Celtics Disallowed Goal

[LaMotta]

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.

This obsession with protocol for supposedly "factual" VAR decisions that cant be proven 100% because we dont pay for enough cameras is a red herring.

Referees make onfield decisions every week that are different from each other and can be unfair for different teams. Celtic got away with multiple regulation yellow cards against us that day due to Steven Mclean. There are inconsitencies on a regular basis.

The protocol should be the VAR officials look at the footage and decide whats happened. Both decisions were fully justifiable going by the audio and video clips available.

[Hibrandenburg]

Jeez, are they still moaning about this.

[Callum_62]

I'd laugh myself silly if we end up scoring the winner with a unprovable but almost certainly handball [emoji6]

I bet Celtic would just accept that they highlighted the need for that environment to exist and are fully supportive of it

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Greenbeard]

What's another name for willy? That's what Collum is.
If you can't be 100% sure the ball hits Dalby's hand, you can be 100% sure Dalby has his hand on Triantis's shoulder to help lever himup and at the same time inhibit Triantis's jump to defend. Free kick Hibs.

[Pagan Hibernia]

What's another name for willy? That's what Collum is.
If you can't be 100% sure the ball hits Dalby's hand, you can be 100% sure Dalby has his hand on Triantis's shoulder to help lever himup and at the same time inhibit Triantis's jump to defend. Free kick Hibs.

Offside too.

I dont care if they can't draw their silly wee lines. The still images when the free kick was taken show him to be marginally offside.

So offside, handball, and a foul on our defender. Whether they landed on the right reason for disallowing it or not, they certainly landed on the right decision to disallow it. Justice done.

As for celtic, no mention on why VAR never picked up the blatant shove on our player in the penalty box I'm assuming?

[jonny]

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.

A lot of people seem to think it's only clear and obvious and only refer to that part of the rule but you're absolutely spot on.

[Centre Hawf]

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.


A lot of people seem to think it's only clear and obvious and only refer to that part of the rule but you're absolutely spot on.

This doesn’t come under ‘serious missed incident’ as that would involve him having to go to the monitor to check for himself.

[JJP]

If the roles were reversed and we had a goal disallowed like that it would never have even been spoken about again.

[Donegal Hibby]

If the roles were reversed and we had a goal disallowed like that it would never have even been spoken about again.

Other than Willie Collum telling us it was the correct decision to chalk it off .

[Since452]

If the roles were reversed and we had a goal disallowed like that it would never have even been spoken about again.

Correct. Imagine it was them against Rangers and Rangers had a goal disallowed for the exact same thing. They'd be defending the decision to the hilt. Honestly, in the words of Keegan, I'd love it if we beat them.

[A Hi-Bee]

17 pages on this guff, even Trump would struggle to go on this long.
:greengrin:greengrin

[maturehibby]

17 pages on this guff, even Trump would struggle to go on this long.
:greengrin:greengrin

And if Smith hadn't fumbled it when it came over there would not have been 17 pages about in and out of play

[gbhibby]

17 pages on this guff, even Trump would struggle to go on this long.
:greengrin:greengrin

Heard the cats on the Springfield Road are very tasty.

[Booked4Being-Ugly]

This has ground me down so much I’m almost regretting beating Celtic fair and square!

What a massive stooshie they’ve created about a ball being out ffs. If this was Hibs v Ross County no one would have given a flying ****.

[Pagan Hibernia]

This has ground me down so much I’m almost regretting beating Celtic fair and square!

What a massive stooshie they’ve created about a ball being out ffs. If this was Hibs v Ross County no one would have given a flying ****.

Don't let it get to you. Wins against that lot are few and far between, very precious and to be enjoyed. Don't let Rodgers, their slapped arsed fans and the media ruin it for you. We won, and we deserved it too.

[Just_Jimmy]

They've moaned relentlessly for so long that we're guaranteed to get absolutely shafted tomorrow.

Expect nothing.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

[Unseen work]

They've moaned relentlessly for so long that we're guaranteed to get absolutely shafted tomorrow.

Expect nothing.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

Been saying the same to my mates.

We’re going to get absolutely nothing tomorrow and they’ll get everything

Celtic pen tomorrow and a red card for us is a certainty

[matty_f]

This doesn’t come under ‘serious missed incident’ as that would involve him having to go to the monitor to check for himself.

No it doesn't, as it's a factual review.

[LaMotta]

And if Smith hadn't fumbled it when it came over there would not have been 17 pages about in and out of play

He didn't fumble it, Ekpiteta was the one more at fault!

[Just_Jimmy]

Been saying the same to my mates.

We’re going to get absolutely nothing tomorrow and they’ll get everything

Celtic pen tomorrow and a red card for us is a certaintyThen it'll never be mentioned again.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

[Centre Hawf]

No it doesn't, as it's a factual review.

You’re right, because it’s not a serious missed incident. A serious missed incident is if he doesn’t spot something such as the point of contact on a tackle or an elbow in the face.

This was a moment in which the on field ref seen how close the ball was and the linesman saw how close it was, and have decided that they thought it was still in. The on field decision is a goal. Of course we can debate the linesman and refs position to make a decision, but that’s not up for discussion as part of the protocol here.

So it needs the clear and obvious error criteria, this was something that I said was the case a week ago, now the VAR review is saying the same. In fact majority of people that I’ve spoken to agree with that assessment. It’s just Hibs fans trying to jump through the laws of the game to find a justification for it all. I’ve said it before, it’s okay to admit we got away with one and discuss how pish the protocol actually is in the hope of changing it for the better.

[matty_f]

You’re right, because it’s not a serious missed incident. A serious missed incident is if he doesn’t spot something such as the point of contact on a tackle or an elbow in the face.

This was a moment in which the on field ref seen how close the ball was and the linesman saw how close it was, and have decided that they thought it was still in. The on field decision is a goal. Of course we can debate the linesman and refs position to make a decision, but that’s not up for discussion as part of the protocol here.

So it needs the clear and obvious error criteria, this was something that I said was the case a week ago, now the VAR review is saying the same. In fact majority of people that I’ve spoken to agree with that assessment. It’s just Hibs fans trying to jump through the laws of the game to find a justification for it all. I’ve said it before, it’s okay to admit we got away with one and discuss how pish the protocol actually is in the hope of changing it for the better.

