Celtics Disallowed Goal

[O'Rourke3]

I might be wrong but I thought he allowed them to carry on and it was only when we got the ball back in a decent situation the ref decided to stop play .This

Sent from my Tab 12 Pro using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

Yeah, I can see why people are saying it's not clear if the ball



28559

I think the blur behind the ball shows it is still travelling in the out of play direction .
Can we see the next couple of frames.

[Eyrie]

I might be wrong but I thought he allowed them to carry on and it was only when we got the ball back in a decent situation the ref decided to stop play .

Which is my point, and the bit I bolded in your original post.

Celtc were allowed to attack when it was their player down, so why should we be disadvantaged?

Would McLean have stopped the game if Rocky had collapsed when he was hirpling back on his way to making the goal line clearance?

[ancient hibee]

This is an interesting thread. However I opened the paper on Sunday and was pleased to see that we won 2-1:greengrin.

[Speedy]

Do you remember the Japan goal from WC2022?

Goal line technology has (had) a surprisingly large margin for error.

That's why Hawkeye in tennis was always a computer generated image, not a real image.

[Speedy]

:agree:

It looks out. The linesman has done the correct thing by letting play develop and VAR to make the call though as he’s no chance of knowing either way.

I disagree with this point as much as I disagree with the VAR decision to overturn.

The ideal with VAR is that it shouldn't overturn the onfield decision unless it is clear cut. That shouldn't give the online officials an excuse to back out of a difficult decision.

[LaMotta]

I think the blur behind the ball shows it is still travelling in the out of play direction .
Can we see the next couple of frames.


You can see it here:

https://x.com/Barlosthecat/status/1893643969495466035

Looks conclusively out, correct decision by VAR. Time to move on.

[Speedy]

Looks out, aye. Can't prove it though.

Pretty sure it is possible to prove it.

Whether our our footballing authority can or not is another question.

It is without a doubt possible to prove in or out based on the images available though.

[gbhibby]

We seem to he going round in circles on the thread. Is it done now?

[ChilliEater]

We seem to he going round in circles on the thread. Is it done now?

But you can't prove it's circles. It could be ovals viewed from a different angle 🤔

[Donegal Hibby]

Which is my point, and the bit I bolded in your original post.

Celtc were allowed to attack when it was their player down, so why should we be disadvantaged?

Would McLean have stopped the game if Rocky had collapsed when he was hirpling back on his way to making the goal line clearance?

It wasn’t a head injury and I don’t think the player even needed treatment but was basically not getting up so he could get his point across in trying to get our player sent off so I don’t think play should have been stopped at all .

It’s very hard to predict what McLean would have done if Rocky had collapsed when hirpling back , probably allowed Celtic to carry on with their attack I’d guess at as he and the linesman made more than their share of baffling decisions.

[FastEddieFelson]

Pretty sure it is possible to prove it.

Whether our our footballing authority can or not is another question.

It is without a doubt possible to prove in or out based on the images available though.

There aren't any images at an appropriate angle and of sufficient quality to conclude, without doubt, whether it was in or out.

[FastEddieFelson]

You can see it here:

https://x.com/Barlosthecat/status/1893643969495466035

Looks conclusively out, correct decision by VAR. Time to move on.

Looks out, aye. Is that enough for you for VAR to overturn refereeing decisions? Because it isn't for me.

Looking forward to this official review to see how they justify it.

[BILLYHIBS]

Firmly in the ball was out camp and is now confined to the history books but not so sure now after watching this

https://x.com/kevinmilesaway/status/1893616218738659779?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1893616218738659779%7Ctwgr% 5E2cdef1faf76d2d4dcc881c37df77d6a15e5014d8%7Ctwcon %5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.celticway.co.uk%2Fsport% 2F24956751.hibs-vs-celtic-var-call-laid-bare-incredible-new-footage%2F


Thoughts. ?

[BILLYHIBS]

This is an interesting thread. However I opened the paper on Sunday and was pleased to see that we won 2-1:greengrin.

Do you still buy papers ? 😀

[Pagan Hibernia]

Firmly in the ball was out camp and is now confined to the history books but not so sure now after watching this

https://x.com/kevinmilesaway/status/1893616218738659779?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1893616218738659779%7Ctwgr% 5E2cdef1faf76d2d4dcc881c37df77d6a15e5014d8%7Ctwcon %5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.celticway.co.uk%2Fsport% 2F24956751.hibs-vs-celtic-var-call-laid-bare-incredible-new-footage%2F


Thoughts. ?

What really stands out for me there is how poorly we've defended it. FFS Hibs play to the whistle. There's no way they should have been able to score from that cross with the amount of hibs players between the ball and a celtic player.

[LaMotta]

Firmly in the ball was out camp and is now confined to the history books but not so sure now after watching this

https://x.com/kevinmilesaway/status/1893616218738659779?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1893616218738659779%7Ctwgr% 5E2cdef1faf76d2d4dcc881c37df77d6a15e5014d8%7Ctwcon %5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.celticway.co.uk%2Fsport% 2F24956751.hibs-vs-celtic-var-call-laid-bare-incredible-new-footage%2F


Thoughts. ?

Thoughts are you can't tell because his leg is covering the ball and the line. The shadow of the ball also makes it look bigger. The other angle posted above is a better angle.

[LaMotta]

Looks out, aye. Is that enough for you for VAR to overturn refereeing decisions? Because it isn't for me.

Looking forward to this official review to see how they justify it.

Of course it is.

[Centre Hawf]

If you look at the Sky one and compare how much grass there is between the ball and the line there looks a fair amount more in Saturday's than the Sky one and Sky's is when the ball is in by the slightest baw hair. Though admittedly Saturday's picture quality isn't so sharp and the angle is different.

https://i.ibb.co/CKhnSng8/Screenshot-20250223-233948-Chrome.jpg (https://ibb.co/r24ZXZY0)

https://i.ibb.co/2YKbXSQP/Screenshot-20250223-233954-Chrome.jpg (https://ibb.co/R4H5LNmP)

https://i.ibb.co/nMpmJ2Yk/Screenshot-20250224-012136-Gallery.jpg (https://ibb.co/KxnhvZfy)

You're showing me this as if it's proof though. It isn't. Do I think it's out of play? I believe it may well be more than it isn't. Do we know it's out of play from any of the photos you've shown me? Absolutely not. And if McClean wants to give a goal because he and his linesman (whose positioning is a different topic altogether on ineptitude) say they thought it was still in then VAR can't look at it and say they're wrong.

This is where I have sympathy with Rodgers because if it was us having this goal disallowed and VAR have ultimately guessed at what they think is right, i would be absolutely livid if something like that ended our unbeaten run or cost us 3rd.

[flash]

You're showing me this as if it's proof though. It isn't. Do I think it's out of play? I believe it may well be more than it isn't. Do we know it's out of play from any of the photos you've shown me? Absolutely not. And if McClean wants to give a goal because he and his linesman (whose positioning is a different topic altogether on ineptitude) say they thought it was still in then VAR can't look at it and say they're wrong.

This is where I have sympathy with Rodgers because if it was us having this goal disallowed and VAR have ultimately guessed at what they think is right, i would be absolutely livid if something like that ended our unbeaten run or cost us 3rd.

Alternatively if the goal was given and Celtic went on to win the game would you not be raging?

[BILLYHIBS]

What really stands out for me there is how poorly we've defended it. FFS Hibs play to the whistle. There's no way they should have been able to score from that cross with the amount of hibs players between the ball and a celtic player.

Totally agree big fan of Smith and he has won me over but was back to looking like someone’s Dad helping us out in goal again for both Celtic goal incidents needs to tighten up and remain focused

[Centre Hawf]

Alternatively if the goal was given and Celtic went on to win the game would you not be raging?

I don't know if the ball is in or out so I would have to accept whatever the on field decision was at the time. If that's 'Ref: Goal VAR: Goal' then so be it.

I'd be as raging as Rodgers is if McClean DIDN'T award the goal and VAR overturned that and gave it to Celtic. Which is basically the similar scenario Celtic are in but in reverse.

I can be bias and delighted it's fell in our favour on this occasion, but I'm not going to completely interoperate the laws differently to how they should be applied, no one is taking the three points from us. It's okay to admit we might have got a bit of good fortune in this scenario.

[flash]

I don't know if the ball is in or out so I would have to accept whatever the on field decision was at the time. If that's 'Ref: Goal VAR: Goal' then so be it.

I'd be as raging as Rodgers is if McClean DIDN'T award the goal and VAR overturned that and gave it to Celtic. Which is basically the similar scenario Celtic are in but in reverse.

I can be bias and delighted it's fell in our favour on this occasion, but I'm not going to completely interoperate the laws differently to how they should be applied, no one is taking the three points from us. It's okay to admit we might have got a bit of good fortune in this scenario.
Except we didn't because the ball was out.

[Centre Hawf]

Except we didn't because the ball was out.

Going round in circles here I think. If people can look at the photo and say it's out then fine, more power to them. But for me it's next to impossible to say definitively and that's where I stand on it as a decision.

If VAR come out and say they're happy still with the decision as they believe it's out based on the evidence we've all seen, I'll gladly take it and listen to Celtic greet for however long they continue to do so, but it would be another red flag on the ineptitude of our officials and our VAR that will one day go against us again and these debates will continue on unless we all just call out the incorrect use of it as it happens.

[Paulie Walnuts]

I disagree with this point as much as I disagree with the VAR decision to overturn.

The ideal with VAR is that it shouldn't overturn the onfield decision unless it is clear cut. That shouldn't give the online officials an excuse to back out of a difficult decision.

Ultimately it’s got to be about coming to the correct decision. The linesman was never going to be able to do anything other than have a guess. Whilst there’s no way we can say with 100% certainty it was out due to the angle etc, it seems by far the most plausible situation upon a VAR review.

Whether that’s protocol with VAR or not, I’ve no idea, but it was used to come to what is probably about 90% certainty to be the correct decision. That’s fine by me.

[SaulGoodman]

Incredible that this is still being brought up by the media. Any other team in the league and this would’ve been forgotten about before full time.

Usual ***** from Celtic though. Easy to be patronising when you win every week “oh unlucky thought yous played well” don’t you dare beat them though.

Shower of *****.

[JimBHibees]

But you can't prove it's circles. It could be ovals viewed from a different angle 🤔

:greengrin

[Pagan Hibernia]

Incredible that this is still being brought up by the media. Any other team in the league and this would’ve been forgotten about before full time.

Usual ***** from Celtic though. Easy to be patronising when you win every week “oh unlucky thought yous played well” don’t you dare beat them though.

Shower of *****.

Imagine if we knock them out of the cup with a dodgy penalty decision or an offside goal that VAR doesn't overturn... I'd probably die laughing, but I'll tell you this, I'd die happy

[ian cruise]

Totally agree big fan of Smith and he has won me over but was back to looking like someone’s Dad helping us out in goal again for both Celtic goal incidents needs to tighten up and remain focused

I think we need to look at how much of the ball Celtic had in both halves and remember that it is a totally different game vs the rest of the league. It's much harder to maintain concentration when you're needing to be switched on 100 percent of the time.

It's why teams like Celtic are so successful in latter stages of the game, or score early goals. They come out switched on and ready to go and they stay that way.

[BILLYHIBS]

I think we need to look at how much of the ball Celtic had in both halves and remember that it is a totally different game vs the rest of the league. It's much harder to maintain concentration when you're needing to be switched on 100 percent of the time.

It's why teams like Celtic are so successful in latter stages of the game, or score early goals. They come out switched on and ready to go and they stay that way.
Smith did well first half handling and distribution were very good and had an excellent block from Johnson

He was unlucky with that miskicked through ball that came through with back spin and top spin Rocky seemed to duck and leave it for him to deal with

After watching Schmeichel in midweek pretty sure he would come for it and launch the ball and Maeda into the East if he was our goalie but he isn’t

Made a horlicks of the disallowed Celtic goal at the near post

[greenginger]

Looks out, aye. Is that enough for you for VAR to overturn refereeing decisions? Because it isn't for me.

Looking forward to this official review to see how they justify it.


Did VAR call the ref over to look at the screen ? I can’t remember.

If he did it was the ref making the final decision not VAR.

[Leithenhibby]

Did VAR call the ref over to look at the screen ? I can’t remember.

If he did it was the ref making the final decision not VAR.

The ref definitely didn’t go to the screen…

[Alfred E Newman]

Did VAR call the ref over to look at the screen ? I can’t remember.

If he did it was the ref making the final decision not VAR.

No, the ref did not go to the screen. I think the ref had his suspicions the ball was out but went with the inept linesman. When VAR told him it was out he reversed his decision.

