd said:

But never interpreted that way

As Brian cough once said (paraphrasing)  “if his player is on the pitch he better be seeking to gain an advantage” !    So many nowadays will deliberately stray offside and then get an advantage from that once an onside  player gets the ball. I’d be more for pulling that up rather than worrying about a mm here or there 

[weeyin]

3 hours ago, Yabba's Turd said:

But never interpreted that way

I have a vague recollection they tried to interpret it that way in the MLS for a brief period in the 70s. Which meant that when defences (or defenses) played on offside trap the striker was deemed onside because it was the defenders that were seeking the advantage.

I think it died out even before the shoot-outs after a "tied game".

[joewarkfanclub]

9 hours ago, weeyin said:

I have a vague recollection they tried to interpret it that way in the MLS for a brief period in the 70s. Which meant that when defences (or defenses) played on offside trap the striker was deemed onside because it was the defenders that were seeking the advantage.

I think it died out even before the shoot-outs after a "tied game".

I  certainly recall them having an "offside line" between the halfway line and the penalty box, but not sure how that was used.......

[numpty]

1 hour ago, joewarkfanclub said:

I  certainly recall them having an "offside line" between the halfway line and the penalty box, but not sure how that was used.......

That was the 35 yard line... you could only be offside between that and your opponent's goal. In later years it was where the one on one shootouts started, instead of penalty shootouts.

[weeyin]

There were a few experiments with an offside line. I think it was in some of the U21 or U18 UEFA competitions. They experimented with one around the 18 yard line at one point. (Didn't they try similar in the Texaco or Anglo-Scottish Cup at some point too?)

They also tested the sin-bin idea and replacing throw-ins with kick-ins in the youth competitions, but (obviously) neither of those were taken any further.

[grumpy]

19 minutes ago, weeyin said:

There were a few experiments with an offside line. I think it was in some of the U21 or U18 UEFA competitions. They experimented with one around the 18 yard line at one point. (Didn't they try similar in the Texaco or Anglo-Scottish Cup at some point too?)

They also tested the sin-bin idea and replacing throw-ins with kick-ins in the youth competitions, but (obviously) neither of those were taken any further.

The Dryburgh cup I think. I quite liked it, the whole, offside an inch inside your opponent's half has always annoyed me. Or in the case of a Hamilton v Partick game a year or so ago, about six feet inside your own half.

[weeyin]

18 minutes ago, grumpy said:

The Dryburgh cup I think.

That's the one. Not as far back as I was thinking.

 

[Ya Bezzer!]

On 10/13/2022 at 12:51 PM, weeyin said:

We are apparently using a "thicker line" for the offside decisions - we'll see how that helps.

I've always said that if VAR can't make a decision in 20 seconds or so then there was no clear and obvious error so the ref's decision should stand. The escapades down south where they have incidents that are reviewed for 3 or 4 minutes are ridiculous.

Call me a cynic but somehow I don't think we are going to operate VAR better than the English Premiership does.

[FirParkCornerExile]

On 10/13/2022 at 1:38 PM, joewarkfanclub said:

If it is only used to correct "clear and obvious" errors, then I think we should be ok.

If we start measuring offside decisions by the bawhair and penalties by interperetaion, then it could quickly turn into a farce.

Hopefully it will enhance the game. Fingers crossed.

Offside is a very easy one to control and measure. The Governing body deems at the outset the measurement for  offside, if it a big toe then so be it. If every decision is measured to the big toe we have consistency.  The difficulty arises if you leave it to people's judgement and the VAR cameras can , for offside, get it right 99.9% of the time if the scope is clearly defined.

[Mad Dog]

On 10/16/2022 at 2:39 PM, Ya Bezzer! said:

Call me a cynic but somehow I don't think we are going to operate VAR better than the English Premiership does.

Well this kind of backs up your opinion. VAR is doomed before it even starts.

[SteelmaninOZ]

2 hours ago, Mad Dog said:

Well this kind of backs up your opinion. VAR is doomed before it even starts.

Fucked before it starts.