That's not right, I don't think.

Clear and obvious or a serious missed incident in relation to certain incidents, ball out of play being a serious missed incident. From the IFAB page:


The categories of decision/incident which may be reviewed in the event of a potential ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ are:

a. Goal/no goal

attacking team offence in the build-up to or scoring of the goal (handball, foul, offside etc.)
ball out of play prior to the goal
goal/no goal decisions
offence by goalkeeper and/or kicker at the taking of a penalty kick or encroachment by an attacker or defender who becomes directly involved in play if the penalty kick rebounds from the goalpost, crossbar or goalkeeper

Also covers Dalby's handball.

[JimBHibees]

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.

There was clear footage the ball undoubtedly hit his hand.

[Centre Hawf]

That's not right, I don't think.

Clear and obvious or a serious missed incident in relation to certain incidents, ball out of play being a serious missed incident. From the IFAB page:



Also covers Dalby's handball.

I'll admit I've not fully explained the serious incident criteria very well previously. In the case of subjective decisions if the ref says he's seen something and views on it one way and VAR think (again subjective so it's an opinion) they've seen evidence to show that it actually is clear and obviously wrong and should be the other way, then they can ask him to go to the monitor and review it again to overturn his original decision if he wishes. If he says he hasn't seen something that think they've actually spotted then it can come under serious missed incident, such as my example of the elbow.

In the case of a factual decision - because VAR are in the position to make the decision without the ref then the serious missed incident only really matters in the same way as the clear and obvious error does, both require factual evidence that prove without any doubt that it is the way the VAR say it is when choosing to overturn the decision. Does it hit the hand and does the footage leave no ambiguity on if it does? Is he offside and do our wee lines prove to people that he is? Is the ball out of play and do we have an angle that can show every part of the ball is out? They need proof that it's the case. They couldn't chop of the Dalby goal for offside because the lines weren't working for whatever reason, so they had to leave it. They couldn't just hold a ruler up and vindicate themselves, to themselves. They have to show the rest of us the working and not leave a large chunk of us all questioning it. At the very least their own boss.

That has been and will always be the crux of this entire debate is the evidence as both decisions we're discussing are factual decisions and thus require matter of fact evidence to support VAR making a decision on it to begin with, unlike the subjective decision where they can then allow their 'opinion' to entire the process to open it up for the ref to decide.

No angle shows the ball is out, we all want to say it is because we're Hibs fans, but the fact we're even having a debate among us all that the ball could be in shows that it's not 100% the black and white truth that the ball is out thus any decision VAR make is not factual, and instead opinion, so they have to hold their hands up and go with the on field decision.


There was clear footage the ball undoubtedly hit his hand.

In my opinion the footage they reviewed isn't clear that it has undoubtedly hit his hand, the same as quite a few others. So as I've said above it then becomes opinion.

[gbhibby]

Let's now put this thread to bed, people are repeating the same points and opinions over and over again nobody is adding anything new to the debate
It was2 1 to Hibs move on.

[Centre Hawf]

Let's now put this thread to bed, people are repeating the same points and opinions over and over again nobody is adding anything new to the debate
It was2 1 to Hibs move on.

A few have said this, but I've mostly discussed this with PHeffernan, LaMotta, and Matty and I've quite enjoyed the discussion with them and their view points on the IFAB laws. It's left me questioning my own position and interpretation of how it works at times. If people are bored by it then they can choose to read other threads.

[gbhibby]

A few have said this, but I've mostly discussed this with PHeffernan, LaMotta, and Matty and I've quite enjoyed the discussion with them and their view points on the IFAB laws. It's left me questioning my own position and interpretation of how it works at times. If people are bored by it then they can choose to read other threads.
I have pointed out things in the thread which have been taken up by others later in the discussion. You have been making valid points but you are adding nothing new. In this case one man's conclusive is another man's inconclusive.

[BILLYHIBS]

That works clear handball :

https://x.com/Rangers_Spares_/status/1895085911609954352

And that’s oot

https://i.ibb.co/QFbt2RXH/IMG-3345.png (https://ibb.co/fY1Lh5QN)

Onwards to tomorrow

Both factual decisions made by the VAR to overturn onfield errors made by the match day officials

[Carheenlea]

That works

https://x.com/Rangers_Spares_/status/1895085911609954352

And that’s oot

https://i.ibb.co/QFbt2RXH/IMG-3345.png (https://ibb.co/fY1Lh5QN)

Onwards to tomorrow

Both factual decisions made by the VAR to overturn onfield errors made by the match day officials

If he's that far over the line tomorrow he'll be in danger of falling down the Parkhead photographers pit.

[JohnM1875]

If he's that far over the line tomorrow he'll be in danger of falling down the Parkhead photographers pit.

They could probably score from a few rows into the crowd tomorrow and it’ll still get given. We’re going to get shafted by the ref/VAR

[Donegal Hibby]

That works

https://x.com/Rangers_Spares_/status/1895085911609954352

And that’s oot

https://i.ibb.co/QFbt2RXH/IMG-3345.png (https://ibb.co/fY1Lh5QN)

Onwards to tomorrow

Both factual decisions made by the VAR to overturn onfield errors made by the match day officials

Handball is clear there IMO . Is there a case for a foul which wasn’t mentioned as Dalby is on Triantis back which is stopping him from getting up to head it ? .

One in the Nottingham Forrest game today that looked similar to the Celtic incident , decision was the ball had went out. Nobody complained at the time and doubt there will be in the coming days ..

Think Willie Collum has made pigs ear of his assessment on both incidents and not helped the officials who got both decisions right IMO . I wonder what effect that will have moving forward when looking at decisions now .

[JimBHibees]

That works

https://x.com/Rangers_Spares_/status/1895085911609954352

And that’s oot

https://i.ibb.co/QFbt2RXH/IMG-3345.png (https://ibb.co/fY1Lh5QN)

Onwards to tomorrow

Both factual decisions made by the VAR to overturn onfield errors made by the match day officials

Yep both absolutely clear it is like some parallel universe discussing these decisions. Both 100per cent right yet we are being gaslite by indicating they are both wrong. Absolutely ridiculous

[Callum_62]

Handball is clear there IMO . Is there a case for a foul which wasn’t mentioned as Dalby is on Triantis back which is stopping him from getting up to head it ? .