[B.H.F.C]

:agree:

It looks out. The linesman has done the correct thing by letting play develop and VAR to make the call though as he’s no chance of knowing either way.

I really don’t think that was the reason the linesman kept his flag down. He was keen enough to stick the flag up and not leave it to VAR when it benefitted Celtic. The Campbell goal, the made up foul on Taylor by Boyle, the offside he gave against Campbell when we would have had a corner (appreciate that wouldn’t have went to VAR but it wasn’t offside).

[Chorley Hibee]

I really don’t think that was the reason the linesman kept his flag down. He was keen enough to stick the flag up and not leave it to VAR when it benefitted Celtic. The Campbell goal, the made up foul on Taylor by Boyle, the offside he gave against Campbell when we would have had a corner (appreciate that wouldn’t have went to VAR but it wasn’t offside).

Exactly.

I have no doubt that had that situation been Hibs attacking Celtic, his flag would have been up in the blink of an eye.

He kept the flag down because it was them.

It's quite incredible that having seen how bent those officials on the pitch were (against Hibs) that this has been turned into a conversation about the officials having done the dirty on Celtic.

It's laughable.

[JimBHibees]

Incredible that this is still being brought up by the media. Any other team in the league and this would’ve been forgotten about before full time.

Usual ***** from Celtic though. Easy to be patronising when you win every week “oh unlucky thought yous played well” don’t you dare beat them though.

Shower of *****.

Absolutely this and utterly incredible our blatant penalty the turning down of which should have led to them scoring is completely ignored. Being goalside of a defender who then bundled you over in the box isn’t a foul in McLean land

[JimBHibees]

No, the ref did not go to the screen. I think the ref had his suspicions the ball was out but went with the inept linesman. When VAR told him it was out he reversed his decision.

Deemed to be a factual decision

[Donegal Hibby]

I see Celtic have been in contact with the SFA over the disallowed goal . It’s typically Old Firm in kicking up a storm as everything is about them , seen it with Sevco over the Josh Campbell penalty too …

I wonder what Celtics reaction would have been if it had been us that scored it and the ball had been given as in would have been ? …

When you look at the game as a whole there were more decisions that went against us than them .. Boyle not getting a free kick , penalty incident that would more than likely be given at parkhead , nonsense in checking for a red card for Rocky etc. I still think the 8 minutes added time was OTT in all .

[Pagan Hibernia]

I see Celtic have been in contact with the SFA over the disallowed goal . It’s typically Old Firm in kicking up a storm as everything is about them , seen it with Sevco over the Josh Campbell penalty too …

I wonder what Celtics reaction would have been if it had been us that scored it and the ball had been given as in would have been ? …

When you look at the game as a whole there were more decisions that went against us than them .. Boyle not getting a free kick , penalty incident that would more than likely be given at parkhead , nonsense in checking for a red card for Rocky etc. I still think the 8 minutes added time was OTT in all .

We know what it would have been. The army of celtic bots all over social media would have ridiculed any hibs fan that tried to make anything out of it. Rodgers I would imagine, would have said very little.

[JeMeSouviens]

Did VAR call the ref over to look at the screen ? I can’t remember.

If he did it was the ref making the final decision not VAR.

They're not supposed to go to the screen for "factual" decisions - ball out of play, offside etc. They're only supposed to go for the subjective calls.

[Centre Hawf]

They're not supposed to go to the screen for "factual" decisions - ball out of play, offside etc. They're only supposed to go for the subjective calls.

They can be called over for factual decisions, they're just not required to do so.

[PatHead]

Can't believe this is the largest thread post match. We certainly have fallen for the media push.

Looks like we can't get over it as much as the Celtic fans.

Surely time to shut it down as nothing new is being said.

[Trinity Hibee]

Although it can’t be proven 100%, the pictures strongly indicate the ball was out of play so there is high probability the correct call was made.

Someone else has correctly said above, if it was the other way round, the linesman would have had his flag up straight away. Call it unconscious bias if you want but it happens with the officials in this country.

[FastEddieFelson]

Can't believe this is the largest thread post match. We certainly have fallen for the media push.

Looks like we can't get over it as much as the Celtic fans.

Surely time to shut it down as nothing new is being said.

To me this isn't about Hibs or Celtic. It's about the process being used in Scotland to retrospectively referee football matches, and I don't believe it's fit for purpose.

[SickBoy32]

To me this isn't about Hibs or Celtic. It's about the process being used in Scotland to retrospectively referee football matches, and I don't believe it's fit for purpose.

I agree VAR is not fit for purpose. I would argue that the on field officials are also not fit for purpose, which is why we are even debating this.

The ball was clearly out, in real time, and should’ve been an easy decision for the main stand linesman.

VAR has undoubtedly changed the way games are officiated. There is a reluctance from those on field to make big calls now IMO.

There is the added issue of a (very) small pool of competent officials, being diluted with lower league officials in order to have VAR in operation. I believe VAR requires an extra 18 officials every week 😂 Little wonder the decisions are getting worse and worse.

All of the above is also subject to the pretty blatant OF bias that we have all seen over the years.

[gbhibby]

To me this isn't about Hibs or Celtic. It's about the process being used in Scotland to retrospectively referee football matches, and I don't believe it's fit for purpose.

You seem to be missing the point, refs can overrule their linesman so he may have asked var to intervene as he thought it was out and because it has been quoted as a factual decision VAR must have evidence, by your logic VAR should not intervene in any offsides which lead to a goal.They can look at fouls committed in the build up to a goal so why not a ball being out of play if it has a material impact on a goal being scored.

[Thatdayinmay16]

Just read something to say they are in "ongoing talks" with the SFA about it.

Funnily enough I wonder if they'll mention to the SFA about the dodgy penalties they received last season at Easter Road or the absolutely abhorrent decision not to award us an absolute stuck on penalty against them in the dying minutes of a cup final a few years back.

Somehow I doubt those will be mentioned.

[Centre Hawf]

You seem to be missing the point, refs can overrule their linesman so he may have asked var to intervene as he thought it was out and because it has been quoted as a factual decision VAR must have evidence, by your logic VAR should not intervene in any offsides which lead to a goal.They can look at fouls committed in the build up to a goal so why not a ball being out of play if it has a material impact on a goal being scored.

The problem isn't that VAR had a look, it's how they've came to the decision that will be what is needing cleared up. If the ref has overruled his linesman and its his intention to disallow the goal and wants VAR to check if he's wrong then that is likely the only outcome where the protocol is followed correctly. They wouldn't even need evidence that the ball was out at that point to side with the ref in that situation as they also have no evidence that it was still in play, so on field decision can stand.

I suspect that fact that this debate has raged on (obviously thanks to Celtic going on and on about it) without them saying that this was the case or them supplying any new evidence to shut down the argument suggests to me that neither of these apply though.

Until the VAR audio or the process on how they got there is explained I think you're going to have this debate on it sadly.

[JeMeSouviens]

The problem isn't that VAR had a look, it's how they've came to the decision that will be what is needing cleared up. If the ref has overruled his linesman and its his intention to disallow the goal and wants VAR to check if he's wrong then that is likely the only outcome where the protocol is followed correctly. They wouldn't even need evidence that the ball was out at that point to side with the ref in that situation as they also have no evidence that it was still in play, so on field decision can stand.

I suspect that fact that this debate has raged on (obviously thanks to Celtic going on and on about it) without them saying that this was the case or them supplying any new evidence to shut down the argument suggests to me that neither of these apply though.

Until the VAR audio or the process on how they got there is explained I think you're going to have this debate on it sadly.

Yeah, wait for Wullie, I guess.

It's quite funny the reactions of the 2 sets of supporters online to what's obviously an arguable decision. Hibs fans debate it all ways. Celtc fans, to a man, vociferously attest they've been cheated by bigoted conspiracy.

[FastEddieFelson]

You seem to be missing the point, refs can overrule their linesman so he may have asked var to intervene as he thought it was out and because it has been quoted as a factual decision VAR must have evidence, by your logic VAR should not intervene in any offsides which lead to a goal.They can look at fouls committed in the build up to a goal so why not a ball being out of play if it has a material impact on a goal being scored.

I'm not saying it was wrong to check VAR. Of course they had to check VAR.

I'm saying it's wrong for VAR to make a "factual decision" based on the visual evidence we've seen. The angle and quality of the footage isn't good enough to say with 100% certainty that the ball was out.

[gbhibby]

I'm not saying it was wrong to check VAR. Of course they had to check VAR.

I'm saying it's wrong for VAR to make a "factual decision" based on the visual evidence we've seen. The angle and quality of the footage isn't good enough to say with 100% certainty that the ball was out.
Let's just wait for the VAR review to answer all points raised.

[Ray_]

I'm not saying it was wrong to check VAR. Of course they had to check VAR.

I'm saying it's wrong for VAR to make a "factual decision" based on the visual evidence we've seen. The angle and quality of the footage isn't good enough to say with 100% certainty that the ball was out.

Is that all the evidence they saw? We would have been [rightly] raging if the goal had been allowed, with the evidence we can see, especially at the say-so of an out-of-position linesman, who had already made several dodgy calls, in Celtic's favour.

[makaveli1875]

I'm not saying it was wrong to check VAR. Of course they had to check VAR.

I'm saying it's wrong for VAR to make a "factual decision" based on the visual evidence we've seen. The angle and quality of the footage isn't good enough to say with 100% certainty that the ball was out.

Do you honestly think the officials would have chopped a goal off of Celtic unless they were 100% certain . They'd have known the decision would be up for weeks of intense scrutiny and greeting from the media and Brendan

[JeMeSouviens]

Do you honestly think the officials would have chopped a goal off of Celtic unless they were 100% certain . They'd have known the decision would be up for weeks of intense scrutiny and greeting from the media and Brendan

I think it was Alan Muir on VAR, so tbh, all bets are off.

[Victor]

It was ruled out, we won. Discussion over.

[blackpoolhibs]

Did they have a goal disallowed?, not seen it mentioned anywhere
Trump says he's going to sort it.

[FastEddieFelson]

Is that all the evidence they saw? We would have been [rightly] raging if the goal had been allowed, with the evidence we can see, especially at the say-so of an out-of-position linesman, who had already made several dodgy calls, in Celtic's favour.

We're assuming it is, yes. If they had other footage they'd presumably have released it by now and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If the goal was allowed following a VAR review then yeah we'd have a right to feel aggrieved because the ball looks out.

Was it actually out? No one knows. That's my point.

[LaMotta]

To me this isn't about Hibs or Celtic. It's about the process being used in Scotland to retrospectively referee football matches, and I don't believe it's fit for purpose.

But then if that process didnt exist Josh Campbell's second goal would have been ruled out. How is that a better outcome?

Improvements need to be made, but binning it altogether would be mad. We'd have at least 2 extra derby wins on our record if VAR had been introduced a decade earlier.

[JohnM1875]

It was ruled out, we won. Discussion over.

Totally. 11 ****ing pages.

[Centre Hawf]

But then if that process didnt exist Josh Campbell's second goal would have been ruled out. How is that a better outcome?

I won't speak for who you're replying to but my issue isn't with VAR in of itself, it's the process on this occasion for the disallowed goal appears to be wrong and on many occasions has been wrongly applied in Scotland.

[Carheenlea]

Day 4

Are they ready to move on yet?

[FastEddieFelson]

But then if that process didnt exist Josh Campbell's second goal would have been ruled out. How is that a better outcome?

Improvements need to be made, but binning it altogether would be mad. We'd have at least 2 extra derby wins on our record if VAR had been introduced a decade earlier.

Binning VAR is an entirely different debate. This is about making "factual" decisions based on limited evidence.

[Jock O]

Day 4

Are they ready to move on yet?

Just seen on BBC site they are in discussions with SFA over it!

It is the Sun mind so I haven't clicked on the link

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c80y5r1311ko

[Pagan Hibernia]

Day 4

Are they ready to move on yet?

Doesn't look like we are tbh

[SaulGoodman]

Day 4

Are they ready to move on yet?

I’m over it. Or am I still in? Depends on the shape of my head if I’m over it or not.

[LaMotta]

Binning VAR is an entirely different debate. This is about making "factual" decisions based on limited evidence.

Im going to share this clip again, because I'm not sure how anyone can look at that and think the ball isnt out:

https://x.com/Barlosthecat/status/1893643969495466035?t=BAVmrZIrJwOcEx2kk8804A&s=19

Thst evidence looks clear to me that the ball is out. So assuming Muir has used that footage (which was from the tv cameras on the day) then what is wrong with the process he has followed? What is it about VAR process that is not fit for purpose there?

The word "factual" is controversial as well because there is still a degree of manual intrepretation into many factual VAR decisions e.g offside- is a player interfering with play or not?

