VAR again

[Tyler Durden]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It’s not under scope of var though so if the ref misses it live then it’s ignored.

Nah - it would be checked as part of a goal being scored.

I hate the handball rule but the way it's designed has some logic... bear with me. Remember when handballs were only punished if deliberate. You had John Terry diving along the ground and regularly the ball would hit his arms. But he could claim it wasn't deliberate. So they've come up with this "unnatural position" of the hand thing to try to counter that. And it's just gone massively too far the other way.

The Motherwell one should simply be a goal. It's absolutely right that if someone accidentally handballs it and then a team mate scores, the goal should stand. This is like St Mirren's penalty at Easter Road - an example where the refs seem to not know/understand the rules.

For the Hibs vs St Mirren example the ref/VAR should be considering that the ball struck Triantis's body/leg first. Therefore no penalty. For the Motherwell example, they seem to be applying the handball rule as if Motherwell are the defending team. It's just rank incompetence by multiple referees on a regular basis.

[snedzuk]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The clubs have to provide most of the finance for this. Eventually they’ll do something about the standard of refereeing .

And/or the standard of the system. I noticed the first VAR camera I'd been close to at the back of the stand at Ross County which got me thinking about the awful angles and the funky lines used in offside decisions (see Martin Boyle v Aberdeen).

It turns out 'VAR lite' (Scotland) operates with six to eight cameras (it is possible - somehow - to have compliant VAR with four cameras). To put that into context, the following quote is from 'inside FIFA' talking about the world cup.

"The video assistant referee team has access to 21 cameras in the Group Stage, Round of 16 and Match 63, of which one is super slow motion and one is ultra slow motion. For the Quarter Finals the VAR team has access to 22 cameras, of which one is super slow motion and three are ultra slow motion and for the Semi-Finals & the Final, they have access to 25 cameras, of which three are super slow motion and three are ultra slow motion."

Clubs voted for this and how to pay for it and the question that also arises is how they continue paying for it. Apparently you pay more depending on league position. Itd be interesting to know the terms of this deal and how the camera providers are tied into it. If youre a cash strapped Livingston, almost guaranteed to get relegated, the temptation to find bills you dont pay must be pretty large, plus youre probably passing on the system to AN other promoted team leading me to think the system must be rented. With clubs like Livvy and Ross County probably pretty near the breadline, it might not take much in costs changing to rethink the whole thing.

That aside, I also found this which is really interesting.

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/...ol/#principles

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Surely it's the same as any other foul in the build up, so if a goal is scored then it can be checked?

No, it’s ridiculous. Motherwell reference it in their statement.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nah - it would be checked as part of a goal being scored.

I hate the handball rule but the way it's designed has some logic... bear with me. Remember when handballs were only punished if deliberate. You had John Terry diving along the ground and regularly the ball would hit his arms. But he could claim it wasn't deliberate. So they've come up with this "unnatural position" of the hand thing to try to counter that. And it's just gone massively too far the other way.

The Motherwell one should simply be a goal. It's absolutely right that if someone accidentally handballs it and then a team mate scores, the goal should stand. This is like St Mirren's penalty at Easter Road - an example where the refs seem to not know/understand the rules.

For the Hibs vs St Mirren example the ref/VAR should be considering that the ball struck Triantis's body/leg first. Therefore no penalty. For the Motherwell example, they seem to be applying the handball rule as if Motherwell are the defending team. It's just rank incompetence by multiple referees on a regular basis.

It’s not - remember Rangers (I know) had a goal given at Pittodrie, there was a clear handball in the build up but because it wasn’t the direct scorer, it wasn’t considered and the goal stood.

I’m not saying i agree with it, but that’s how it’s applied.

[nonshinyfinish]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No, it’s ridiculous. Motherwell reference it in their statement.

I haven't seen the Motherwell incident, but from what a poster above says it sounds like that may be an example of the rules being applied incorrectly.

Are you saying that deliberate handball ("punch the ball to a teammate" as you put it) cannot be considered a foul in the build up?

[LaMotta]

Reading the SFA website Q&A on VAR, I would interpret that as saying that a handball in the lead up to a goal would be checked and therefore a goal could/should be disallowed for an obvious handball foul:

[How far back can VAR go to check a decision?

As a guide, VAR will normally only go back as far as the start of the last ‘attacking phase of play” (APP). So, if a team is on the attack and the VAR says that the APP has started, if a goal is scored and there’s an obvious foul by the attacking side in the APP, the VAR will look at that as part of automatically checking the goal. Conversely, if the attacking phase comes to an end (e.g. the attacking team loses possession or the ball goes out of play), the VAR would no longer need to check that foul. The only incidents when VAR can go back to a previous phase of play is for incidents of violent conduct, spitting or mistaken identity.