One in the Nottingham Forrest game today that looked similar to the Celtic incident , decision was the ball had went out. Nobody complained at the time and doubt there will be in the coming days ..

Think Willie Collum has made pigs ear of his assessment on both incidents and not helped the officials who got both decisions right IMO . I wonder what effect that will have moving forward when looking at decisions now .Hearing the var in the dalbys handball incident actually gave me hope that they were improving

All sounded sensible to me

Ofcourse that's been thrown right out the window [emoji23]

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[LaMotta]

A few have said this, but I've mostly discussed this with PHeffernan, LaMotta, and Matty and I've quite enjoyed the discussion with them and their view points on the IFAB laws. It's left me questioning my own position and interpretation of how it works at times. If people are bored by it then they can choose to read other threads.

Agreed!!

[BILLYHIBS]

I'll admit I've not fully explained the serious incident criteria very well previously. In the case of subjective decisions if the ref says he's seen something and views on it one way and VAR think (again subjective so it's an opinion) they've seen evidence to show that it actually is clear and obviously wrong and should be the other way, then they can ask him to go to the monitor and review it again to overturn his original decision if he wishes. If he says he hasn't seen something that think they've actually spotted then it can come under serious missed incident, such as my example of the elbow.

In the case of a factual decision - because VAR are in the position to make the decision without the ref then the serious missed incident only really matters in the same way as the clear and obvious error does, both require factual evidence that prove without any doubt that it is the way the VAR say it is when choosing to overturn the decision. Does it hit the hand and does the footage leave no ambiguity on if it does? Is he offside and do our wee lines prove to people that he is? Is the ball out of play and do we have an angle that can show every part of the ball is out? They need proof that it's the case. They couldn't chop of the Dalby goal for offside because the lines weren't working for whatever reason, so they had to leave it. They couldn't just hold a ruler up and vindicate themselves, to themselves. They have to show the rest of us the working and not leave a large chunk of us all questioning it. At the very least their own boss.

That has been and will always be the crux of this entire debate is the evidence as both decisions we're discussing are factual decisions and thus require matter of fact evidence to support VAR making a decision on it to begin with, unlike the subjective decision where they can then allow their 'opinion' to entire the process to open it up for the ref to decide.

No angle shows the ball is out, we all want to say it is because we're Hibs fans, but the fact we're even having a debate among us all that the ball could be in shows that it's not 100% the black and white truth that the ball is out thus any decision VAR make is not factual, and instead opinion, so they have to hold their hands up and go with the on field decision.



In my opinion the footage they reviewed isn't clear that it has undoubtedly hit his hand, the same as quite a few others. So as I've said above it then becomes opinion.

It hits his hand see my post 7 above #528

[Donegal Hibby]

Hearing the var in the dalbys handball incident actually gave me hope that they were improving

All sounded sensible to me

Ofcourse that's been thrown right out the window [emoji23]

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

Yep , it did and then along came Willie Collum 😂

[BILLYHIBS]

Was impressed by the VAR conversation in both reviews I thought they did well to spot Dalby’s handball in the hurly burly and the difficulty in drawing lines for offside not forgetting getting a leg up on Triantis maybes need to communicate more to the public

Gollum has thrown the VAR boys under the bus with his gobbledegook and gaslit us

[ancient hibee]

Interesting that there’s been no talk of the VAR guys being stood down as a result of these”errors”.

[matty_f]

I'll admit I've not fully explained the serious incident criteria very well previously. In the case of subjective decisions if the ref says he's seen something and views on it one way and VAR think (again subjective so it's an opinion) they've seen evidence to show that it actually is clear and obviously wrong and should be the other way, then they can ask him to go to the monitor and review it again to overturn his original decision if he wishes. If he says he hasn't seen something that think they've actually spotted then it can come under serious missed incident, such as my example of the elbow.

In the case of a factual decision - because VAR are in the position to make the decision without the ref then the serious missed incident only really matters in the same way as the clear and obvious error does, both require factual evidence that prove without any doubt that it is the way the VAR say it is when choosing to overturn the decision. Does it hit the hand and does the footage leave no ambiguity on if it does? Is he offside and do our wee lines prove to people that he is? Is the ball out of play and do we have an angle that can show every part of the ball is out? They need proof that it's the case. They couldn't chop of the Dalby goal for offside because the lines weren't working for whatever reason, so they had to leave it. They couldn't just hold a ruler up and vindicate themselves, to themselves. They have to show the rest of us the working and not leave a large chunk of us all questioning it. At the very least their own boss.

That has been and will always be the crux of this entire debate is the evidence as both decisions we're discussing are factual decisions and thus require matter of fact evidence to support VAR making a decision on it to begin with, unlike the subjective decision where they can then allow their 'opinion' to entire the process to open it up for the ref to decide.

No angle shows the ball is out, we all want to say it is because we're Hibs fans, but the fact we're even having a debate among us all that the ball could be in shows that it's not 100% the black and white truth that the ball is out thus any decision VAR make is not factual, and instead opinion, so they have to hold their hands up and go with the on field decision.



In my opinion the footage they reviewed isn't clear that it has undoubtedly hit his hand, the same as quite a few others. So as I've said above it then becomes opinion.
Again, I'd respectfully disagree.

Factual decision in this context isn't the same as factual in a scientific or legal context, there is no requirement in any of the protocols that say conclusive proof is needed (unless I've missed it, in which case I'm happy to change my view).

Factual here could be read as binary, it's either something or it isn't - offside/onside, over the line/not over the line, hits the hand/doesn't hit the hand.

These are things that are not considered subjective and because the law regarding the attacker scoring with a handball is that any contact with the have is punishable, there's no degree of subjectivity as there would be if a defender does it. The application is any contact with the hand is punishable when it's the goal scorer.

VAR's job is to review the footage and confirm the decision, in both these cases - and the audio and video footage supports this - VAR area satisfied from that review that the ball went out (they even freeze the point where they can see it) and where it hits the arm (again, they talk through it and freeze frame, iirc).

There is no requirement for them to conclusively prove it, in fact other than offside, the technology doesn't exist to do so, so even if it was a protocol it would be redundant from the word go.

In the same way that the linesman is tasked with raising the flag when he sees the ball going out of play or the referee is tasked with blowing his whistle when he sees a foul, the VAR are tasked with watching the footage and calling what they see.