[danhibees1875]

Doesn't look like we are tbh

You've, almost, crossed a line with that comment.

[JeMeSouviens]

Binning VAR is an entirely different debate. This is about making "factual" decisions based on limited evidence.

Just because the evidence is limited it doesn't mean the decision has to be in Celtc's favour. At least the VAR had something to go on, albeit not perfect. The ref can't be expected to call it and the lino's view is blocked by a leg. Seems like the person with the best view got to decide. If that's against the protocol then the protocol needs to change.

[Callum_62]

Imagine if we knock them out of the cup with a dodgy penalty decision or an offside goal that VAR doesn't overturn... I'd probably die laughing, but I'll tell you this, I'd die happyAbsolutely no chance of that - especially now

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[FastEddieFelson]

Im going to share this clip again, because I'm not sure how anyone can look at that and think the ball isnt out:

https://x.com/Barlosthecat/status/1893643969495466035?t=BAVmrZIrJwOcEx2kk8804A&s=19

Thst evidence looks clear to me that the ball is out. So assuming Muir has used that footage (which was from the tv cameras on the day) then what is wrong with the process he has followed? What is it about VAR process that is not fit for purpose there?

The word "factual" is controversial as well because there is still a degree of manual intrepretation into many factual VAR decisions e.g offside- is a player interfering with play or not?

"looks clear"

That ball in the Japan game (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/02/why-japan-second-var-goal-against-spain-was-allowed-to-stand-world-cup-ball-line) looked out as well, but it wasn't

[Kato]

Yeah, wait for Wullie, I guess.

It's quite funny the reactions of the 2 sets of supporters online to what's obviously an arguable decision. Hibs fans debate it all ways. Celtc fans, to a man, vociferously attest they've been cheated by bigoted conspiracy.Looking at some YouTubes of the game and SoL there are more than a few Celtc fans saying the saw the ball over the line.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

I'm not saying it was wrong to check VAR. Of course they had to check VAR.

I'm saying it's wrong for VAR to make a "factual decision" based on the visual evidence we've seen. The angle and quality of the footage isn't good enough to say with 100% certainty that the ball was out.The quality of footage in the VAR room will be far batter than the stuff we've seen.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Centre Hawf]

Im going to share this clip again, because I'm not sure how anyone can look at that and think the ball isnt out:

https://x.com/Barlosthecat/status/1893643969495466035?t=BAVmrZIrJwOcEx2kk8804A&s=19

Thst evidence looks clear to me that the ball is out. So assuming Muir has used that footage (which was from the tv cameras on the day) then what is wrong with the process he has followed? What is it about VAR process that is not fit for purpose there?

The word "factual" is controversial as well because there is still a degree of manual intrepretation into many factual VAR decisions e.g offside- is a player interfering with play or not?

People can look at that and think the ball is out. I do myself. But I can’t look at that and tell you the ball is out.

Factual isn’t controversial or subjective when you’re looking for a black and white decision on a scenario - is someone in an offside position? Is a ball out of play?

I’m not sure how many times it needs repeated from those of us who have our doubts over the decision, but the process of VAR overturning the on field decision when it’s not an absolute fact that VAR can see it is out in order for it to do so is the issue people generally have with this.

Take the teams out it for a second and look at it from sheer protocol only, it doesn’t appear to be adhered to and while we’ve benefited from it this time, if they’re allowed to just make it up going forward then it will come back to bite us another day.

[BoomtownHibees]

The quality of footage in the VAR room will be far batter than the stuff we've seen.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I’m not sure it will. They use the same cameras as what we can see

[Kato]

I’m not sure it will. They use the same cameras as what we can seeAll the clips we've seen are filtered through social media platforms or are screenshots/recordings.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

I’m not sure it will. They use the same cameras as what we can see

They will (they bloody well should anyway) be using higher frame rates than we'll be getting. Plus it's a hawk-eye system so they should be able to track the ball using feeds from all the cameras like tennis line calls. Dunno how accurate that is though on a football pitch size.

[FastEddieFelson]

They will (they bloody well should anyway) be using higher frame rates than we'll be getting. Plus it's a hawk-eye system so they should be able to track the ball using feeds from all the cameras like tennis line calls. Dunno how accurate that is though on a football pitch size.

In that case, the review should be pretty straightforward and no one will have any issue accepting the outcome.

[RIP]

Im going to share this clip again, because I'm not sure how anyone can look at that and think the ball isnt out:

https://x.com/Barlosthecat/status/1893643969495466035?t=BAVmrZIrJwOcEx2kk8804A&s=19

That evidence looks clear to me that the ball is out. So assuming Muir has used that footage (which was from the tv cameras on the day) then what is wrong with the process he has followed? What is it about VAR process that is not fit for purpose there?

The word "factual" is controversial as well because there is still a degree of manual interpretation into many factual VAR decisions e.g offside- is a player interfering with play or not?

Thank you LaMotta.

ANYONE STILL IN DOUBT PLEASE READ THE EXCELLENT POSTS BY 007 ON THIS THREAD!

A previous poster provided a YouTube link to an excellent Sky Sports analysis called 'Ambiguity. An optical illusion'.

Gary Neville positions a ball marginally in, then we see a still from the angle of the VAR camera which makes it look out. 28565

Next, compare that still with the still from Easter Road. 28564

Click on each jpeg to zoom in.

The difference between the two still photos is that the one from Saturday (second pic) shows the ball a couple of inches further outside the line than on the Sky Sports analysis (first pic). The VAR position at Easter Road is shallower.

If we guage the thickness of the white line in each shot as a measure, it appears to me that the ball on Saturday was clearly out.

If the BBC, News, Scotsman and Record journos or even theSFA want to use 007's analysis on this thread as evidence, I'm sure they are welcome. :greengrin

[LaMotta]

"looks clear"

That ball in the Japan game (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/02/why-japan-second-var-goal-against-spain-was-allowed-to-stand-world-cup-ball-line) looked out as well, but it wasn't

Yes but we don't have Fifa world cup technology or cameras everywhere to categorically prove any ball is over any line. So it surely makes sense to go with what the naked eye is telling us, which is the next best option.

[staunchhibby]

Just wish VAR would show their evidence on the incident and leave crybaby Rogers with box of tissues and shut them up

[JeMeSouviens]

In that case, the review should be pretty straightforward and no one will have any issue accepting the outcome.

Actually reading up on the tennis a bit, they have 10-18 cameras per court rather than Scottish football's budget 6.

[BoomtownHibees]

They will (they bloody well should anyway) be using higher frame rates than we'll be getting. Plus it's a hawk-eye system so they should be able to track the ball using feeds from all the cameras like tennis line calls. Dunno how accurate that is though on a football pitch size.

We don’t have anything like hawk-eye technology

[JeMeSouviens]

Yes but we don't have Fifa world cup technology or cameras everywhere to categorically prove any ball is over any line. So it surely makes sense to go with what the naked eye is telling us, which is the next best option.

No, apparently you need to go with the lino's "best placed" view of someone's leg. :rolleyes:

[LaMotta]

People can look at that and think the ball is out. I do myself. But I can’t look at that and tell you the ball is out.

Factual isn’t controversial or subjective when you’re looking for a black and white decision on a scenario - is someone in an offside position? Is a ball out of play?

I’m not sure how many times it needs repeated from those of us who have our doubts over the decision, but the process of VAR overturning the on field decision when it’s not an absolute fact that VAR can see it is out in order for it to do so is the issue people generally have with this.

Take the teams out it for a second and look at it from sheer protocol only, it doesn’t appear to be adhered to and while we’ve benefited from it this time, if they’re allowed to just make it up going forward then it will come back to bite us another day.

See my previous post - factual offside decisions are still deliberated on subjectively on occasion. Even the drawing of the lines is subjective, depending how its done. So even that isn't black and white. Boyle's offside goal v sheep in semi? I still haven't seen factual evidence he was offside from a wonky camera angle and funny lines drawn on.

And as I say above, if we don't have the technology to prove either way to whether a ball is over a line or not, then it can never be factual - so the only alternative is to go with subjective human call of what the eye tells us - and the most likely correct decision on Saturday is that the ball was out. All this protocol nonsense is a smokescreen.

[LaMotta]

No, apparently you need to go with the lino's "best placed" view of someone's leg. :rolleyes:

Madness eh?

[Thatdayinmay16]

Actually reading up on the tennis a bit, they have 10-18 cameras per court rather than Scottish football's budget 6.

The premier league use 42 if I remember correctly.

[matty_f]

Going round in circles here I think. If people can look at the photo and say it's out then fine, more power to them. But for me it's next to impossible to say definitively and that's where I stand on it as a decision.

If VAR come out and say they're happy still with the decision as they believe it's out based on the evidence we've all seen, I'll gladly take it and listen to Celtic greet for however long they continue to do so, but it would be another red flag on the ineptitude of our officials and our VAR that will one day go against us again and these debates will continue on unless we all just call out the incorrect use of it as it happens.

They just have to be satisfied that it's out, they don't have to prove it forensically. If the ball gets knocked up the line and goes out of play or looks like it does, the linesman flags, he doesn't have to get a measuring tape out every time, it's always on judgement based on what they see with the exception of offsides, where they draw the lines.

VAR have reviewed it sufficient to be satisfied that it's out, that's all they have to do.

[Wheat Hound]

Well summed up above Matty ^^^

I would also add that in any court case, the fleeting glimpse of an incident by an eye witness would not be held over a CCTV freeze frame/close up of the same incident. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, in this case best exemplified in the same game when the same linesman got rhe offside call for our 2nd goal .

[LaMotta]

They just have to be satisfied that it's out, they don't have to prove it forensically. If the ball gets knocked up the line and goes out of play or looks like it does, the linesman flags, he doesn't have to get a measuring tape out every time, it's always on judgement based on what they see with the exception of offsides, where they draw the lines.

VAR have reviewed it sufficient to be satisfied that it's out, that's all they have to do.

:agree:

It will be interesting to see what Collum says in the VAR review on youtube. Hopefully he says something similar to what you"ve pointed out above.

[Centre Hawf]

They just have to be satisfied that it's out, they don't have to prove it forensically. If the ball gets knocked up the line and goes out of play or looks like it does, the linesman flags, he doesn't have to get a measuring tape out every time, it's always on judgement based on what they see with the exception of offsides, where they draw the lines.

VAR have reviewed it sufficient to be satisfied that it's out, that's all they have to do.


:agree:

It will be interesting to see what Collum says in the VAR review on youtube. Hopefully he says something similar to what you"ve pointed out above.

FWIW i completely take on both your points of view and opinions on it. I think the VAR review will be the crucial one to decipher the situation. If Collum comes out and says similar to yourselves then I'll gladly hold my hands up and say my understanding of the protocol is a total nonsense not to be listened to. But everything i've said so far is just purely based on how I've seen VAR operate before and would expect it to operate in this circumstance.

[Spike Mandela]

Can't be long now till the Celtic fans are offered counselling for the trauma they have suffered.

[Centre Hawf]

Although I am worried for my point of view now that Mikey Stewart has echoed mine word for word so there's now a 99% chance I'm wrong.

https://x.com/PremSportsTV/status/1894447347490271352

[LaMotta]

FWIW i completely take on both your points of view and opinions on it. I think the VAR review will be the crucial one to decipher the situation. If Collum comes out and says similar to yourselves then I'll gladly hold my hands up and say my understanding of the protocol is a total nonsense not to be listened to. But everything i've said so far is just purely based on how I've seen VAR operate before and would expect it to operate in this circumstance.

You could well be right mate. The main reason for hoping Collum doesnt come out and say a mistake was made is that can you imagine how boring it would be again with the resulting Celtic club and fan meltdown?! :greengrin

[degenerated]

We don’t have anything like hawk-eye technologyThe linesman who Celtic think we should be taking the word of didn't even have Mr magoo technology.

[LaMotta]

Although I am worried for my point of view now that Mikey Stewart has echoed mine word for word so there's now a 99% chance I'm wrong.

https://x.com/PremSportsTV/status/1894447347490271352

I like Mikey generally as a pundit but the one area he really lets himself down on is on refs decisions. He rarely looks at the actual laws of the game and just goes with his instant gut reaction as to how he views what a decision should be. He's been wrong about handballs for years as an example!

[Pagan Hibernia]

Although I am worried for my point of view now that Mikey Stewart has echoed mine word for word so there's now a 99% chance I'm wrong.

https://x.com/PremSportsTV/status/1894447347490271352

"Absolutely scandalous!"

😅🤣😂 wee bit dramatic for a decision that looks more right than not?

[calumb]

The linesman who Celtic think we should be taking the word of didn't even have Mr magoo technology.

