wellgirl Posted March 19 Report Share Posted March 19 29 minutes ago, robsterwood said: Just seen highlights of the goal. Panel all agree it should have been given and also there should have been a Well penalty. That var system could cost us top 6. But we've had VAR decisions that have worked in our favour too. I completely agree that goal should have been given but we've benefited from VAR over this season too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yabba's Turd Posted March 19 Report Share Posted March 19 You're saying we got a benefit from a wrong decision? Don't recall many of those Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsterwood Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 2 hours ago, wellgirl said: But we've had VAR decisions that have worked in our favour too. I completely agree that goal should have been given but we've benefited from VAR over this season too Want consistency. The hand ball rule should be looked at. It keeps getting interpreted differently. I rather we win fair than got unfair decisions too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuwell2 Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 It would be interesting to see what the league table would look like if the goals/penalties that were allowed/disallowed were left as the original on field decisions. would we be better off or worse off? Obviously this would still be inaccurate as sending offs etc which potential changed games can’t be taken into account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 5 hours ago, Yabba's Turd said: You're saying we got a benefit from a wrong decision? Don't recall many of those Yes. There was a list online a couple of months ago showing decisions given that were later shown that shouldn't have stood for all the spl clubs. Think two penalties for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellsince75 Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 VAR - hands up for those who think it's enhanced the game. ???................ Given the clubs are funding this, it would be reasonable for them to vote on whether it stays, goes or changes. If changes it would have to be used sparingly for obvious errors only, and frankly offers very little value. Other than giving us something else to moan and groan about I don't see any tangible value. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 50 minutes ago, wellsince75 said: VAR - hands up for those who think it's enhanced the game. ???................ Given the clubs are funding this, it would be reasonable for them to vote on whether it stays, goes or changes. If changes it would have to be used sparingly for obvious errors only, and frankly offers very little value. Other than giving us something else to moan and groan about I don't see any tangible value. If VAR was used for its original intended purpose, ie clear and obvious errors in the build up to goals, the technology was the best available and the VAR officials were fully trained and competent then it could be a very useful aid to referees etc. This along with full disclosure after the game on the reasons for decisions made, referees being allowed to explain the reasoning etc, would improve the game and fan experience. However what we got in Scotland was a hastily cobbled together shambles of suspect technology, inconsistent application of the laws of the game, poorly trained officials and a culture of secrecy with no explanations or censure for blatantly bad decisions. So until the SFA admits it made a James Hunt of it and starts again to ensure its implemented and operated as it should be it will continue to ruin the game and fan experience, this of course assumes the SFA will take effective action but as we all know that won't happen, they have more important things to organise, ie the expenses paid freebies to Germany in the Summer for all the committee members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 7 hours ago, wellgirl said: Yes. There was a list online a couple of months ago showing decisions given that were later shown that shouldn't have stood for all the spl clubs. Think two penalties for us. There was indeed. One that was mentioned was a decision to rule out a Hearts goal at Tynecastle. Its also important to note that the scope of the "review" was limited to decisions made, not those that were missed. The list was a sample and as such "hand picked". There was no mention, for example, of the last minute penalty claim against Aberdeen which was missed because the cameras were switched off before the end of the game. I would take that list with a spoonful of salt. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 As much as the inconsistencies in interpreting the rules annoys me it's the time it takes that really boils my piss. I know both things are interlinked and sometimes a decision isn't always as clear cut as it seems but by christ a 3/4 minute lull in the game kills the atmosphere stone dead. More annoying if you're in the ascendancy at the time and you lose any momentum you have and yes, I realise that can work both ways but still shite from a spectators point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 1 hour ago, santheman said: As much as the inconsistencies in interpreting the rules annoys me it's the time it takes that really boils my piss. If it takes longer than 30 seconds to identify a clear and obvious error via VAR, then it's not a clear and obvious error and play should continue. It's that simple, but the twats in the video booth are intent on re-refereeing games to justify their stolen wage and fuel their self-important incompetence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 What needs to be addressed is that two of our most experienced officials either do not know the Laws of the game or chose to ignore them. Both options are shocking. Yes, the time taken is nonsense. Yes, all teams have benefited or lost out at times,us included. But the arrogant refusal by the Authorities to address incompetence (at best) is an insult to every single fan who pays hard earned money to support football. Ourselves, Hearts, Hibs, St Mirren, St Johnstone have all suffered decisions that go way beyond simple human error or interpretation. But nothing changes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirParkCornerExile Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 6 hours ago, santheman said: As much as the inconsistencies in interpreting the rules annoys me it's the time it takes that really boils my piss. I know both things are interlinked and sometimes a decision isn't always as clear cut as it seems but by christ a 3/4 minute lull in the game kills the atmosphere stone dead. More annoying if you're in the ascendancy at the time and you lose any momentum you have and yes, I realise that can work both ways but still shite from a spectators point of view. If it take 3/4 minutes to decide, its not a clear and obvious error the decision should stand. They should have 90 seconds to review any incident if they cant make the call by the 90 second mark the original decision stands. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJC Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 The club have released a statement “seeking an explanation from the SFA on a number of refereeing decisions”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbybingo Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 The decision was deliberate handball. Utter bollocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelman1991 Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 I smell shit - that's bollocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 As we all knew it would be. A cover up and no accountability. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuwell2 Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 I don’t like the time it takes to make a decision but if they have to review 3 or 4 cameras then recheck to confirm things to avoid mistakes then - no matter how pissed off I feel I can accept that - BUT to take so long and then make the wrong decision is incompetence and that should get them removed from the job. The thing is tv footage can be reviewed anywhere so why not have foreign retired refs (who have no affiliation to the incompetent clique we have or Scottish clubs) do the review’s. Mistakes will probably still be made but we would know that they were honest mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.