We know, because we've heard the words the VAR team said and seen the images that the VAR team saw, that they saw the ball go out of play and they saw the ball hit the striker's arm, and we know they didn't have a doubt over it because they never called the ref to the monitor in either instance, they reviewed the footage and informed the ref of their observation.

They did their job as they're expected to, Collum's thrown them under a bus.

[matty_f]

Was impressed by the VAR conversation in both reviews I thought they did well to spot Dalby’s handball in the hurly burly and the difficulty in drawing lines for offside not forgetting getting a leg up on Triantis maybes need to communicate more to the public

Gollum has thrown the VAR boys under the bus with his gobbledegook and gaslit us
Agreed.

[Northernhibee]

What struck me was the incorrect decision to punish Celtic for a foul in the box and to give the opposing team a penalty.

The conversion seemed to be not a mile from “you happy to not give a prenalty?”. “Aye”. No going over multiple angles, no real investigating, just move the game on from a clear penalty ASAP

[gbhibby]

The sequence of events was that the VAR and AVAR looked at different angles that were inconclusive the then looked at the main camera and in their opinion showed the ball to be out of play then advised the referee that it had gone out so we were awarded a goal kick factual decision.In the game many incidents are looked at from different camera angles. Some camera angles show something that another camera does not pick up and can completely change a decision. We will get some decisions against us between now and the end of the season but once the final whistle goes, game over. I agree with mattyf on the IFAB and his interpretation of the protocols.

[Spike Mandela]

Maybe we could have a minutes silence before the game tomorrow for Celtic's disallowed goal. I think we would all appreciate the closure.

[gbhibby]

Maybe we could have a minutes silence before the game tomorrow for Celtic's disallowed goal. I think we would all appreciate the closure.
The dead goal society

[degenerated]

Maybe we could have a minutes silence before the game tomorrow for Celtic's disallowed goal. I think we would all appreciate the closure.A minutes applause on 83 minutes would be the respectful manner of paying tribute to something that clearly means so much to them.

[Bostonhibby]

A minutes applause on 83 minutes would be the respectful manner of paying tribute to something that clearly means so much to them.Maybe they could copy a song from someone for the occasion?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[matty_f]

A minutes applause on 83 minutes would be the respectful manner of paying tribute to something that clearly means so much to them.

😂

[degenerated]

Maybe they could copy a song from someone for the occasion?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using TapatalkOr a whole club :hilarious

[Bostonhibby]

Or a whole club :hilarious[emoji16]
https://youtu.be/RBj2HN2uuNA?si=QaeZPHSgMod0x2x_

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

A minutes applause on 83 minutes would be the respectful manner of paying tribute to something that clearly means so much to them.

:agree:

[coldingham hibs]

Clearly all the carry on about the ball out of play at Easter Road worked. Two balls clearly out at the touch line today for Hibs throw in’s, play on Celtic. Farcical.

[LewysGot2]

Clearly all the carry on about the ball out of play at Easter Road worked. Two balls clearly out at the touch line today for Hibs throw in’s, play on Celtic. Farcical.

Exactly what we said. The whining got the officiating they are used to.

Steward at our gates was blethering ahead of getting in and he asked us "so was the ball out, then?"as a joke. We said "of course". He laughed and said "you've poked the bear with that win - the whining has been off the scale". Assumed he must be from the other ugly sister team but then he said "go and do them again, eh? Both them and the other mob are as bad as each other" We obviously found a Partick fan 🤣🙄

[Alfred E Newman]

Forget the 2-0 win, they are slating the "bias" referee for letting us have the audacity to steal a couple of yards for the throw in that led to our only real chance to score.

[Pagan Hibernia]

For a club of such vast riches in Scottish terms (they could probably afford to buy the other 11 clubs in the league) they're incredibly tinpot. Their fans are still crying about a decision that went against them a couple of weeks ago. You'd expect that from a rubbish team struggling to survive rather than a team on the brink of another treble.

But that's celtic. Always cheated, never defeated.

[Bishop Hibee]

Exactly what we said. The whining got the officiating they are used to.

Steward at our gates was blethering ahead of getting in and he asked us "so was the ball out, then?"as a joke. We said "of course". He laughed and said "you've poked the bear with that win - the whining has been off the scale". Assumed he must be from the other ugly sister team but then he said "go and do them again, eh? Both them and the other mob are as bad as each other" We obviously found a Partick fan 🤣🙄

Steward near us was trying not to laugh when we were chanting ‘if it wasn’t for the Hibees you’d be Huns’ and a few of the lesser greens weren’t taking it well They’re not known as Entitlement FC without reason.

[Eyrie]

Forget the 2-0 win, they are slating the "bias" referee for letting us have the audacity to steal a couple of yards for the throw in that led to our only real chance to score.

Celtc did the same in our RB area early in the first half. No comment from anyone.

And remember the League Cup final when they scored from a throw in that shouldn't have been allowed because we were making a substitution?

[SHODAN]

Clearly all the carry on about the ball out of play at Easter Road worked. Two balls clearly out at the touch line today for Hibs throw in’s, play on Celtic. Farcical.

Don't forget when the ball clearly stayed in when we were on the attack but it was flagged as out. Linesman was at it.

[Centre Hawf]

Again, I'd respectfully disagree.

Factual decision in this context isn't the same as factual in a scientific or legal context, there is no requirement in any of the protocols that say conclusive proof is needed (unless I've missed it, in which case I'm happy to change my view).

Factual here could be read as binary, it's either something or it isn't - offside/onside, over the line/not over the line, hits the hand/doesn't hit the hand.

These are things that are not considered subjective and because the law regarding the attacker scoring with a handball is that any contact with the have is punishable, there's no degree of subjectivity as there would be if a defender does it. The application is any contact with the hand is punishable when it's the goal scorer.

VAR's job is to review the footage and confirm the decision, in both these cases - and the audio and video footage supports this - VAR area satisfied from that review that the ball went out (they even freeze the point where they can see it) and where it hits the arm (again, they talk through it and freeze frame, iirc).

There is no requirement for them to conclusively prove it, in fact other than offside, the technology doesn't exist to do so, so even if it was a protocol it would be redundant from the word go.