Yeah apparently we should all be taking the word of a guy that didn't even make it as far as the touchline to witness the ball going out 🙄

[Donegal Hibby]

"Absolutely scandalous!"

😅🤣😂 wee bit dramatic for a decision that looks more right than not?

Wee bit dramatic about his assessment of the Hibs squad too IMO ( 34:26 ) …

https://www.youtube.com/live/gzCX4Dh2rtg?si=Vh0rbbuBrEBUayN0

[allmodcons]

Yeah apparently we should all be taking the word of a guy that didn't even make it as far as the touchline to witness the ball going out 🙄

The very same linesman that flagged Campbell offside when he was a foot onside.

[Joe6-2]

Still bleating tonight on STV news

[007]

Still bleating tonight on STV news

A covert message to the officials for their game v Aberdeen not to give any 50/50 decisions in favour of Aberdeen or they'll be hounded like Alan Muir (and no doubt his family) has.

[FilipinoHibs]

Over the three days after the decision they are still in meltdown. PLEASING.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Yet again further proof that many things in life can be traced back to a scene from The Big Lebowski.

28568

[Ray_]

https://soocer442.com/key-celtic-information-is-disclosed-subsequent-to-the-hibs-var-controversy-and-the-harsh-criticism-of-brendan-rodgers/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIrC3hleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHbeJF_IxxSwS kxmtnH4DKCGY7oTwPcZUuAocM4u4VzeNehqThYNxSg4Ucw_aem _NrTAWavusPcKKYJnS3k6Og

"After the Hibs VAR controversy and the harsh criticism of Brendan Rodgers, a critical Celtic update has been revealed.

A Celtic update has been released in response to the refereeing controversy. The entire ball was over the line before Johnston was able to deliver it into the box, as evidenced by a freeze frame of him gaining possession of the ball from behind."

[Callum_62]

Has var ever been used to decide if the balls crossed the goal line and awarded a goal?

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[green day]

Has var ever been used to decide if the balls crossed the goal line and awarded a goal?

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
Yes, the refs get a buzz on their watch

Sorry, not VAR, but technology

[Callum_62]

Yes, the refs get a buzz on their watch

Sorry, not VAR, but technologyIn Scotland?

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[green day]

In Scotland?

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

Only in the cup competitions, bizarrely

[Callum_62]

Only in the cup competitions, bizarrelyOnly showpiece games it seems

I think something rings a bell about var being used to award a goal over one that was close /hard to tell if it was over the line

I'm curious why that wasn't given anywhere near the same scrutiny - I'm sure the angle used wasn't in line or directly above either

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[LaMotta]

Only in the cup competitions, bizarrely


Only showpiece games it seems

I think something rings a bell about var being used to award a goal over one that was close /hard to tell if it was over the line

I'm curious why that wasn't given anywhere near the same scrutiny - I'm sure the angle used wasn't in line or directly above either

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

I think its only been in games at Hampden - because Hampden has had the technology from the euros or something like that. I've either read that somewhere, or I've dreamt it after too much cheese on toast before bed.

[BILLYHIBS]

The SFA’s Key Match Incident panel have voted 4:1 that Celtic’s equaliser on Saturday should have stood and VAR should not have got involved

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/brendan-rodgers-sees-celtic-var-34772391

[LaMotta]

The SFA’s Key Match Incident panel have voted 4:1 that Celtic’s equaliser on Saturday should have stood and VAR should not have got involved

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/brendan-rodgers-sees-celtic-var-34772391

One voice of reason on that panel. Madness.

[SteveHFC]

Celtic go crying to Sfa and no surprise they tell them it shouldn't have happened, now var officials will be extra careful of Celtic decisions

[Ron D Hibbie]

The SFA’s Key Match Incident panel have voted 4:1 that Celtic’s equaliser on Saturday should have stood and VAR should not have got involved

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/brendan-rodgers-sees-celtic-var-34772391
Think we should be good sports and hand the points back. 😂😂

[SteveHFC]

Think we should be good sports and hand the points back. 😂😂

Totally agree as long as we get all our points back

[BILLYHIBS]

:wtf:

The baw is either in or it is oot

SFA need to get their VAR house in order by bringing their technology up to date and using more cameras and to stop cow towing to the Old Firm

They have already stated the Dundee United second goal should have stood when it was a clear hand ball Fair play to VAR for spotting it in difficult circumstances

[green day]

Celtic go crying to Sfa and no surprise they tell them it shouldn't have happened, now var officials will be extra careful of Celtic decisions

I dont care what their wee daft panel says, I sit in the West Upper and the ball was clearly out, about 3 Hibs players just stopped because it was so far over the line.

But, aye, whatever Brendan wants to hear is fine, eh

[HoboHarry]

:wtf:

The baw is either in or it is oot

SFA need to get their VAR house in order by bringing their technology up to date and using more cameras and to stop cow towing to the Old Firm

They have already stated the Dundee United second goal should have stood when it was a clear hand ball Fair play to VAR for spotting it in difficult circumstances
To be fair to the SFA, Scotland has the dollar store version of VAR because of cost issues that the clubs aren't willing to carry from what I remember.

[HIBERNIAN-0762]

Lol...beat it 😂😂😂

[gbhibby]

The SFA’s Key Match Incident panel have voted 4:1 that Celtic’s equaliser on Saturday should have stood and VAR should not have got involved

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/brendan-rodgers-sees-celtic-var-34772391
The only result that matters is Hibs 2 Celtic 1 who cares we have had decisions go against us. Gives them something else to get paranoid about.

[HIBERNIAN-0762]

The only result that matters is Hibs 2 Celtic 1 who cares we have had decisions go against us. Gives them something else to get paranoid about.

This..

[BILLYHIBS]

To be fair to the SFA, Scotland has the dollar store version of VAR because of cost issues that the clubs aren't willing to carry from what I remember.

Let Brenda and Goodwin hear what they want to hear

We know the baw was oot and defo a handball

But what happens next time when the roles are reversed ?

It is a joke

Might be wrong but pretty sure the richer clubs i.e. Celtic pay more for oor Council VAR

Goal line technology would be nice but at what cost ?

[Booked4Being-Ugly]

I dont care what their wee daft panel says, I sit in the West Upper and the ball was clearly out, about 3 Hibs players just stopped because it was so far over the line.

But, aye, whatever Brendan wants to hear is fine, eh

I think you’ll find only the eagle eyed linesman and Rogers from his vantage point in the sellic dugout could clearly see it was still in.

[BILLYHIBS]

The only result that matters is Hibs 2 Celtic 1 who cares we have had decisions go against us. Gives them something else to get paranoid about.

Agree

[Pagan Hibernia]

Does this panel have anything to say about our penalty incident?

Or is it all about poor wee celtic?

[gbhibby]

The VAR people and the panel need to bear in mind if there is factual evidence of handball or a ball being out they have to check. The panel with their analysis each week are calling in to question whether we should we have VAR. We could complain about the 2nd yellow in the St Mirren game but VAR does not review 2nd yellows unless the think the second yellow should be a straight red as in the case of Joe Newell so there is inconsistencies out there.in the world of VAR.

[Wilson]

I dont care what their wee daft panel says, I sit in the West Upper and the ball was clearly out, about 3 Hibs players just stopped because it was so far over the line.

But, aye, whatever Brendan wants to hear is fine, eh

You are probably right. VAR is interfering though. It has limitations and it is overreaching in spite of them. This shouldn't be acceptable. This decision suits us but what when it doesn't?

If we want VAR to be the be all and end all then we should be paying for the best version of it.

[Glory Lurker]

Is this the panel with pundits on it?

[Eyrie]

Is this the panel with pundits on it?

Stevie Wonder was on the latest panel.

[Wilson]

Is this the panel with pundits on it?

The panel with the pundits? Yes. They were drinking out of the chalis from the palace containing the brew that is true.

[SickBoy32]

The SFA’s Key Match Incident panel have voted 4:1 that Celtic’s equaliser on Saturday should have stood and VAR should not have got involved

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/brendan-rodgers-sees-celtic-var-34772391

This would be laughable if it wasn’t such a bleak outlook, with VAR destroying our game.

Frightening that we’re being told that the goal should’ve stood, just an attempt to twist reality - ball was clearly, and I mean clearly - out of play.

‘The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command‘

[LaMotta]

Is this the panel with pundits on it?



"Each KMI Panel consists of five members: three independent panel members with established careers within Scottish football – such as coaches, former players and members of the Scottish football media – one representative from the Scottish FA and one representative from SPFL clubs."


What a joke that is! Ex footballers and pundits are all over the place every week with their analysis of decisions. Wonder who was on the panel.

The one SFA member on the panel is probably the only one who said the ball was out.

[Bostonhibby]

Think we should be good sports and hand the points back. [emoji23][emoji23]Aye, but only if they give us back the strips we gave them.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Paul1642]

Don’t care what the panel says. The panel doesn’t change the points we lost earlier in the season from poor decisions, and they can’t take away the points we’ve won the last two fixtures.

6 points from Celtic at home and Untied away is exceptional and if some questionable decisions helped us get them, I couldn’t care less, because you know they will go against us again at some point.

[Pagan Hibernia]

"Each KMI Panel consists of five members: three independent panel members with established careers within Scottish football – such as coaches, former players and members of the Scottish football media – one representative from the Scottish FA and one representative from SPFL clubs."


What a joke that is! Ex footballers and pundits are all over the place every week with their analysis of decisions. Wonder who was on the panel.

The one SFA member on the panel is probably the only one who said the ball was out.





Packy Bonner, Neil Lennon, and a pissed Rod Stewart

[PHeffernan]

:wtf:

The baw is either in or it is oot

SFA need to get their VAR house in order by bringing their technology up to date and using more cameras and to stop cow towing to the Old Firm

They have already stated the Dundee United second goal should have stood when it was a clear hand ball Fair play to VAR for spotting it in difficult circumstances

The SFA doesn't dictate the version of VAR we have.
That is down to the SPL i.e. the clubs
VAR is an expensive ongoing cost and has to be paid for by our clubs and they made what I think was a good and pragmatic decision to use a cheaper version of VAR. It does the job but not to the nth degree that the screamers want it to.
We will get better VAR as the relative cost falls but the small revenues in Scottish football dictate we can't have the best technology, players etc.

Supporters and managers need to dry their eyes and accept the decisions reached by VAR in good faith.

[crash]

VAR is already there to correct referee errors if necessary, pundits in the media then giving their opinions, then we have another panel giving a further opinion. Crazy.

[BILLYHIBS]

The SFA doesn't dictate the version of VAR we have.
That is down to the SPL i.e. the clubs
VAR is an expensive ongoing cost and has to be paid for by our clubs and they made what I think was a good and pragmatic decision to use a cheaper version of VAR. It does the job but not to the nth degree that the screamers want it to.
We will get better VAR as the relative cost falls but the small revenues in Scottish football dictate we can't have the best technology, players etc.

I get that but do we really need this Key Match Incident panel to stir the pot even further after the event ?

Pretty sure they voted against us on something a few weeks back but was after the event so didn’t really matter like the Celtic and United incidents

[Hibees1973]

Think we should be good sports and hand the points back. 😂😂

When we hand the points back also give to them the Palestinian flag some clown is taking along to Hibs games.

[PHeffernan]

The SFA’s Key Match Incident panel have voted 4:1 that Celtic’s equaliser on Saturday should have stood and VAR should not have got involved

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/brendan-rodgers-sees-celtic-var-34772391

Can we state the ball was factually out? No
Can we say all the technology at hand was used to come to a reasonable decision? Yes

What Rodgers and this panel are suggesting is that VAR should not have intervened because they couldn't 100% prove the ball was out and it is against the VAR protocols to guess on matters of fact. This is mental given how much the clubs pay for VAR.

Unfortunately the VAR protocols are predicated on a full VAR system being in place and not the economy version. Given that, it made the situation on Saturday a subjective decision rather than a factual one so the protocol was rightly over-ruled and the existing VAR was used to come to the best decision possible which they did.

The choice is simple for all our clubs, accept the decisions of VAR reached in good faith utilising the current technology or they can tan massive sums of money to get the all singing all dancing version. I would suggest it would have to be predominately payed for by the 5 richest clubs including our own.

[Keith_M]

The SFA’s Key Match Incident panel have voted 4:1 that Celtic’s equaliser on Saturday should have stood and VAR should not have got involved

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/brendan-rodgers-sees-celtic-var-34772391


That's a joke.

[PHeffernan]

I get that but do we really need this Key Match Incident panel to stir the pot even further after the event ?

Pretty sure they voted against us on something a few weeks back but was after the event so didn’t really matter like the Celtic and United incidents

I don't think we need it either.
I presume it was put in place due to clubs constantly greeting to the SFA.
Formed in the name of transparency and partnership.

