Motherwell v Celtic 09/11/2022

[Spiderpig]

37 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:

 

I thought VAR was a good idea at the start, but I got sick of it long before it arrived here. Should've known any attempt to introduce logic into football was doomed.

That was my thoughts as well , I was all for it naively  believing it would improve the standard of refereeing, but a few weeks in and its obvious it has not improved anything.

Technology is only as good as the people using it and in Scotland the standard was woeful to start with, also given the speed with which VAR was introduced I think Scotland got the bargin basement version with limited camera's etc . So if you add this to the incompetence of the operators its no surprise we are seeing errors week in week out.

 

[bobbybingo]

11 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

Technology is only as good as the people using it and in Scotland the standard was woeful to start with, also given the speed with which VAR was introduced I think Scotland got the bargin basement version with limited camera's etc . So if you add this to the incompetence of the operators its no surprise we are seeing errors week in week out.

 

Supposed to be James Bond technology. We bought it from Austin Powers and handed it to Frank Drebin.

[MJC]

Like everything else Scottish football does VAR is a shambles. The footballing authorities in this country couldn’t run a tap.

[Spit_It_Out]

Doesn't really matter this VAR and that VAR when you loose utterly pathetic goals like the first Celtic one it's utterly shameful.

Let's not use VAR as an excuse pretty sure  over the break they will look at the talking points that's been caused by it so far.

But let's be honest buck stops with the players and manager if you are not going to do basics it doesn't matter a hoot!

Edited November 10, 2022 by Spit_It_Out

[bobbybingo]

11 minutes ago, Spit_It_Out said:

Doesn't really matter this VAR and that VAR when you loose utterly pathetic goals like the first Celtic one it's utterly shameful.

Let's not use VAR as an excuse pretty sure it over the break they will look at the talking points that's been caused by it so far.

But let's be honest buck stops with the players and manager if you are not going to do basics it doesn't matter a hoot!

Really disappointed this morning. We got a doing possession wise, but it was there for us to take something last night. Celtic weren't firing on all cylinders. Gonnae have to start picking up points from anywhere we can scramble them, because I wouldn't bet on this squad in a fight.

[wellfan]

2 hours ago, GrahamH said:

I thought it was more that his knee jot jarred in the collision with Mooy.  Looked as if his foot was planted and he took the impact hyper extended his knee. However, I didn’t see what the physio was treating so it may have been his ankle.

It was difficult to tell whether it was his ankle or knee from the camera angles, but it looked a bad one regardless. 

[Stevie73]

Why is all the talk about the Jota goal and nothing about the shy that led to their second goal, the guy was clearly off the park when it hits him and falls kindly to Turnbull. Is that not a retake. ???

 

[mfc88]

The worst thing about the throw in incident for me is that, whatever you think of it being contentious or not, an accident, a mistake, whatever, it was an obviously dubious moment at the time. Easy to see and an easy decision to give before the play continues any further.

Had that throw been retaken at the time, no one in the world would have questioned it. Let it go to var and f**k only knows what comes of it. But the point is it didn't need to, it was the easiest decision for collum or linesman to give at the time, why the f**k did they not??

[wellwell91]

28 minutes ago, mfc88 said:

The worst thing about the throw in incident for me is that, whatever you think of it being contentious or not, an accident, a mistake, whatever, it was an obviously dubious moment at the time. Easy to see and an easy decision to give before the play continues any further.

Had that throw been retaken at the time, no one in the world would have questioned it. Let it go to var and f**k only knows what comes of it. But the point is it didn't need to, it was the easiest decision for collum or linesman to give at the time, why the f**k did they not??

Never mind Collum or the linesman it happened right in front of the 4th official ……… Could someone pease tell me what is the point of them apart from holding up a board that 9 times out of 10 they cannot work it correctly 

[wellup83]

2 hours ago, bobbybingo said:

Supposed to be James Bond technology. We bought it from Austin Powers and handed it to Frank Drebin.

https://media.tenor.com/5fTXcbu5_x0AAAAM/please-disperse.gif

[mcguru]

1 hour ago, Stevie73 said:

Why is all the talk about the Jota goal and nothing about the shy that led to their second goal, the guy was clearly off the park when it hits him and falls kindly to Turnbull. Is that not a retake. ???

 

Certainly is. I only saw one quick replay of it and it looked like when it hit the Celtic player the ball had not yet entered the field of play, so yes re-take.

Don't know if VAR is obliged to or should it not be good practice anyway but just show us the freeze frame they’re using to determine if throw in legal or not.

[ppower]

14 hours ago, Spiderpig said:

Its irrelevant whether his head moved or not,he walked right in front of Penny ffs and basically impeded his throw, oh and there was no way he was 2 yds away from penney, so the throw in should have been retaken and hence the goal was invalid, but when we have incompetent arseholes as VAR officials they see nothing wrong its a fekin joke.