In the same way that the linesman is tasked with raising the flag when he sees the ball going out of play or the referee is tasked with blowing his whistle when he sees a foul, the VAR are tasked with watching the footage and calling what they see.

We know, because we've heard the words the VAR team said and seen the images that the VAR team saw, that they saw the ball go out of play and they saw the ball hit the striker's arm, and we know they didn't have a doubt over it because they never called the ref to the monitor in either instance, they reviewed the footage and informed the ref of their observation.

They did their job as they're expected to, Collum's thrown them under a bus.

Apologies for bringing this conversation back up again Matty, but I swear I'm only fascinated by the process of VAR and Celtic/United can gtf and I'm not really that arsed about debating the specific goals in question at this point but more the discussion on the 'factual' element.

But I was watching the 'Match Officials Mic'd Up' show with Michael Owen and Howard Webb after the Champions League tonight and they've ran through decisions similar to Willie's attempt at doing so and they've gotten to a point with Haaland's goal that was disallowed for Handball (Link to view it all properly) (https://www.skysports.com/football/video/36396/13326428/why-var-couldnt-overturn-erling-haaland-handball-decision-proves-importance-of-on-field-decision#:~:text=German%20Bundesliga-,Match%20Officials%20Mic'd%20Up%3A%20Why%20VAR%20c ouldn't,overturn%20Erling%20Haaland%20handball%20d ecision&text=Speaking%20on%20Match%20Officials%20Mic,handb all%20in%20the%20build%2Dup.)

What struck me in relation to our conversation was the moment after Owen says he'd be annoyed at having a goal disallowed in this manner because they couldn't prove it DID hit his hand, but Webb goes on to explain that the on field decision being really important in the context of the check as the 'no goal for handball' means that the on field the officials 'believe' that is what happened, and VARs job 'isn't to establish if that touch actually happened, it's to establish for certain that it didn't'. He even goes on to say that he thinks if the ref gave the goal then the VAR wouldn't have overturned that either as they couldn't say either way what really happened.

To me that backs up my interpretations of it that actually it does need to be a near 100% conclusive evidence for the VAR to get involved in these types of scenarios to overturn.

[gbhibby]

Apologies for bringing this conversation back up again Matty, but I swear I'm only fascinated by the process of VAR and Celtic/United can gtf and I'm not really that arsed about debating the specific goals in question at this point but more the discussion on the 'factual' element.

But I was watching the 'Match Officials Mic'd Up' show with Michael Owen and Howard Webb after the Champions League tonight and they've ran through decisions similar to Willie's attempt at doing so and they've gotten to a point with Haaland's goal that was disallowed for Handball (Link to view it all properly) (https://www.skysports.com/football/video/36396/13326428/why-var-couldnt-overturn-erling-haaland-handball-decision-proves-importance-of-on-field-decision#:~:text=German%20Bundesliga-,Match%20Officials%20Mic'd%20Up%3A%20Why%20VAR%20c ouldn't,overturn%20Erling%20Haaland%20handball%20d ecision&text=Speaking%20on%20Match%20Officials%20Mic,handb all%20in%20the%20build%2Dup.)

What struck me in relation to our conversation was the moment after Owen says he'd be annoyed at having a goal disallowed in this manner because they couldn't prove it DID hit his hand, but Webb goes on to explain that the on field decision being really important in the context of the check as the 'no goal for handball' means that the on field the officials 'believe' that is what happened, and VARs job 'isn't to establish if that touch actually happened, it's to establish for certain that it didn't'. He even goes on to say that he thinks if the ref gave the goal then the VAR wouldn't have overturned that either as they couldn't say either way what really happened.

To me that backs up my interpretations of it that actually it does need to be a near 100% conclusive evidence for the VAR to get involved in these types of scenarios to overturn.
This whole thing boils down to that in the opinion VAR they were 100% that in the Celtic game they had a conclusive angle showing ball out of play and that it hit Dalbys arm in the Utd game being the last touch before a goal was scored. In the Haaland and both incidents involving us the VAR followed the protocols checking different camera angles and slowing down the action. You could show other refs these incidents some will agree with Collum others will agree with VAR.

[matty_f]

Apologies for bringing this conversation back up again Matty, but I swear I'm only fascinated by the process of VAR and Celtic/United can gtf and I'm not really that arsed about debating the specific goals in question at this point but more the discussion on the 'factual' element.

But I was watching the 'Match Officials Mic'd Up' show with Michael Owen and Howard Webb after the Champions League tonight and they've ran through decisions similar to Willie's attempt at doing so and they've gotten to a point with Haaland's goal that was disallowed for Handball (Link to view it all properly) (https://www.skysports.com/football/video/36396/13326428/why-var-couldnt-overturn-erling-haaland-handball-decision-proves-importance-of-on-field-decision#:~:text=German%20Bundesliga-,Match%20Officials%20Mic'd%20Up%3A%20Why%20VAR%20c ouldn't,overturn%20Erling%20Haaland%20handball%20d ecision&text=Speaking%20on%20Match%20Officials%20Mic,handb all%20in%20the%20build%2Dup.)

What struck me in relation to our conversation was the moment after Owen says he'd be annoyed at having a goal disallowed in this manner because they couldn't prove it DID hit his hand, but Webb goes on to explain that the on field decision being really important in the context of the check as the 'no goal for handball' means that the on field the officials 'believe' that is what happened, and VARs job 'isn't to establish if that touch actually happened, it's to establish for certain that it didn't'. He even goes on to say that he thinks if the ref gave the goal then the VAR wouldn't have overturned that either as they couldn't say either way what really happened.

To me that backs up my interpretations of it that actually it does need to be a near 100% conclusive evidence for the VAR to get involved in these types of scenarios to overturn.

Thanks for sharing that - I’m still not sold on it and the VAR audio for the Haaland one backs up that it’s not that it has to be conclusive but it has to be conclusive to the satisfaction of the VAR, and I’ll explain why.

The handball review covers two potential handball fouls, the first is cleared by the VAR because he doesn’t think it hits the hand, it’s not 100% on the video but he says he doesn’t think it hits his arm in the first phase and he actually uses the words “I’ve cleared that”.

The second handball he couldn’t decide, so because it wasn’t conclusive enough for him they went with the on field decision, which you would expect.
Had he been satisfied that from the footage that there wasn’t a handball, he’d have cleared it. The female VAR thinks she’s seen the contact so it’s clear that they can’t give a decision.