[BILLYHIBS]

Can we state the ball was factually out? No
Can we say all the technology at hand was used to come to a reasonable decision? Yes

What Rodgers and this panel are suggesting is that VAR should not have intervened because they couldn't 100% prove the ball was out which makes it against the VAR protocols to guess. This is mental given how much the clubs pay for VAR.
Unfortunately the VAR protocols are predicated on a full VAR system being in place and not the economy version. Given that, it made the situation on Saturday an objective decision rather than a factual one so the protocol was rightly over-ruled and the existing VAR was used to come to the best decision possible which they did.

The choice is simple for all our clubs, accept the decisions of VAR reached in good faith utilising the current technology or they can tan massive sums of money to get the all singing all dancing version. I would suggest it would have to be predominately payed for by the 5 richest clubs including our own.

Agree and I am not trying to be arsey but I thought the Celtic goal was disallowed on a factual decision I.e. they had seen concrete evidence the ball was in fact out and they had seen the Arab striker head the ball off his hand into our net perhaps like Rugby they should be asked to share or explain this factual evidence to ensure full transparency

At the end of the day I don’t give a jot the points are in the bag but you just know the next bite on the bum is just around the corner I.e. Sunday 😀

[PHeffernan]

Agree and I am not trying to be arsey but I thought the Celtic goal was disallowed on a factual decision I.e. they had seen concrete evidence the ball was in fact out and they had seen the Arab striker head the ball off his hand into our net perhaps like Rugby they should be asked to share or explain this factual evidence to ensure full transparency

At the end of the day I don’t give a jot the points are in the bag but you just know the next bite on the bum is just around the corner I.e. Sunday ��

Exactly, swings and roundabouts.

As Kevin Keegan once said, I would love it if the smellies are in the same scenario in the quarter final next week and VAR doesn't intervene due to Rodgers complaints this week it was agreed they would no longer use VAR to guess on matters of fact.
Would make for a good watch as Rodgers spontaneously combusted :faf:.

[Chorley Hibee]

Packy Bonner, Neil Lennon, and a pissed Rod Stewart

It would have been 5-0 in the panel's decision, but a pissed Rod chose the wrong option.

[Libby Hibby]

A panel of me and my 4 m8s voted 5 to nil it was out.

[Bishop Hibee]

The SFA’s Key Match Incident panel have voted 4:1 that Celtic’s equaliser on Saturday should have stood and VAR should not have got involved

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/brendan-rodgers-sees-celtic-var-34772391

Oh dear what a shame never mind.

[Jim44]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……:yawn::yawn::yawn: Delete this thread.

[gbhibby]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……:yawn::yawn::yawn: Delete this thread.

Yes agree 2 1 to Hibs end of.

[Fifeshirehibs]

If Mr & Mrs Rogers had known wee Brendon would carry on like this they would have called him Dick. Miles clear in the league with VAR contributing to the points and he throws a hissy because for once a VAR decision goes against him. Dick. The ball was out btw.

[Fifeshirehibs]

Key match panel its YOU who shouldn't be involved, a goal was 'scored', so var has to get involved, a FACTUAL DECISION was made by VAR, why on earth are you involved .

[ancient hibee]

Key match panel its YOU who shouldn't be involved, a goal was 'scored', so var has to get involved, a FACTUAL DECISION was made by VAR, why on earth are you involved .

Because they get a nice fee. Have no official standing. Didn't Dundee U. say they wanted nothing to do with them?

[Hibs1969]

The SFA doesn't dictate the version of VAR we have.
That is down to the SPL i.e. the clubs
VAR is an expensive ongoing cost and has to be paid for by our clubs and they made what I think was a good and pragmatic decision to use a cheaper version of VAR. It does the job but not to the nth degree that the screamers want it to.
We will get better VAR as the relative cost falls but the small revenues in Scottish football dictate we can't have the best technology, players etc.

Supporters and managers need to dry their eyes and accept the decisions reached by VAR in good faith.

You may be right about us using the Poundland VAR system but you also need to remember that by our nature football fans are tribal and parochial and will celebrate dodgy decisions that go for us but will be enraged by those that don’t. If we were all meh about such things it would be a very boring experience. I’m pretty sure the 2 dreadful decisions which went against us v Dundee Utd at ER were made in good faith but they had a massive impact on a game we should have won at a time when we desperately needed a win. Expecting fans to dry their eyes and be philosophical over decisions like that - it’s never going to happen.

[gbhibby]

I started this thread can the admins please end it now it was a disallowed goal for an opposition team nearly one week ago. I think it's run its course.

[Clarence]

Love it. Sir David Gray’s establishment decisions prevail.

[PHeffernan]

You may be right about us using the Poundland VAR system but you also need to remember that by our nature football fans are tribal and parochial and will celebrate dodgy decisions that go for us but will be enraged by those that don’t. If we were all meh about such things it would be a very boring experience. I’m pretty sure the 2 dreadful decisions which went against us v Dundee Utd at ER were made in good faith but they had a massive impact on a game we should have won at a time when we desperately needed a win. Expecting fans to dry their eyes and be philosophical over decisions like that - it’s never going to happen.

As we have seen this week once the decision is made and the 90 (100) minutes is over it's greetin' over spilt milk and the supporters of our team have rightly laughed at the Cellik and DU supporter tears because it's cringeworthy. I wonder if they blame other folk and organisations when things go wrong in their real lives.

Worst moment for me this season was when Obita was sent off at Dundee after 10 minutes when we were 1-0 up and coasting. I couldnae believe it had happened again and knew we were going to lose. Our 5th or 6th sending off for the season and it was only November!

My half full glass disintegrated and the last few lean Hibs years landed heavy. The player mistakes were hurting and Obita was the straw that broke the camels back. Felt like a real kick in the guts at that moment. Couldn't believe football had got to me that much, didn't want to and didn't talk about Hibs for days, a first.

Thing was I could see we had a good team but they kept sabotaging it every week. The first game of the season was the only one were I thought we were rubbish. The other games were just insanity, sending offs, missed penalty's and mistakes. With the Obita incident I was beginning to think I was in a paralel Hibs world were absolutely everything went wrong.

Supporters are all different, some rant and rave at the least thing and some are layed back and philisophical like me but bottom line is Hibs get to us all.

GGTTH

[PHeffernan]

Because they get a nice fee. Have no official standing. Didn't Dundee U. say they wanted nothing to do with them?

Correct, a nice day out to chat about football and weighed in with a nice wedge from the SFA.
Easy money.

[matty_f]

"Each KMI Panel consists of five members: three independent panel members with established careers within Scottish football – such as coaches, former players and members of the Scottish football media – one representative from the Scottish FA and one representative from SPFL clubs."


What a joke that is! Ex footballers and pundits are all over the place every week with their analysis of decisions. Wonder who was on the panel.

The one SFA member on the panel is probably the only one who said the ball was out.




I thought the KMI panel was a great idea and a good check as to seeing when mistakes were being made, until I read about who sat on it.

If you take Peter Grant as an example of a pundit who reviewed Celtic’s second goal being disallowed. He didn’t think it should have been (shock) and cited “clear and obvious” - as Jim Goodwin did about their disallowed goal.

It takes a minute to pull the VAR guidelines on the SFA website where it says VAR will intervene when a clear and obvious error is made OR (key word) where the referee misses a serious incident relating to a goal (or red card or penalty).

In this case, the serious incident is the ball going out of play. It doesn’t have to be clear and obvious, and therefore the same stands for Dalby’s handball on Wednesday night.

It’s a nonsense that these people then go and audit the work of the VAR and referee teams who at least know what they’re meant to be looking at.

Ironically, I’m sure it was Dundee United who complained about the KMI panel recently.

[foxy]

I thought the KMI panel was a great idea and a good check as to seeing when mistakes were being made, until I read about who sat on it.

If you take Peter Grant as an example of a pundit who reviewed Celtic’s second goal being disallowed. He didn’t think it should have been (shock) and cited “clear and obvious” - as Jim Goodwin did about their disallowed goal.

It takes a minute to pull the VAR guidelines on the SFA website where it says VAR will intervene when a clear and obvious error is made OR (key word) where the referee misses a serious incident relating to a goal (or red card or penalty).

In this case, the serious incident is the ball going out of play. It doesn’t have to be clear and obvious, and therefore the same stands for Dalby’s handball on Wednesday night.

It’s a nonsense that these people then go and audit the work of the VAR and referee teams who at least know what they’re meant to be looking at.

Ironically, I’m sure it was Dundee United who complained about the KMI panel recently.

Yes it was them and St Mirren

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/dundee-united-sfa-kmi-var-34622385

[BILLYHIBS]

So myself and four mates got a takeaway and a cairyoot last night sat roond the box watched all possible angles of both incidents on YouTube and social media

Verdict:

Hibs v Celtic Ball ran out of play no goal

Dundee United v Hibs Definite hand ball no goal

The jobs a good un

[Pagan Hibernia]

So myself and four mates got a takeaway and a cairyoot last night sat roond the box watched all possible angles of both incidents on YouTube and social media

Verdict:

Hibs v Celtic Ball ran out of play no goal

Dundee United v Hibs Definite hand ball no goal

The jobs a good un

:greengrin

Good work Billy, Thanks for clearing that up! :flag:

[BILLYHIBS]

:greengrin

Good work Billy, Thanks for clearing that up! :flag:

You’re welcome

Any time

[Bostonhibby]

So myself and four mates got a takeaway and a cairyoot last night sat roond the box watched all possible angles of both incidents on YouTube and social media

Verdict:

Hibs v Celtic Ball ran out of play no goal

Dundee United v Hibs Definite hand ball no goal

The jobs a good unGood enough for me, are any of you prepared to up roots and move to the west of Scotland? You all clearly meet all the other criteria for refereeing in Scotland.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[BILLYHIBS]

Good enough for me, are any of you prepared to up roots and move to the west of Scotland? You all clearly meet all the other criteria for refereeing in Scotland.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

I live in Cumbernauld does that meet the criteria ? :greengrin

[Bostonhibby]

I live in Cumbernauld does that meet the criteria ? :greengrinYou've got my vote, when can you start?[emoji16]

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[LaMotta]

I thought the KMI panel was a great idea and a good check as to seeing when mistakes were being made, until I read about who sat on it.

If you take Peter Grant as an example of a pundit who reviewed Celtic’s second goal being disallowed. He didn’t think it should have been (shock) and cited “clear and obvious” - as Jim Goodwin did about their disallowed goal.

It takes a minute to pull the VAR guidelines on the SFA website where it says VAR will intervene when a clear and obvious error is made OR (key word) where the referee misses a serious incident relating to a goal (or red card or penalty).

In this case, the serious incident is the ball going out of play. It doesn’t have to be clear and obvious, and therefore the same stands for Dalby’s handball on Wednesday night.

It’s a nonsense that these people then go and audit the work of the VAR and referee teams who at least know what they’re meant to be looking at.

Ironically, I’m sure it was Dundee United who complained about the KMI panel recently.

You just have to look at the panel's verdict on the late Dundee Utd pen at Easter Road. Whilst they ruled it shouldn't have been a pen, they were still split 3-2 on that decision. So its just another group of people (mainly unqualified) with subjective views on incidents. What is the point of that??

The whole narrative being spread about the Celtic and Utd dissallowed goals is actually really annoying, when we have all seen video evidence that points to VAR being correct on both occasions.

The main argument on the Celtic goal is around process that the linesman didnt put his flag up so it should have stood as camera angles are inconclusive. If the linesman had flagged would Rodgers and the Celtic fans just have accepted the decision? I doubt it. Theyd all be using their crazy still images from a second hefore the ball was kicked to try to say the ball was in.

Sportsound is bound to have a podcast focussing on VAR soon, if they do you have to try to get on that one!!

[matty_f]

You just have to look at the panel's verdict on the late Dundee Utd pen at Easter Road. Whilst they ruled it shouldn't have been a pen, they were still split 3-2 on that decision. So its just another group of people (mainly unqualified) with subjective views on incidents. What is the point of that??

The whole narrative being spread about the Celtic and Utd dissallowed goals is actually really annoying, when we have all seen video evidence that points to VAR being correct on both occasions.

The main argument on the Celtic goal is around process that the linesman didnt put his flag up so it should have stood as camera angles are inconclusive. If the linesman had flagged would Rodgers and the Celtic fans just have accepted the decision? I doubt it. Theyd all be using their crazy still images from a second hefore the ball was kicked to try to say the ball was in.

Sportsound is bound to have a podcast focussing on VAR soon, if they do you have to try to get on that one!!

I’ll do my best. 😁
Would happily go on and debate it!

