VAR

[Jamie_M]

Well, well, well...

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/mortons-var-vindication-rangers-penalty-29203597

[SpoonTon]

I've said this before, but VAR has just been extra exposure for the poor decision making of Scottish referees. Absolutely no-one wants long waits, with VAR and then the referee watching slow-motion replays of borderline decisions, just to show that they are really bad at interpreting the game and the rules. 

And then we're left with referees at our level who can't even always remember which way teams are shooting. 

 

[Cet Homme Charmant]

The VAR penalty decision against us in the Celtic game just confirmed to me that it does nothing to reduce the level of incompetency of Scottish officials. In fact, if anything, it's made it even worse, as in this example. 

[bob_the_builder]

The issue isn't VAR and it isn't the referees (to some extent, I agree they're still pish), it's the rules that are mental.  See the below bold parts.  Going by those rules, each decision, ours at Celtic and Partick's at Rangers, were both correct (by the letter of the law).  So if Ambrose or Colak had their arms taped to their sides neither would've been a penalty.  Nuts.

I said this on another thread but, thanks to the paranoia twins constant gripes about refereeing decisions against them, Scottish football now requires rules that takes the referee's interpretation out of the equation and they can't be deemed to be biased or corrupt.

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/updates-to-laws-of-the-game-2019-20/

Handball – Law 12

Changes
Deliberate handball remains an offence.

The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:

• The ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm.
• A player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity.
• The ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger.
• The ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm).

The following will not usually be a free kick, unless they are one of the above situations:

• The ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near.
• The ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger.
• If a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body bigger)
• If the goalkeeper attempts to ‘clear’ (release into play) a throw-in or deliberate kick from a team-mate but the ‘clearance’ fails, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball

[SpoonTon]

19 minutes ago, bob_the_builder said:

The issue isn't VAR and it isn't the referees (to some extent, I agree they're still pish), it's the rules that are mental.  See the below bold parts.  Going by those rules, each decision, ours at Celtic and Partick's at Rangers, were both correct (by the letter of the law).  So if Ambrose or Colak had their arms taped to their sides neither would've been a penalty.  Nuts.

I said this on another thread but, thanks to the paranoia twins constant gripes about refereeing decisions against them, Scottish football now requires rules that takes the referee's interpretation out of the equation and they can't be deemed to be biased or corrupt.

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/updates-to-laws-of-the-game-2019-20/

Handball – Law 12

Changes
Deliberate handball remains an offence.

The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:

• The ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm.
• A player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity.
• The ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger.
• The ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm).

The following will not usually be a free kick, unless they are one of the above situations:

• The ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near.
• The ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger.
• If a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body bigger)
• If the goalkeeper attempts to ‘clear’ (release into play) a throw-in or deliberate kick from a team-mate but the ‘clearance’ fails, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball

I really disagree with this. There's massive room for interpretation with the rules, it's a very subjective judgment, and it's exactly the point I made about poor interpretation of rules. In Efe's case the movement of the arm is completely natural because he is turning his body in reaction to a shot which has gone low away from him to his right. It's perfectly natural in that movement that your arm will go slightly out and behind (as it did with Efe). Swivel to the right and your arm will move slightly - unless you are (unnaturally) trying to keep the ball tight to your body (which Efe had no reason to do with the ball moving away from him). 

If the shot had been struck directly at Efe and he still moved his arm out from his body, then there is an argument for a penalty - still subjective though, because the referee has to make a judgement on how close to his body his arm should reasonably be in that natural movement. And this is where I think VAR and the referee went wrong with the Efe decision. They have got so caught up in trying to decide whether Efe should have his hand closer by his side or not they have lost sight of two very important things - one is that it is reasonable to assume that Efe's movement of the arm is caused by a reaction to a shot being struck low away from his right, and two that the rule is there to account for players making their body bigger by not taking care with their arm position to block a shot, pass or cross.