If there was no secondary handball consideration in that move, the goal would have stood on the basis of a factual overturn that the VAR had cleared.

[greenginger]

Forget the 2-0 win, they are slating the "bias" referee for letting us have the audacity to steal a couple of yards for the throw in that led to our only real chance to score.


I wonder if VAR would have called the ref to review it if we had scored ?

[MacGruber]

I wonder if VAR would have called the ref to review it if we had scored ?

I'm fairly certain they mentioned VAR couldn't do anything about the throw in after the Ross County goal when they took it a full stand section further on. Was mentioned by the Sportscene pundits - memory isn't the best though

[Kato]

I'm fairly certain they mentioned VAR couldn't do anything about the throw in after the Ross County goal when they took it a full stand section further on.

...not only that though, it was a throw-in to us.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Centre Hawf]

Thanks for sharing that - I’m still not sold on it and the VAR audio for the Haaland one backs up that it’s not that it has to be conclusive but it has to be conclusive to the satisfaction of the VAR, and I’ll explain why.

The handball review covers two potential handball fouls, the first is cleared by the VAR because he doesn’t think it hits the hand, it’s not 100% on the video but he says he doesn’t think it hits his arm in the first phase and he actually uses the words “I’ve cleared that”.

The second handball he couldn’t decide, so because it wasn’t conclusive enough for him they went with the on field decision, which you would expect.
Had he been satisfied that from the footage that there wasn’t a handball, he’d have cleared it. The female VAR thinks she’s seen the contact so it’s clear that they can’t give a decision.

If there was no secondary handball consideration in that move, the goal would have stood on the basis of a factual overturn that the VAR had cleared.


This whole thing boils down to that in the opinion VAR they were 100% that in the Celtic game they had a conclusive angle showing ball out of play and that it hit Dalbys arm in the Utd game being the last touch before a goal was scored. In the Haaland and both incidents involving us the VAR followed the protocols checking different camera angles and slowing down the action. You could show other refs these incidents some will agree with Collum others will agree with VAR.

I think you both raise interesting points in that other refs will agree with VAR or Collum so there is going to rarely ever be a scenario where there's a real clear 100% factual overturn, and in the moment VAR can perhaps be satisfied that they believe they've seen what they're about to declare has happened. I think perhaps all this maybe then circles back to a problem with the wording of the laws/protocols in general? As you can see Webb and Collum more or less bang the same drum in their explanations, just one is backing up his VAR the other isn't.

I've obviously banged the drum about factual/proof/evidence etc myself but even with 5 ultra HD camera angles you have an AVAR and VAR perhaps coming to different conclusions at times on the Haaland handball. You compare that to the Dalby scenario and while the pictures VAR have seen is clearly better than what we seen on the broadcast at the time you can see a huge gap in the technology available to aid in coming to a 100% factual based decision. Perhaps this position of an evidence based approach to factual overturns is a bit more of a hinderance to VAR making an 'in the end' correct decision and instead creates this type of scenario where rather than debate the validity of the actual decision we're debating the steps taken to get there?

[gbhibby]

I think you both raise interesting points in that other refs will agree with VAR or Collum so there is going to rarely ever be a scenario where there's a real clear 100% factual overturn, and in the moment VAR can perhaps be satisfied that they believe they've seen what they're about to declare has happened. I think perhaps all this maybe then circles back to a problem with the wording of the laws/protocols in general? As you can see Webb and Collum more or less bang the same drum in their explanations, just one is backing up his VAR the other isn't.

I've obviously banged the drum about factual/proof/evidence etc myself but even with 5 ultra HD camera angles you have an AVAR and VAR perhaps coming to different conclusions at times on the Haaland handball. You compare that to the Dalby scenario and while the pictures VAR have seen is clearly better than what we seen on the broadcast at the time you can see a huge gap in the technology available to aid in coming to a 100% factual based decision. Perhaps this position of an evidence based approach to factual overturns is a bit more of a hinderance to VAR making an 'in the end' correct decision and instead creates this type of scenario where rather than debate the validity of the actual decision we're debating the steps taken to get there?
At the end of the day it's all about opinions.

[matty_f]

I think you both raise interesting points in that other refs will agree with VAR or Collum so there is going to rarely ever be a scenario where there's a real clear 100% factual overturn, and in the moment VAR can perhaps be satisfied that they believe they've seen what they're about to declare has happened. I think perhaps all this maybe then circles back to a problem with the wording of the laws/protocols in general? As you can see Webb and Collum more or less bang the same drum in their explanations, just one is backing up his VAR the other isn't.

I've obviously banged the drum about factual/proof/evidence etc myself but even with 5 ultra HD camera angles you have an AVAR and VAR perhaps coming to different conclusions at times on the Haaland handball. You compare that to the Dalby scenario and while the pictures VAR have seen is clearly better than what we seen on the broadcast at the time you can see a huge gap in the technology available to aid in coming to a 100% factual based decision. Perhaps this position of an evidence based approach to factual overturns is a bit more of a hinderance to VAR making an 'in the end' correct decision and instead creates this type of scenario where rather than debate the validity of the actual decision we're debating the steps taken to get there?

I don’t think the technology is available in Scottish football to get 100% factual evidence on marginal things - you can even look at some of the offside calls where people have questioned the point at which the ball is played because of the nature of recording moving images.
There’s nothing in the protocols that says VAR has to conclusively prove anything, in the same way that the laws of the game are applied at the interpretation of the referee who has ultimate responsibility for them, the game relies on judgement in virtually every aspect - other than goal-line technology and offsides.
The linesman is never required to prove the ball is over the line, they just need to have judged that it is, the referee never has to prove a foul has been committed or a goal has been scored, they just have to have judged that they have.
The VAR protocols have no requirement to be perfectly conclusive - they rely on the judgement of the operators and, until Collum threw them under a bus under the weight of the noise from Goodwin and Rodgers, it’s worked.

When Rangers didn’t get the penalty in the league cup final, not once did the VAR review team say they couldn’t override the on-field decision because it wasn’t conclusive that the offence was in the box - they said the VAR team were wrong because it looked like it was. The VAR audio says “it’s really close, it’s just outside” - they back the on-field decision.