[gbhibby]

To have any validity the KMI panel should be made up of referees from other countries who are shown these incidents and asked to comment. The current make up of the panel has the same validity as BILLYHIBS and his four mates meeting in a pub. You will get better feedback from other qualified referees and their interpretation of incidents.

[Ronniekirk]

With this info and Dundee United one being so heavily publicised this week officials are going to feel the pressure going into the Derby
Almost setting things up for us to get a decision against us
Just need to make sure we score great goals like the three at United

[Keith_M]

I started this thread can the admins please end it now it was a disallowed goal for an opposition team nearly one week ago. I think it's run its course.



You can close it yourself if you go the to the first post and click 'Edit Post'.

You should then see some Admin options, including to close the thread.

[gbhibby]

You can close it yourself if you go the to the first post and click 'Edit Post'.

You should then see some Admin options, including to close the thread.
Thanks Keith didn't know that. Since the press are still talking about it I have changed my thoughts.
Wonder how many weeks this will drag on in the press sure it will drag on until the Cup game. Ref watch did not spend any time reviewing the incident.

[Keith_M]

Thanks Keith didn't know that. Since the press are still talking about it I have changed my thoughts.
Wonder how many weeks this will drag on in the press sure it will drag on until the Cup game. Ref watch did not spend any time reviewing the incident.


:aok:

[Just_Jimmy]

With this info and Dundee United one being so heavily publicised this week officials are going to feel the pressure going into the Derby
Almost setting things up for us to get a decision against us
Just need to make sure we score great goals like the three at UnitedYup, I said earlier this week it's guaranteed we'll get shafted to "even it up".

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

[FastEddieFelson]

And the review is in...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxVKVzcBqGg

[Centre Hawf]

And the review is in...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxVKVzcBqGg

As I suspected to be honest. I think Willie is fair and honest with his assessment. Neither on field decision should have been overturned. I'm delighted that they were but we have to admit imo we got away with one (or two in this case).

[Billy McKirdy]

I hope this doesn’t mean we get the wrong calls against us this weekend,

[Tyler Durden]

As I suspected to be honest. I think Willie is fair and honest with his assessment. Neither on field decision should have been overturned. I'm delighted that they were but we have to admit imo we got away with one (or two in this case).

It's great that he comes out and fesses up. But he's in charge of a team who are regularly making the most basic of mistakes.

Both disallowed goals against us....... It should be so basic for the VARs to understand that if they cannot provide conclusive evidence, they cannot overturn the ref's decision. These things are not subjective issues where two refs might come to different conclusions, they are basic protocols.

Ultimately Willie Collum needs to sort all this out asap or he should be sacked.

[green day]

I hope this doesn’t mean we get the wrong calls against us this weekend,

Aye, the timing of this is interesting...... especially as he had a conversation with Goodwin the day after.

[BILLYHIBS]

Both factual decisions by the AVAR ball was out and Dalby headed the ball against his own hand my conclusion we are getting diddly squat on Sunday

Interesting watch first time I have watched the review I was impressed by AVAR appreciate the need to be 100% sure and I am 100% 😀

[Pagan Hibernia]

Don't care, we won

[Callum_62]

Both factual decisions by the AVAR ball was out and Dalby headed the ball against his own hand my conclusion we are getting diddly squat on Sunday

Interesting watch first time I have watched the review I was impressed by AVAR appreciate the need to be 100% sure and I am 100% [emoji3]I just watched the var review and I'm literally watching the ball strike dalbys hand

No idea how they are saying it's not factual

Maedas goal as well looks far further over the line than the Japan goal

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Rumble de Thump]

Collum repeatedly gives the excuse of him feeling their was not "100% conclusive evidence". The reason he's using language contrary to the rules is because he wants people to believe his incorrect standpoint is actually correct. He's just making stuff, i.e. the rules, up

[erin go bragh]

Well if the Rangers goal yesterday was over the line, Celtics goal, the ball was definitely out.
lets make some history on Sunday and register our first Scottish cup win at theirs since the cup final win in 1902.

[Mcbizz1998]

It’s one of these calls where the ball was out but VAR shouldn’t have overturned it so they are feeling aggrieved.

The right decision was 100% reached it’s just a question of how they got there. It was out, get over it you soap dodging creeps.

[Sergio sledge]

I get what Collum is saying in regards to conclusive evidence to overturn an onfield decision, but we all hear the VAR and AVAR suddenly change their opinion on whether the ball is out when a replay is shown which looks out. To them, at the time, that evidence was conclusive enough so surely that's what they have to make their decision on. If they believe at the time the evidence is conclusive then they step in and overturn the decision. Just because Collum thinks the evidence isn't conclusive enough doesn't mean that other people can't think that it is conclusive.

He's saying they didn't follow the process correctly based on his subjective opinion that the evidence wasn't 100% conclusive, another head of refereeing might have a different opinion.

They then talk through the Dalby incident and the VAR clearly articulates on viewing the replays that he sees the ball come down from the head and deviate off something else which they freeze at the point of deviation and show it hitting Dalby's hand. What other conclusive proof do they need here? It is literally right in front of them. Bizarre....

[Centre Hawf]

It's great that he comes out and fesses up. But he's in charge of a team who are regularly making the most basic of mistakes.

Both disallowed goals against us....... It should be so basic for the VARs to understand that if they cannot provide conclusive evidence, they cannot overturn the ref's decision. These things are not subjective issues where two refs might come to different conclusions, they are basic protocols.

Ultimately Willie Collum needs to sort all this out asap or he should be sacked.

I do agree, the VAR review is actually a very welcome addition and I applaud him for it and the transparency. But the problem you're going to encounter is it just repeats itself and I don't know how long that can happen before you question him as part of it.


I just watched the var review and I'm literally watching the ball strike dalbys hand

No idea how they are saying it's not factual

Maedas goal as well looks far further over the line than the Japan goal

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

At the risk of reopening the can of worms we've had in this thread previously, you might not be looking at the ball strike Dalby's hand though, you could just as easily be seeing it hit off Triantis' ear or the shoulder/top of the arm. Both of us are as unable as each other to say what the ball has actually hit. There isn't any factual footage that shows it hitting his hand. You can come to the conclusion that you think it did, my gut tells me it did as well, but to overturn the on field decision it needs to be factual and provable. Not gut and conclusions based on belief.

I think many people will change their tune when the inevitable happens on Sunday and we're on the other end of this type of thing.

[Lago]

It's great that he comes out and fesses up. But he's in charge of a team who are regularly making the most basic of mistakes.

Both disallowed goals against us....... It should be so basic for the VARs to understand that if they cannot provide conclusive evidence, they cannot overturn the ref's decision. These things are not subjective issues where two refs might come to different conclusions, they are basic protocols.

Ultimately Willie Collum needs to sort all this out asap or he should be sacked.
Should never have got the job in the first place.

[gbhibby]

I get what Collum is saying in regards to conclusive evidence to overturn an onfield decision, but we all hear the VAR and AVAR suddenly change their opinion on whether the ball is out when a replay is shown which looks out. To them, at the time, that evidence was conclusive enough so surely that's what they have to make their decision on. If they believe at the time the evidence is conclusive then they step in and overturn the decision. Just because Collum thinks the evidence isn't conclusive enough doesn't mean that other people can't think that it is conclusive.

He's saying they didn't follow the process correctly based on his subjective opinion that the evidence wasn't 100% conclusive, another head of refereeing might have a different opinion.

They then talk through the Dalby incident and the VAR clearly articulates on viewing the replays that he sees the ball come down from the head and deviate off something else which they freeze at the point of deviation and show it hitting Dalby's hand. What other conclusive proof do they need here? It is literally right in front of them. Bizarre....
Agree in the opinion of VAR and AVAR at the time they were happy that they had conclusive evidence for both incidents.

[Donegal Hibby]

Don’t forget this is the guy that’s said there wasn’t enough to award a penalty for this 37:10 in ….

https://youtu.be/3YZZgquXDig?si=4xy-FETtwpUU2VIs

And yet awarded a penalty as he obviously thought there was enough contact in this …

https://www.skysports.com/football/video/34022/12677360/rangers-win-penalty-at-easter-road-against-hibernian

There’s never been any consistency with Willie Collum as a ref and quite frankly I think he should never have got the position he’s now in either.

[hibsbollah]

From the bbc news preview
Hibs, currently unbeaten in 15 games, defeated Celtic 2-1 at Easter Road a fortnight ago, albeit the visitors had a late equaliser incorrectly disallowed.

[BILLYHIBS]

Agree in the opinion of VAR and AVAR at the time they were happy that they had conclusive evidence for both incidents.

Yes the Referees were told they had factual evidence on both incidents goals against Hibs were both correctly overturned

[matty_f]

Collum repeatedly gives the excuse of him feeling their was not "100% conclusive evidence". The reason he's using language contrary to the rules is because he wants people to believe his incorrect standpoint is actually correct. He's just making stuff, i.e. the rules, up

I’ve said it before but it’s gaslighting - he’s literally sat in front of the still of the ball on Dalby’s arm as he’s saying there’s no image of it.

It’s interesting that in the audio for the Celtic gosh that there is no doubt from the VAR that the ball is out of play. They don’t believe that it’s contentious or that they don’t have proof.

This is after the event, let’s keep folk quiet, revisionism.

[matty_f]

From the bbc news preview
Hibs, currently unbeaten in 15 games, defeated Celtic 2-1 at Easter Road a fortnight ago, albeit the visitors had a late equaliser incorrectly disallowed.

And so it becomes fact.

[Carheenlea]

Despite still pictures showing the ball was miles out, they don’t have enough “conclusive evidence”.

Two weeks now since this and it’s still major news :hilarious

[gbhibby]

The penalty in the VAR review that Celtic got against Dundee there was not any conclusive evidence to overturn the award of a foul to Dundee to giving a Penalty to Celtic they were both at it.

[PHeffernan]

Collum repeatedly gives the excuse of him feeling their was not "100% conclusive evidence". The reason he's using language contrary to the rules is because he wants people to believe his incorrect standpoint is actually correct. He's just making stuff, i.e. the rules, up

Reading this thread it is clear that many posters don't understand the VAR protocols.
Collum is not making anything up.

I personally don't agree with the VAR protocols being fully adopted in the SPL given they are predicated on having full VAR rather than the partial system we have.
I think the footage they showed in the March review clearly shows the ball beyond the bye line and I would always prefer that VAR is utilised to make the best decision possible which in this case they did.
However, the action taken by the VAR team in this case was contrary to the VAR protocols and following the protocols is the safe place for Collum and his staff to protect them from greeting football clubs hence why he states that the VAR team action decision was procedurally wrong.

[Pagan Hibernia]

From the bbc news preview
Hibs, currently unbeaten in 15 games, defeated Celtic 2-1 at Easter Road a fortnight ago, albeit the visitors had a late equaliser incorrectly disallowed.

🤣

[hibsbollah]

And so it becomes fact.

I know i shouldnt let it get to me but it’s actually infuriating.

[gbhibby]

Fact Hibs 2 Celtic 1
Fact Dundee Utd 1 Hibs 3

End of.

[Alfred E Newman]

Pre VAR the Celtic goal would have stood as would the United goal. If the linesman had not been absolutely useless and been up with play he would have flagged the Celtic ball out because it looked out. The United goal is a different case, the match officials had no chance of seeing anything wrong with the goal .

[Donegal Hibby]

If we had a scored that goal Celtic had chalked off and it was given or Dalby scored that handball goal against Sevco and it was given , there would have been a absolute uproar from the OF and i’d very much doubt Willie Collum have the same opinion as he does now .

[Wheat Hound]

Best evidence is camera/CCTV footage against notoriously unreliable eye witness testimony. Bearing in mind the same linesman V Celtic had already majorly messed up in flagging our 2nd goal offside and we're meant to believe his momentary glimpse from an angle not up with play fully.

[Carheenlea]

With these VAR reviews, it’s referees who referee the game, referees who operate VAR and referees who assess the VAR review.

How do we know who is actually right now?

[Pagan Hibernia]

The matter is finished for me. We've won a derby since then and I'm still buzzing from that. The points are in the bag and we march on. :flag:

ps: celtic got away with one themselves last week against St Mirren and it was a hell of a lot more blatant than our decision. Some you win and some you lose.

[Kato]

Don’t forget this is the guy that’s said there wasn’t enough to award a penalty for this 37:10 in ….

https://youtu.be/3YZZgquXDig?si=4xy-FETtwpUU2VIs

And yet awarded a penalty as he obviously thought there was enough contact in this …

https://www.skysports.com/football/video/34022/12677360/rangers-win-penalty-at-easter-road-against-hibernian

There’s never been any consistency with Willie Collum as a ref and quite frankly I think he should never have got the position he’s now in either.
The penalty in the VAR review that Celtic got against Dundee there was not any conclusive evidence to overturn the award of a foul to Dundee to giving a Penalty to Celtic they were both at it.