What it all comes back to is a highly subjective decision on whether or not Efe's arm movement was reasonably in a natural position for what was happening in the match. There's no evidence to suggest that the slight movement of his arm wasn't caused by a natural reaction to a shot going away from him. The bottom line is that there is no reason in the rules to call this would have to be a penalty. VAR and the referee have, presumably, ended up being obsessed by arm position and lost sight of context - it is a terrible judgement which shows just how poor Scottish referees can be at relating what the rules say to what happens in in-game situations. There was no need for VAR to break up the game interfere in such a subjective judgement. 

 

[Jamie_M]

52 minutes ago, bob_the_builder said:

 

The following will not usually be a free kick, unless they are one of the above situations:

• The ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near.

You missed this bit though - which makes the Efe one not a penalty.

[bob_the_builder]

1 hour ago, SpoonTon said:

I really disagree with this. There's massive room for interpretation with the rules, it's a very subjective judgment, and it's exactly the point I made about poor interpretation of rules. In Efe's case the movement of the arm is completely natural because he is turning his body in reaction to a shot which has gone low away from him to his right. It's perfectly natural in that movement that your arm will go slightly out and behind (as it did with Efe). Swivel to the right and your arm will move slightly - unless you are (unnaturally) trying to keep the ball tight to your body (which Efe had no reason to do with the ball moving away from him). 

If the shot had been struck directly at Efe and he still moved his arm out from his body, then there is an argument for a penalty - still subjective though, because the referee has to make a judgement on how close to his body his arm should reasonably be in that natural movement. And this is where I think VAR and the referee went wrong with the Efe decision. They have got so caught up in trying to decide whether Efe should have his hand closer by his side or not they have lost sight of two very important things - one is that it is reasonable to assume that Efe's movement of the arm is caused by a reaction to a shot being struck low away from his right, and two that the rule is there to account for players making their body bigger by not taking care with their arm position to block a shot, pass or cross.

What it all comes back to is a highly subjective decision on whether or not Efe's arm movement was reasonably in a natural position for what was happening in the match. There's no evidence to suggest that the slight movement of his arm wasn't caused by a natural reaction to a shot going away from him. The bottom line is that there is no reason in the rules to call this would have to be a penalty. VAR and the referee have, presumably, ended up being obsessed by arm position and lost sight of context - it is a terrible judgement which shows just how poor Scottish referees can be at relating what the rules say to what happens in in-game situations. There was no need for VAR to break up the game interfere in such a subjective judgement. 

 

I get what you're saying, and I agree with you, but if I remember rightly Efe's arm was simply out at an angle and going by what's written that makes him unnaturally bigger and why the ref gave it. Same at Ibrox the other night and same against Celtic on two occasions earlier in the season.  It's why I said the players needed to have their arms taped to their sides for it not to have been a penalty because their arm movements were totally natural and there was nothing they could do otherwise.

1 hour ago, Jamie_M said:

You missed this bit though - which makes the Efe one not a penalty.

Fair point, well spotted.

[so72]

Having VAR has put to bed any defence the SFA could think of for the absolute travesty that is this country's refereeing standards. Hopefully the exposure these decisions are getting will lead to a plan to improve the refs. 

 

Interesting that the Premier League clubs in England want AI offsides. I'd welcome that up here if the technology is good. Less human involvement from the likes of Collum, the better.

[SpoonTon]

2 hours ago, bob_the_builder said:

I get what you're saying, and I agree with you, but if I remember rightly Efe's arm was simply out at an angle and going by what's written that makes him unnaturally bigger and why the ref gave it. Same at Ibrox the other night and same against Celtic on two occasions earlier in the season.  It's why I said the players needed to have their arms taped to their sides for it not to have been a penalty because their arm movements were totally natural and there was nothing they could do otherwise.

 

Note that the second frame is before the ball strikes his hand. Efe's hand is down by his side until the ball passes him and he turns to look. I could add more frames and angles, but I think I'd be overdoing it. The angle from behind is even better at showing that Efe's hand is right down by his side until after the ball passes him. This makes the deflection off Baird the relevant touch, and Efe cannot possibly anticipate that. The position of the arm is quite natural for that movement and he could not possibly be asked to have his arm unnaturally down by his side for a movement of the ball he could not reasonably anticipate. 