Obviously in that case conclusive evidence didn’t come into it - they just said they should have got it right and overturned the referee’s decision (because those were the words that shut up the noise).

[JeMeSouviens]

I don’t think the technology is available in Scottish football to get 100% factual evidence on marginal things - you can even look at some of the offside calls where people have questioned the point at which the ball is played because of the nature of recording moving images.
There’s nothing in the protocols that says VAR has to conclusively prove anything, in the same way that the laws of the game are applied at the interpretation of the referee who has ultimate responsibility for them, the game relies on judgement in virtually every aspect - other than goal-line technology and offsides.
The linesman is never required to prove the ball is over the line, they just need to have judged that it is, the referee never has to prove a foul has been committed or a goal has been scored, they just have to have judged that they have.
The VAR protocols have no requirement to be perfectly conclusive - they rely on the judgement of the operators and, until Collum threw them under a bus under the weight of the noise from Goodwin and Rodgers, it’s worked.

When Rangers didn’t get the penalty in the league cup final, not once did the VAR review team say they couldn’t override the on-field decision because it wasn’t conclusive that the offence was in the box - they said the VAR team were wrong because it looked like it was. The VAR audio says “it’s really close, it’s just outside” - they back the on-field decision.

Obviously in that case conclusive evidence didn’t come into it - they just said they should have got it right and overturned the referee’s decision (because those were the words that shut up the noise).

Good point - why is nobody criticising the linesman for a complete guess? Rugby has different questions asked by the ref to the tmo - "try or no try?", "any reason not to award the try?" etc. Seems to me we need something similar to the first one for situations like the Celtc non-goal.

The United one I find baffling. How Collum can watch the evidence and process arrive at a definitive conclusion and then say it didn't? Bizarre.

[matty_f]

Good point - why is nobody criticising the linesman for a complete guess? Rugby has different questions asked by the ref to the tmo - "try or no try?", "any reason not to award the try?" etc. Seems to me we need something similar to the first one for situations like the Celtc non-goal.

The United one I find baffling. How Collum can watch the evidence and process arrive at a definitive conclusion and then say it didn't? Bizarre.
The worst part of that is where he’s sitting in front of the still image with the ball on the attacker’s arm saying that there’s no evidence that it hit his arm.

There is gaslighting and there is gaslighting.

[DH1875]

Anyone seen Atletico Madrid "missed" penalty last night? Not conclusive from the pictures but var apparently used the line technology they use to determine offside to say it was a double tap.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Anyone seen Atletico Madrid "missed" penalty last night? Not conclusive from the pictures but var apparently used the line technology they use to determine offside to say it was a double tap.

Yeah - didn’t look conclusive so SFA rules wouldn’t have allowed this to be over ruled.

Collum’s stored himself a few issues for the sake of pandering to Rodgers and Goodwin.

[PHeffernan]

I don’t think the technology is available in Scottish football to get 100% factual evidence on marginal things - you can even look at some of the offside calls where people have questioned the point at which the ball is played because of the nature of recording moving images.
There’s nothing in the protocols that says VAR has to conclusively prove anything, in the same way that the laws of the game are applied at the interpretation of the referee who has ultimate responsibility for them, the game relies on judgement in virtually every aspect - other than goal-line technology and offsides.
The linesman is never required to prove the ball is over the line, they just need to have judged that it is, the referee never has to prove a foul has been committed or a goal has been scored, they just have to have judged that they have.
The VAR protocols have no requirement to be perfectly conclusive - they rely on the judgement of the operators and, until Collum threw them under a bus under the weight of the noise from Goodwin and Rodgers, it’s worked.

When Rangers didn’t get the penalty in the league cup final, not once did the VAR review team say they couldn’t override the on-field decision because it wasn’t conclusive that the offence was in the box - they said the VAR team were wrong because it looked like it was. The VAR audio says “it’s really close, it’s just outside” - they back the on-field decision.

Obviously in that case conclusive evidence didn’t come into it - they just said they should have got it right and overturned the referee’s decision (because those were the words that shut up the noise).

A lot of good points there Matty and also in the post from Centre Hawf you were answering. I think between us we have explored all the angles (no pun intended).

For me the big takeaway from this is Collum has chucked VAR lite under the bus. He has basically said it will not be used to over rule referees or line persons on matters of fact so if we don't have the right camera angle or the image of the ball is blurred VAR won't overrule the referee or linesman even though it is obvious that it provides a far more reliable decision. Given this stance there is little point teams paying for this version of VAR.

I do think cheap VAR can do a good enough job but only if you allow VAR operators to make decisions in good faith using their judgement of the footage they have access to. Unfortunately in Scottish football, managers and supporters unwillingless to accept decisions has pushed Collum down this beyond all reasonable doubt route. It's the only defensible position from managers and supporters.

We are no longer kicking up a fuss, as we rightfully did years ago, about goals where a player is a yard offside/onside, we are now unable to accept a player being a bawhair offside/onside and if the decision doesn't go the right way for supporters the officials are branded cheats and corrupt. The opponents supporters are happy but only until the next time a marginal decision goes against their team.

If the ball was on the other foot and a Hibs goal was disallowed against Celtic in the same scenario, I would accept the decision after seeing the VAR we saw because the ball looked out but I would wager vast numbers of posters on hibs.net would be going down the Brenda route that the officials were guessing, World Cup example, matter of fact, would have been a goal if it was Celtic etc.

[gbhibby]

A lot of good points there Matty and also in the post from Centre Hawf you were answering. I think between us we have explored all the angles (no pun intended).

For me the big takeaway from this is Collum has chucked VAR lite under the bus. He has basically said it will not be used to over rule referees or line persons on matters of fact so if we don't have the right camera angle or the image of the ball is blurred VAR won't overrule the referee or linesman even though it is obvious that it provides a far more reliable decision. Given this stance there is little point teams paying for this version of VAR.

I do think cheap VAR can do a good enough job but only if you allow VAR operators to make decisions in good faith using their judgement of the footage they have access to. Unfortunately in Scottish football, managers and supporters unwillingless to accept decisions has pushed Collum down this beyond all reasonable doubt route. It's the only defensible position from managers and supporters.