Expecting consistency between various refs on Scotland is a hard ask.

Expecting Collum to be consistent with himself is even harder.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[matty_f]

Reading this thread it is clear that many posters don't understand the VAR protocols.
Collum is not making anything up.

I personally don't agree with the VAR protocols being fully adopted in the SPL given they are predicated on having full VAR rather than the partial system we have.
I think the footage they showed in the March review clearly shows the ball beyond the bye line and I would always prefer that VAR is utilised to make the best decision possible which in this case they did.
However, the action taken by the VAR team in this case was contrary to the VAR protocols and following the protocols is the safe place for Collum and his staff to protect them from greeting football clubs hence why he states that the VAR team action decision was procedurally wrong.

Where are the protocols for these instances published?

[gbhibby]

Headline on BBC Scottish sport news on Reporting Scotland. Are Hearts and Dundee not playing tonight?

[we are hibs]

We are going to be done by a major decision on Sunday, you can see it coming a mile off.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Waxy]

Remember Celtic getting a pen at ER not long ago because a celtic player kicked a hibs defender on the 18 yard line and fell over.Given by var after the ref and linesman did nothing

[BILLYHIBS]

All over the BBC website and News Celtic and Dundee United were wrongly denied goals against Hibs as if we are the bad guys

Plenty of video evidence to the contrary on this thread and factual decisions were made at the time by VAR disallowing said goals regardless of Willie Gollum’s protocols

As another poster said is there not footie on tonight?

[PHeffernan]

Don’t forget this is the guy that’s said there wasn’t enough to award a penalty for this 37:10 in ….

https://youtu.be/3YZZgquXDig?si=4xy-FETtwpUU2VIs
(https://youtu.be/3YZZgquXDig?si=4xy-FETtwpUU2VIs)
I agree with him, VAR and the whole of the KMI panel that it wasn't a penalty


And yet awarded a penalty as he obviously thought there was enough contact in this …

https://www.skysports.com/football/video/34022/12677360/rangers-win-penalty-at-easter-road-against-hibernian

I agree, that was never a penalty but the incident was more than 30 months ago and a penalty in such circumstances would not be supported by VAR if it happened now. VAR is relatively new and the decision making process is developing all the time. Officials are becoming more experienced, quicker and better in it's use.

There’s never been any consistency with Willie Collum as a ref and quite frankly I think he should never have got the position he’s now in either.

All humans struggle with consistency. That's why machines are used in manufacturing processes. I never thought Collum was a great referee but I think he has already progressed VAR in his first season in charge. Even things like the monthly review we have watched today is a step forward. It won't stop folk moaning but it is progression with regard to tranparency.


Have given my opinions on your post in bold text above

[Vini1875]

For me watching that VAR feed the ball was out and by more than a millimetre and that is conclusive enough for me, Willie, Brendan and co. Get it roond the lot of you'se.

Also Dalby is some header of the ball that he is able to make it change direction mid air, Willie, Jim and co. Get it roond the lot of you'se.

[shetlandhibee]

instead of talking about Hibs great run/cup semi etc bbc1 reporting Scotland only mentioned 2 in there(simple minds)goals that Hibs shouldnt have got in games against dundee utd and celtic with clips of both incidents,,, that was it? how insulting and pathetic IMO :rolleyes: i pray we create history on Sunday the pressures all on them..GGTTH

[500miles]

So the decisions shouldn't have been given on technicalities, despite being correct.

Gutted that we couldn't be cheated with plausible deniability.

[we are hibs]

Interesting they just decided to miss out the Cadden penalty in their tinpot wee review video

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[PHeffernan]

Where are the protocols for these instances published?

IFAB

As I said in my post I don't agree with the VAR protocols being fully adopted in the SPL given they are predicated on having full VAR rather than the partial system we have i.e. our VAR system cannot determine matters of fact one way or the other, such as whether the ball has gone beyond the byeline or not so for me they become subjective decisions so we should use the VAR we have to come to the best decision possible.

In essence this is what happened, VAR looked at it and concluded, like the vast majority of us, that the ball was beyond the bye line when crossed by the guy from The Simpsons.

The only thing that I thought should have happened is that the referee should have been called to the monitor to view the footage and decide whether to stick with his on pitch decision or overturn it.

[Kato]

All over the BBC website and News Celtic and Dundee United were wrongly denied goals against Hibs



To fair I remember the BBC had a similar outcry when David Marshall was clattered over his line by two Ross County huddies neither of whom touched the ball, leading to a goal. And when Hibs were denied a pen against Celtic in the League Cup final a couple of years.

Oh, no. Now I remember The BBC didn't make a fuss at all, ignoring the pen claim and stating that "Marshall has to do better there".



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Donegal Hibby]

Have given my opinions on your post in bold text above

Point being though Willie Collum is now telling us what isn’t enough for a penalty and yet even though it was 30 months ago where he instantly thought that the Colak one warranted a penalty for even less of a foul doesn’t really make a lot of sense.How has this guys opinion on the rules of the game changed so much in that time? …

As someone that doesn’t like VAR at all the problem with it in our game is the same incompetent/corrupt officials are in charge of it regularly which will only lead to them constantly making mistakes or strange decisions even with VAR .

I just don’t see how the likes of Napier , Clancy and a few others are ever going to get better or are ever likely to without a miracle . The vast majority of officials in Scotland need to go and another approach taken in training and producing better ones from all parts of the country. Willie Collum is one of these that hasn’t been good enough over the years as a referee and now he’s in a position telling us all what’s right and wrong in these games :rolleyes:

[PHeffernan]

Interesting they just decided to miss out the Cadden penalty in their tinpot wee review video

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

If they had to produce a review video for every penalty claim in the SPL to placate every greeting fan or manager it would be 7 hours long and nobody wants that ...




and the same folk would still be greeting about it.

P.S. I didn't think the Cadden claim was a penalty

[The Spaceman]

I’m split on the VAR decisions in our favour.

Vs Celtic: the Japan Vs Germany game was a real eye-opener as to how a ball can look clearly out whilst, in fact, being still in-play by the laws of the game. I think, if this was the other way around, we’d be feeling aggrieved if none of the on-field officials believed it was out and VAR couldn’t conclusively determine it was.

Vs Dundee Utd: don’t understand how this is still a debate. He’s clearly headed it down onto his arm/hand, and you can see Dalbys skin under the ball at the point it changes direction. I also think it’s a foul on the Hibs player in the process. For me, it’s a clear disallowed goal and Goodwin should STFU.

[matty_f]

IFAB

As I said in my post I don't agree with the VAR protocols being fully adopted in the SPL given they are predicated on having full VAR rather than the partial system we have i.e. our VAR system cannot determine matters of fact one way or the other, such as whether the ball has gone beyond the byeline or not so for me they become subjective decisions so we should use the VAR we have to come to the best decision possible.

In essence this is what happened, VAR looked at it and concluded, like the vast majority of us, that the ball was beyond the bye line when crossed by the guy from The Simpsons.

The only thing that I thought should have happened is that the referee should have been called to the monitor to view the footage and decide whether to stick with his on pitch decision or overturn it.

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#reviewable-match-changing-decisions-incidents there’s nothing in these protocols, unless I’ve missed it, to say that there has to be conclusive proof, in fact it says that they can use show motion and real time footage to determine matter of fact cases like ball out of play, which is exactly what the VAR operators did in our case.

[Hibees1973]

We are going to be done by a major decision on Sunday, you can see it coming a mile off.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

I would go further than that.

No matter what happens on Sunday the powers that be have already decided we won't be allowed to win this game on Sunday.

[we are hibs]

If they had to produce a review video for every penalty claim in the SPL to placate every greeting fan or manager it would be 7 hours long and nobody wants that ...




and the same folk would still be greeting about it.

P.S. I didn't think the Cadden claim was a penaltyIt was a major taking point in a derby [emoji106].


And there was clear contact on his ankle.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[gbhibby]

Lucky if ref watch spent more than 30 seconds on these incidents.
Sometimes the VAR review creates more questions than answers. As The Proclaimers say,its over and done with.

[Hibernian Verse]

Interesting they just decided to miss out the Cadden penalty in their tinpot wee review video

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

It was March so I’m assuming it will be in April’s show?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PHeffernan]

Point being though Willie Collum is now telling us what isn’t enough for a penalty and yet even though it was 30 months ago where he instantly thought that the Colak one warranted a penalty for even less of a foul doesn’t really make a lot of sense.How has this guys opinion on the rules of the game changed so much in that time? …

As someone that doesn’t like VAR at all the problem with it in our game is the same incompetent/corrupt officials are in charge of it regularly which will only lead to them constantly making mistakes or strange decisions even with VAR .

I just don’t see how the likes of Napier , Clancy and a few others are ever going to get better or are ever likely to without a miracle . The vast majority of officials in Scotland need to go and another approach taken in training and producing better ones from all parts of the country. Willie Collum is one of these that hasn’t been good enough over the years as a referee and now he’s in a position telling us all what’s right and wrong in these games :rolleyes:


For me the referees like the players do their best to make good decision during games. They all make mistakes and the players make more than the referees.
To those of us that follow it, football is probably the most important non important things in our lives, however, the constant Calimeroing of some managers and supporters over objective refereeing decisions is immature and does my box in. Rodgers should have just accepted the byeline decision. It wasn't an egregious error, the ball was a bawhair in or out so someone was going to be disappointed whatever way the decision went.
Then there are incidents like the O'Hora penalty claim you mention. You think it was some travesty that a penalty wasn't given. Decision made in good faith by the officials, some Hibs supporters thought it should have been a penalty and some like me didn't. Incidentally the referee, VAR and yon panel didn't think it was. Guys I know that follow other teams didn't think it was and the others couldn't remember seeing it when they watched the highlights.

VAR is improving and has all but cut out horror bad decisions so that we are now arguing over marginal decisions.
Bottom line with refereeing decisions is greeting about them changes nothing so best accept them and move on.
There will be no asterisk in the record books for the game between Hibs and Celtic at Easter Road on the 22nd February 2025.
All it will show is Hibernian FC 2 v 1 Celtic FC. If you look a bit closer you might see the famous roadrunner Japanese player Maida scored a consolation goal but that will be it.

[Callum_62]

I do agree, the VAR review is actually a very welcome addition and I applaud him for it and the transparency. But the problem you're going to encounter is it just repeats itself and I don't know how long that can happen before you question him as part of it.



At the risk of reopening the can of worms we've had in this thread previously, you might not be looking at the ball strike Dalby's hand though, you could just as easily be seeing it hit off Triantis' ear or the shoulder/top of the arm. Both of us are as unable as each other to say what the ball has actually hit. There isn't any factual footage that shows it hitting his hand. You can come to the conclusion that you think it did, my gut tells me it did as well, but to overturn the on field decision it needs to be factual and provable. Not gut and conclusions based on belief.

I think many people will change their tune when the inevitable happens on Sunday and we're on the other end of this type of thing.I don't really agree

Someone's hand is nearly as wides as someone's shoulder - his hand is clearly there and the ball clearly strikes that area

I don't know how we can be looking at pictures of the ball against his hand and say we can't be sure or it hit Traiantis on the ear...[emoji50]

The ball being out I can give them some leeway but they now better not ever award a goal that's close to the line unless we have a camera directly above

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[PHeffernan]

It was a major taking point in a derby [emoji106].


And there was clear contact on his ankle.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk


If you watch the March VAR review video all the incidents reviewed were due to the losing teams tears; Celtic and Dundee Utd (against Hibs), St Mirren (against Celtic) etc.

Hibs won the derby so it's not being talked about.

Only contact after Cadden drove into his lane. Hope he doesn't drive like that.

[davhibby]

We are going to be done by a major decision on Sunday, you can see it coming a mile off.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

We’ve already been done by one. They also admitted in the review that St Mirren should’ve had a penalty last week and Johnston sent off meaning he’d have missed Sunday and they’d have been stuck with Ralston at right back.

[PHeffernan]

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#reviewable-match-changing-decisions-incidents there’s nothing in these protocols, unless I’ve missed it, to say that there has to be conclusive proof, in fact it says that they can use show motion and real time footage to determine matter of fact cases like ball out of play, which is exactly what the VAR operators did in our case.

Rodgers was argueing that this matter of fact case could not be proved one way or the other because our technology does not allow it so VAR should not have changed the onfield decision unless they could prove it was wrong and Collum in what he has said in the revue has gone down the same route.