[TRVMP]

2 minutes ago, SpoonTon said:

Note that the second frame is before the ball strikes his hand. Efe's hand is down by his side until the ball passes him and he turns to look. I could add more frames and angles, but I think I'd be overdoing it. The angle from behind is even better at showing that Efe's hand is right down by his side until after the ball passes him. This makes the deflection off Baird the relevant touch, and Efe cannot possibly anticipate that. The position of the arm is quite natural for that movement and he could not possibly be asked to have his arm unnaturally down by his side for a movement of the ball he could not reasonably anticipate. 

The rub is that, per your first post, there is a difference between Efe's arm being in a natural position and the arm expanding the size of the body. It is, per the rules, possible for us to say "Efe is doing his best to control his arm based on the movement of the ball" but also say "but simply because of the way physics work, his body is necessarily bigger."

I can see why the refs are confused. "Unnaturally bigger" is clearly the criterion they were working off here. Efe's arm is out, so they think his body's unnaturally bigger, so they give it, even though clearly he is doing his absolute best to keep his arms down and in.

[SpoonTon]

2 minutes ago, TRVMP said:

The rub is that, per your first post, there is a difference between Efe's arm being in a natural position and the arm expanding the size of the body. It is, per the rules, possible for us to say "Efe is doing his best to control his arm based on the movement of the ball" but also say "but simply because of the way physics work, his body is necessarily bigger."

I can see why the refs are confused. "Unnaturally bigger" is clearly the criterion they were working off here. Efe's arm is out, so they think his body's unnaturally bigger, so they give it, even though clearly he is doing his absolute best to keep his arms down and in.

I agree, and it's obvious that they've got hung up on the position of his arm when the ball strikes it. Scottish referees have a habit of trying to interpret rules in a very literal way when it's not actually reasonable to do so (the problem with straight red cards for violent conduct a couple of year ago being an example of that, when they got very hung up on a particular change in the wording). 

The reasonable consequence of the referees' interpretation of the handball rule would be for players to play with their arms taped to their sides, forcing the arms to never make their body bigger, which would obviously be ridiculous. It requires understanding where arms should reasonably be. 

[TRVMP]

5 minutes ago, SpoonTon said:

I agree, and it's obvious that they've got hung up on the position of his arm when the ball strikes it. Scottish referees have a habit of trying to interpret rules in a very literal way when it's not actually reasonable to do so (the problem with straight red cards for violent conduct a couple of year ago being an example of that, when they got very hung up on a particular change in the wording). 

The reasonable consequence of the referees' interpretation of the handball rule would be for players to play with their arms taped to their sides, forcing the arms to never make their body bigger, which would obviously be ridiculous. It requires understanding where arms should reasonably be. 

This is absolutely correct. Football is miles behind the curve on this, an actual, game-wide understanding of how bodies work and how physics work.

It's probably because it's more important to the game - it's the action that begins literally every play - but for all that cricket is a dreadful sport they've cracked it as far as bowling action is concerned. If a bowler is suspected to be chucking (i.e. adjusting the angle of the elbow, straightening it, as the hand reaches the shoulder) then there are all kinds of reviews and measurements brought to bear on the situation, and they have a very clear 15-degree limit on this, something that can be measured. That 15 degree measurement isn't arbitrary; it took years of development and diligent study to get there.

In a real-time sport like football we'll never be able to be so precise, but we really need something slightly more measurable than 'unnaturally bigger'. Depending on how a player is standing and how they were moving and from which direction the ball is coming from, there are physical limits on how still or how low a player can keep their arms. Football simply has chosen not to do that work.

[GiGi]

Lots of long-winded ways to say our referees are wank and The Famous have been egregiously wronged by the footballing authorities in this country.

[TRVMP]

53 minutes ago, GiGi said:

Lots of long-winded ways to say our referees are wank and The Famous have been egregiously wronged by the footballing authorities in this country.

I'm not saying they aren't wank. I'm saying the Laws are insufficient for what the game has begun, and even absolutely shan, made-up games like "cricket" don't have this problem.

[capitanus]

On the subject of VAR and the Harbourers, this made me chuckle today:

https://images.app.goo.gl/6cCjwGXq7eG19m7Q7