We are no longer kicking up a fuss, as we rightfully did years ago, about goals where a player is a yard offside/onside, we are now unable to accept a player being a bawhair offside/onside and if the decision doesn't go the right way for supporters the officials are branded cheats and corrupt. The opponents supporters are happy but only until the next time a marginal decision goes against their team.

If the ball was on the other foot and a Hibs goal was disallowed against Celtic in the same scenario, I would accept the decision after seeing the VAR we saw because the ball looked out but I would wager vast numbers of posters on hibs.net would be going down the Brenda route that the officials were guessing, World Cup example, matter of fact, would have been a goal if it was Celtic etc.
Because we don't have goaline technology for balls over the line between the posts if one angle is inconclusive and another angle used is conclusive in the opinion of VAR which image is used? Or does it depend if a goal is awarded or not awarded? If Collum had supported his VAR colleagues that would be the end of it. In my opinion this will come back to bite him.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Because we don't have goaline technology for balls over the line between the posts if one angle is inconclusive and another angle used is conclusive in the opinion of VAR which image is used? Or does it depend if a goal is awarded or not awarded? If Collum had supported his VAR colleagues that would be the end of it. In my opinion this will come back to bite him.

I think he’s saying the ref/linesman decision is stuck by even if the video looks like it’s wrong cos it can’t be 100% guaranteed it’s wrong.

Will definitely be an issue again this season - he’ll backtrack if it impacts Rangers or Celtic or any particularly noisy managers (Goodwin or McInnes most likely).

[Nutmegged]

I don’t think the technology is available in Scottish football to get 100% factual evidence on marginal things - you can even look at some of the offside calls where people have questioned the point at which the ball is played because of the nature of recording moving images.
There’s nothing in the protocols that says VAR has to conclusively prove anything, in the same way that the laws of the game are applied at the interpretation of the referee who has ultimate responsibility for them, the game relies on judgement in virtually every aspect - other than goal-line technology and offsides.
The linesman is never required to prove the ball is over the line, they just need to have judged that it is, the referee never has to prove a foul has been committed or a goal has been scored, they just have to have judged that they have.
The VAR protocols have no requirement to be perfectly conclusive - they rely on the judgement of the operators and, until Collum threw them under a bus under the weight of the noise from Goodwin and Rodgers, it’s worked.

When Rangers didn’t get the penalty in the league cup final, not once did the VAR review team say they couldn’t override the on-field decision because it wasn’t conclusive that the offence was in the box - they said the VAR team were wrong because it looked like it was. The VAR audio says “it’s really close, it’s just outside” - they back the on-field decision.

Obviously in that case conclusive evidence didn’t come into it - they just said they should have got it right and overturned the referee’s decision (because those were the words that shut up the noise).

This is great post with a lot of good points, but what I will disagree with is the highlighted part, the fact that these decisions are called "factual overturns" to me and I'd imagine to most would mean there would have to be factual evidence to back up their decision, I've not read the spec9f9c law so can't quote it verbatim, however if something is overturned factually, in the layman you'd imagine that's because there's only one outcome.

I don't believe we got away with one a few weeks ago, I do think it was out, and we deservedly got it, but I'm also uneasy about the VAR overturning calls on the balance of probabilities, that's not what they're there to do, if the linesman gave that call like he should've and Alan Muir somehow factually overturned it because he believed some part of the ball was overhanging, with the angle he had to play with, we would be apoplectic with rage, and rightly so.

[PHeffernan]

Because we don't have goaline technology for balls over the line between the posts if one angle is inconclusive and another angle used is conclusive in the opinion of VAR which image is used? Or does it depend if a goal is awarded or not awarded? If Collum had supported his VAR colleagues that would be the end of it. In my opinion this will come back to bite him.

In your example, what Willie Collum would say is they will go with the referee or linemans onfield decision unless VAR can 100% prove the ball has or has not crossed the line.
It's a stance that gives Collum a defendable stance in every future circumstance but it is a stance which will cause upset because it is basically a cop out.
As I say I don't blame Collum for the cop out given the **** storm that follows even the most marginal decision. The bigger the club it adversely affects the bigger the ****storm.

In a decent and pragmatic world Rodgers would have accepted the VAR decision given it couldn't be proved 100% that the ball was in and it looked out.
In the same world Jim Goodwin would have accepted the ball hit his players hand or arm but questioned whether we want to be chalking off goals in such circumstances.

Moving forward Scottish football will now be going with one sight decisions from onfield referees and lines persons on matters of fact rather than VAR which can replay an incident over and over frame by frame to make the best decision unless VAR can prove 100% that the onfield decision is wrong.
A great shame.

[matty_f]

This is great post with a lot of good points, but what I will disagree with is the highlighted part, the fact that these decisions are called "factual overturns" to me and I'd imagine to most would mean there would have to be factual evidence to back up their decision, I've not read the spec9f9c law so can't quote it verbatim, however if something is overturned factually, in the layman you'd imagine that's because there's only one outcome.

I don't believe we got away with one a few weeks ago, I do think it was out, and we deservedly got it, but I'm also uneasy about the VAR overturning calls on the balance of probabilities, that's not what they're there to do, if the linesman gave that call like he should've and Alan Muir somehow factually overturned it because he believed some part of the ball was overhanging, with the angle he had to play with, we would be apoplectic with rage, and rightly so.
I know where you are coming from but that's not the meaning of factual in this context, you can consider it more as a binary happened or didn't happen decision, so it's not subjective like whether a foul was violent or reckless, but whether the ball was in or out, hit the hand or didn't hit the hand, was in the box or was out the box.

If you think back to the penalty we conceded at Killie where we were punished for a foul right on the edge of the box. The VAR review there wasn't to decide whether or not there was a foul (subjective) but whether or not the foul happened in the box - that was the factual decision.

In these cases it's up to the VAR to decide based on what they've seen - when you listen to the VAR audio they're both factual overturns because the VAR are happy that they've seen the ball go out and in the other one, they saw it hit the striker's hand.
Muir didn't at any point say he thought it was probably out. In fact he said he couldn't say if the ball was out until the replay at the angle that did give him the view, at which point he says that he can see it's out.

[Donegal Hibby]

McCoist just called a very similar one when Fenerbahce was attacking as been out of play .

[Danderhall Hibs]

McCoist just called a very similar one when Fenerbahce was attacking as been out of play .

Too close to call for the SFA. Everyone else knows it was out.