The way I read the protocol is similar to yourself but I believe VAR made an error by not getting the referee to make the final decision after a pitchside review.
My rational being that although it is a matter of fact whether the ball was in or out the SPL technology only allows for a subjective opinion to be made therefore it is not a matter of fact decision it is a subjective one.

The problem with that is that the protocol states that VAR will make the decisions on matter of fact cases which takes me back to the disconnect between the VAR protocols and the less than complete VAR technology we have in Scotland.

[gbhibby]

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#reviewable-match-changing-decisions-incidents there’s nothing in these protocols, unless I’ve missed it, to say that there has to be conclusive proof, in fact it says that they can use show motion and real time footage to determine matter of fact cases like ball out of play, which is exactly what the VAR operators did in our case.
Just read them and you have hit the nail on the head. The VAR and AVAR asked for different angles and the image that I posted in the SUN article is what the VAR and AVAR saw when they made their decision. Inconclusive became conclusive due to using a number of different camera angles. Collum is bowing to the panel and in his opinion inconclusive thus undermining the VAR and AVAR.

[LaMotta]

The protocol is so flawed.

We have two decisions which on review of the camera angles look like the ball was out v Celtic and that Dalby handled.

Apparently because you can't 100% prove it from the budget VAR limited version of only 6 cameras in the stadium (compare to 30 in EPL), then we should instead go with the onfield decision of a lino who has a far worse view and has already shown he is incapable of getting an easy decision right (Campbell's 2nd goal).

The idea we must go with the onfield decison is totally flawed, because its clearly obvious that onfield officials sometimes hold back from making decisions as they arent quite sure, so decide to just wait for VAR to review.

And what about the Dalby handball? We dont even have the camera angle to prove that Dalby was 100% onside, yet the handball footage and the rationale for it from VAR officials seems obvious he handles it - but Collum says protocol doesnt 100% prove it so it should stick with onfield decision?

Collum isnt being quizzed properly by the Radio Clyde dude on the VAR review imo. So many flaws in the "protocols".

6 cameras might never give you 100% proof of a "factual"decision - surely its better though to go with 90% correct from those cameras than just going with the onfield decision for the sake of it.

[PHeffernan]

We’ve already been done by one. They also admitted in the review that St Mirren should’ve had a penalty last week and Johnston sent off meaning he’d have missed Sunday and they’d have been stuck with Ralston at right back.

Nah, you are hearing what you want to hear.
Collum said that he thought it should have been a penalty and a yellow card.

[matty_f]

Rodgers was argueing that this matter of fact case could not be proved one way or the other because our technology does not allow it so VAR should not have changed the onfield decision unless they could prove it was wrong and Collum in what he has said in the revue has gone down the same route.

The way I read the protocol is similar to yourself but I believe VAR made an error by not getting the referee to make the final decision after a pitchside review.
My rational being that although it is a matter of fact whether the ball was in or out the SPL technology only allows for a subjective opinion to be made therefore it is not a matter of fact decision it is a subjective one.

The problem with that is that the protocol states that VAR will make the decisions on matter of fact cases which takes me back to the disconnect between the VAR protocols and the less than complete VAR technology we have in Scotland.
I think it should have gone to an on field review if the VAR guys didn't think it was conclusive - they did, after slowing it and checking the other angles, you can hear their thought process and where they see the ball is out of play.

Collum's thrown them under a bus to appease Rodgers and Goodwin.

[LaMotta]

I think it should have gone to an on field review if the VAR guys didn't think it was conclusive - they did, after slowing it and checking the other angles, you can hear their thought process and where they see the ball is out of play.

Collum's thrown them under a bus to appease Rodgers and Goodwin.

We are meant to believe that a 90% (at least) sure VAR decision should be overlooked for a 30% sure onfield decision, just because you don't have the technology available to get to 100% sure?

There is no logic in that, regardless of how brazenly Collum speaks.

[matty_f]

The protocol is so flawed.

We have two decisions which on review of the camera angles look like the ball was out v Celtic and that Dalby handled.

Apparently because you can't 100% prove it from the budget VAR limited version of only 6 cameras in the stadium (compare to 30 in EPL), then we should instead go with the onfield decision of a lino who has a far worse view and has already shown he is incapable of getting an easy decision right (Campbell's 2nd goal).

The idea we must go with the onfield decison is totally flawed, because its clearly obvious that onfield officials sometimes hold back from making decisions as they arent quite sure, so decide to just wait for VAR to review.

And what about the Dalby handball? We dont even have the camera angle to prove that Dalby was 100% onside, yet the handball footage and the rationale for it from VAR officials seems obvious he handles it - but Collum says protocol doesnt 100% prove it so it should stick with onfield decision?

Collum isnt being quizzed properly by the Radio Clyde dude on the VAR review imo. So many flaws in the "protocols".

6 cameras might never give you 100% proof of a "factual"decision - surely its better though to go with 90% correct from those cameras than just going with the onfield decision for the sake of it.

Collum's just thrown in that conclusive proof protocol - it doesn't exist in the actual VAR protocols but in doing so he's made it extremely hard for VAR to deal with anything marginal because of the nature of how cameras work with fast moving subjects like players and footballs because on a flat image from selected perspectives, conclusive proof off even fairly blatant things is difficult.

He's caused himself and his team a real issue for incidents down the line, you can wait for "you can't compare because every incident is different" later when he's had grief from someone else that the decision is wrong and it's gone the other way.

[matty_f]

We are meant to believe that a 90% (at least) sure VAR decision should be overlooked for a 30% sure onfield decision, just because you don't have the technology available to get to 100% sure?

There is no logic in that, regardless of how brazenly Collum speaks.

Exactly, it's the worst possible approach to take.

[gbhibby]

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/14381872/image-daizen-maeda-celtic-goal-vs-hibs-hoops-star/

Is this inconclusive VAR used the stop frame image showing the same as image 2.


Sent from my SM-A127F using Tapatalk

[JimBHibees]

BBC reporting Scotland highlighting these two incidents tonight as wrong just gtf. Penalty for Myko and Cadden more wrong decisions than two clearly correct ones. Collum should be applauding his var colleagues for getting them right with the technology available not openly undermining them to appease idiot managers.

[LaMotta]

Collum's just thrown in that conclusive proof protocol - it doesn't exist in the actual VAR protocols but in doing so he's made it extremely hard for VAR to deal with anything marginal because of the nature of how cameras work with fast moving subjects like players and footballs because on a flat image from selected perspectives, conclusive proof off even fairly blatant things is difficult.

He's caused himself and his team a real issue for incidents down the line, you can wait for "you can't compare because every incident is different" later when he's had grief from someone else that the decision is wrong and it's gone the other way.


Exactly, it's the worst possible approach to take.

Looking at the footage in accompaniment with the VAR audio for both decisions, I think the VAR officials are talking complete sense, and can fully see how they come to the conclusion on each occasion.

Wonder how they feel about Collum's comments......

[LaMotta]

BBC reporting Scotland highlighting these two incidents tonight as wrong just gtf. Penalty for Myko and Cadden more wrong decisions than two clearly correct ones. Collum should be applauding his var colleagues for getting them right with the technology available not openly undermining them to appease idiot managers.

Spot on :agree:

[PHeffernan]

I think it should have gone to an on field review if the VAR guys didn't think it was conclusive - they did, after slowing it and checking the other angles, you can hear their thought process and where they see the ball is out of play.

Collum's thrown them under a bus to appease Rodgers and Goodwin.

The biggest problem coming out of this is Collum has now set a precedent for VAR which will see them copping out of utilising VAR technology to make good decisions on matters of fact if there is no perfect camera angle so instead of there being a 95% chance of making the correct decision they will go with an onfield call in such matters where the odds of the correct decision will be less than 70%.

[Centre Hawf]

I don't really agree

Someone's hand is nearly as wides as someone's shoulder - his hand is clearly there and the ball clearly strikes that area

I don't know how we can be looking at pictures of the ball against his hand and say we can't be sure or it hit Traiantis on the ear...[emoji50]

The ball being out I can give them some leeway but they now better not ever award a goal that's close to the line unless we have a camera directly above

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

His hand is there, the ball strikes that area, it could very well be handball (I honestly do actually think it is btw). But you've already slightly illustrated yourself in one sentence why there is no 100% guarantee that it is a handball, we only know it hits the area near where his hand is.


https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#reviewable-match-changing-decisions-incidents there’s nothing in these protocols, unless I’ve missed it, to say that there has to be conclusive proof, in fact it says that they can use show motion and real time footage to determine matter of fact cases like ball out of play, which is exactly what the VAR operators did in our case.
I know we've discussed this before Matty, but it is how it needs to be done. It needs to be conclusive proof -

3. The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a ‘clear and obvious error’.

Of course they can use slow motion and real time footage to determine these things, like they have done in these cases, but what they're looking for is the evidence to show it was a clear error. The reviews do not clearly show a clear and obvious error that can be proven by the review. The reviews cannot in any way prove either way that the ball is in/out or it's hit Dalby's hand/Triantis shoulder.

[LaMotta]

His hand is there, the ball strikes that area, it could very well be handball (I honestly do actually think it is btw). But you've already slightly illustrated yourself in one sentence why there is no 100% guarantee that it is a handball, we only know it hits the area near where his hand is.


I know we've discussed this before Matty, but it is how it needs to be done. It needs to be conclusive proof -

3. The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a ‘clear and obvious error’.

Of course they can use slow motion and real time footage to determine these things, like they have done in these cases, but what they're looking for is the evidence to show it was a clear error. The reviews do not clearly show a clear and obvious error that can be proven by the review. The reviews cannot in any way prove either way that the ball is in/out or it's hit Dalby's hand/Triantis shoulder.

Why does it need to be done that way?

Why should a 90% + sure decision from VAR officials trump a less than 50% sure decision from an on field official? There is little logic in that particularly as we know on field officials sometimes hold back from making a decision as they know they have VAR to look at things.

[LaMotta]

His hand is there, the ball strikes that area, it could very well be handball (I honestly do actually think it is btw). But you've already slightly illustrated yourself in one sentence why there is no 100% guarantee that it is a handball, we only know it hits the area near where his hand is.


So go with a less than 50% guess from an official in a poor position compared to 2 VAR officials looking at slowed down replays where as you say it looks to be the correct decision? Just because we cant get to 100%?

[Centre Hawf]

Why does it need to be done that way?

Why should a 90% + sure decision from VAR officials trump a less than 50% sure decision from an on field official? There is little logic in that particularly as we know on field officials sometimes hold back from making a decision as they know they have VAR to look at things.

I won’t defend it being that way. I think there’s better methods especially with our ‘VAR light’ we seem to have. But unfortunately that is the protocol and how it should have been done in these circumstances.

[Centre Hawf]

So go with a less than 50% guess from an official in a poor position compared to 2 VAR officials looking at slowed down replays where as you say it looks to be the correct decision? Just because we cant get to 100%?

Unfortunately, as it stands, yes.

[matty_f]

His hand is there, the ball strikes that area, it could very well be handball (I honestly do actually think it is btw). But you've already slightly illustrated yourself in one sentence why there is no 100% guarantee that it is a handball, we only know it hits the area near where his hand is.


I know we've discussed this before Matty, but it is how it needs to be done. It needs to be conclusive proof -

3. The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a ‘clear and obvious error’.

Of course they can use slow motion and real time footage to determine these things, like they have done in these cases, but what they're looking for is the evidence to show it was a clear error. The reviews do not clearly show a clear and obvious error that can be proven by the review. The reviews cannot in any way prove either way that the ball is in/out or it's hit Dalby's hand/Triantis shoulder.

That's not right, it's clear and obvious error OR the referee has missed a serious incident (ball out of play, handball etc). Clear and obvious isn't a factor in this instance.

[matty_f]

The biggest problem coming out of this is Collum has now set a precedent for VAR which will see them copping out of utilising VAR technology to make good decisions on matters of fact if there is no perfect camera angle so instead of there being a 95% chance of making the correct decision they will go with an onfield call in such matters where the odds of the correct decision will be less than 70%.

:agree:

[Wilson]

Why does it need to be done that way?

Why should a 90% + sure decision from VAR officials trump a less than 50% sure decision from an on field official? There is little logic in that particularly as we know on field officials sometimes hold back from making a decision as they know they have VAR to look at things.

VAR needs to be utilised consistently across all games. It isn't fair to rule in one game because you're 95% certain and not in another one because you're only 75% or 80%. Where is the cut-off?

You use a rigid protocol so VAR can be implemented evenly for all teams across a whole season. If you use it against protocol one week and not the next then decision making becomes ad hoc which leads to inconsistency, which promotes an unfair competition.

It doesn't matter that it may have been right. It was used in a way one week that it won't be the next. Which is poor.