Once the play develops into another phase the goal can not be disallowed.  That's the rule. 

[ppower]

We can all point the finger at VAR as can probably every other team. Our current league position is easy to explain. We have played 15 games and scored 19 goals. 10 of those goals have come in 3 games.   So, in 12 games we have scored 9 goals. 4 have been penalties. Therefore from open play we have scored 5 goals in 12 games. That why we are dropping like a stone.  We don't create enough chances,(poor midfield)  and when we do we don't convert. In the cast majority of our games we have either not scored or scored 1 goal. I don't see that changing. That will keep us in the bottom six at best. At worst, well that's obvious. 

[Alpha1886]

22 minutes ago, ppower said:

Once the play develops into another phase the goal can not be disallowed.  That's the rule. 

Not the way they apply it in England.

[texanwellfan]

Once again if we had some communications from the referee organization it would help. Might not agree with their answer but at least you would have the reasoning behind it. 

[Coatsy]

No one is questioning Penny for taking the throw in with a player so close just VAR nonsense

[claretband]

  15 hours ago, bobbybingo said:

No, I'm no at the wind up. Here it is in black and white:

If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue

 

That last part can't be right surely?

[bobbybingo]

15 minutes ago, claretband said:

  15 hours ago, bobbybingo said:

No, I'm no at the wind up. Here it is in black and white:

If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue

 

That last part can't be right surely?

Law 13. If they try to prevent it being taken, it's a booking. If they intercept the pass, play continues.

[grizzlyg]

44 minutes ago, Coatsy said:

No one is questioning Penny for taking the throw in with a player so close just VAR nonsense

Yup I said same last night, just needed simple throw back to Lamie. But Penney been great signing so far so I will cut him some slack 

[Spiderpig]

2 hours ago, ppower said:

Once the play develops into another phase the goal can not be disallowed.  That's the rule. 

Every goal is checked and  if the start of the play that led to the goal, ie the Celtic player heading the ball illegally to a team mate and 2 passes later its in the net, then the goal should not have stood.

It's no different to commiting a foul on a player then 2 passes later your team scores, it is a clear and obvious error and that's what VAR is there for that's their remit allegedly.  The illegal throw in was a clear and obvious error that led to a goal so it should not have stood.

If Celtic had not scored from it nobody would give a toss, but they did and thats why it should have been disallowed.

[texanwellfan]

47 minutes ago, claretband said:

  15 hours ago, bobbybingo said:

No, I'm no at the wind up. Here it is in black and white:

If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue

 

That last part can't be right surely?

Those 2 statements contradict each other. Unless they mean ( which they don’t state) in the first instance the player takes the free kick “slowly”? Or after the ref blows the whistle?  The second statement is bullshit. It might be right and it might be the rules but it’s a bullshit rule. It should be a straightforward rule that none of the offending team can touch the ball within 10 yards of the free kick. Responsibility should be on them to retreat 10 yards and not allow them to gain advantage by intercepting a quick free kick. First statement pretty much says it, if u r within 10 Yards when kick is taken the free kick should be retaken so how can that align with second statement???

[spudmfc]

16 hours ago, grizzlyg said:

Appreciate your view spud but I don't think fighting is a word that can be attributed to KVV, just never looks up for it and hardly breaks sweat. If injured then best not starting 

I get that,but the option may b an even less fit Louie moult.

[bobbybingo]

46 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

Those 2 statements contradict each other. Unless they mean ( which they don’t state) in the first instance the player takes the free kick “slowly”? Or after the ref blows the whistle?  The second statement is bullshit. It might be right and it might be the rules but it’s a bullshit rule. It should be a straightforward rule that none of the offending team can touch the ball within 10 yards of the free kick. Responsibility should be on them to retreat 10 yards and not allow them to gain advantage by intercepting a quick free kick. First statement pretty much says it, if u r within 10 Yards when kick is taken the free kick should be retaken so how can that align with second statement???

I don't see the problem. If the attacking team tries to gain an advantage by taking a quick free kick before the defenders have a chance to retreat 10 yards, and they make an arse of it, tough luck. It was their decision, so why should they get to take it again? The alternative would be to ban quick free kicks.

[wellwell91]

3 hours ago, claretband said:

  15 hours ago, bobbybingo said:

No, I'm no at the wind up. Here it is in black and white:

If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue

 

That last part can't be right surely?

The problem is the Celtic player was not on the field of play when he diverted the ball to another Celtic player 

[texanwellfan]

Problem is, having already slowed the other team down by committing a foul, the offending team linger within the 10 yard distance stopping or discouraging the team awarded the free kick from getting any advantage without incurring a risk of loosing possession. Additionally the first sentence literally states that the kick should be retaken if an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance. They either need to remove one of the sentences or tidy up their wording.