[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#2E2A2A]Video Assistant Referee (VAR) Q&A | Scottish FA | News

[Hibiza]

I thought that VAR only got involved w ith unclear decisions , time the Refs had the conviction to stand by their original decision or ask for clarity . 🤔🤔🤔

[Victor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Reading the SFA website Q&A on VAR, I would interpret that as saying that a handball in the lead up to a goal would be checked and therefore a goal could/should be disallowed for an obvious handball foul:

[How far back can VAR go to check a decision?

As a guide, VAR will normally only go back as far as the start of the last ‘attacking phase of play” (APP). So, if a team is on the attack and the VAR says that the APP has started, if a goal is scored and there’s an obvious foul by the attacking side in the APP, the VAR will look at that as part of automatically checking the goal. Conversely, if the attacking phase comes to an end (e.g. the attacking team loses possession or the ball goes out of play), the VAR would no longer need to check that foul. The only incidents when VAR can go back to a previous phase of play is for incidents of violent conduct, spitting or mistaken identity.

[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#2E2A2A]Video Assistant Referee (VAR) Q&A | Scottish FA | News

All makes sense, but as we know the effective use of VAR requires competent officials and, sadly, that is something we lack. Bit surprised to see that it states we do not have goal line technology, would have thought that would be installed before VAR. Wonder if their review looks at whether the ball crossed the line!

[number9dream]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It’s not - remember Rangers (I know) had a goal given at Pittodrie, there was a clear handball in the build up but because it wasn’t the direct scorer, it wasn’t considered and the goal stood.

I’m not saying i agree with it, but that’s how it’s applied.

This is why Motherwell are upset... The ball hit Bair's arm but it's not deliberate and the contact is so slight it doesn't appear to alter the trajectory of the ball.
They reference a Ross County goal against them when play goes on after a non-deliberate handball and the goal stands - like this Rangers incident above.
The wildest example I can think of was Duncan Watmore (remember him?) crossing for a Middlesbrough equaliser at Old Trafford. The ball pinged off his foot and on to his hand, stopping it from going out of play, then he tees up a goal - which stood because it wasn't deliberate (even though there was a huge advantage from the action of his hand getting in the way). If Watmore scores from that action, it's no goal.

However, any handball deemed deliberate will be pulled up as a foul every single time if it leads to a goal.

[gbhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It’s not - remember Rangers (I know) had a goal given at Pittodrie, there was a clear handball in the build up but because it wasn’t the direct scorer, it wasn’t considered and the goal stood.

I’m not saying i agree with it, but that’s how it’s applied.

It seems to be applied differently in other countries from what I've watched on TV. There needs to be uniformity not only in the application of VAR but also the application of the rules especially the handball rule

[Tyler Durden]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It’s not - remember Rangers (I know) had a goal given at Pittodrie, there was a clear handball in the build up but because it wasn’t the direct scorer, it wasn’t considered and the goal stood.

I’m not saying i agree with it, but that’s how it’s applied.

That is because it was not a deliberate handball. It's not that VAR wouldn't check...... it's that it's not an offence unless it's deliberate. Unlike a defending team where you can be penalised for handball even if it's not deliberate.

EDIT - a recent example. Quansah scored for Liverpool away to Toulouse. However VAR ruled it out as they felt that McAllister had handballed in the build up. It was a very harsh decision and UEFA interpretation is a little different, but it is an example of VAR reviewing attacking handballs for a goal scored.

[Numptie]

In Rugby they can look back 2 phases from the try but not 3, 4 etc. Someone was complaining of a foul 3 phases before a try in the Six Nations. The VAR team saw it after reviewing the try but couldn't give the fould as it was in the 3rd phase !!! So what ever you put in place, has its issues.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Seems to me that they’ve made the rules so complicated no one understands them and then confusion reigns.

It’s a simple game (for simple people?) - just keep it simple.

[PatHead]

The start of the phase of play rule means that Ross County's second goal should not have stood. The foul throw from the wrong place means it was involved in the phase of play.

[HH81]

Why not say var can review 60 secs prior to the goal scored. Nothing else.

[worcesterhibby]

I'd argue that if a defender puts his hands behind his back and somehow the ball hits his hand, then it should be a foul. I can't think of a more "unnatural" position for a defenders hands to be !

The rule should be that a handball is deemed to be a foul if the ball hits the hand or arm below the elbow:

a) Is obviously intentional (hand to ball, arms waved to block, arm hand left to block a shot when there is time to move it away)
punishment: 1)Direct free kick if outside of box and a booking 2) a penalty if in the box and a booking if blocking a cross or red if obviously saving a goal bound shot.

b) Is not intentional (ball to hand without reasonable time to move hand/arm out of the way)
punishment: 1) indirect free kick if outside the box - no card 2) Indirect free kick if inside the box - no card

For me that solves the whole thing - handball is only a penalty if it is obviously intentional. Having a ball blasted against your arm, even if it's away from your body should be an indirect free kick always, even if it's unintentional. That way there is very little argument. If it hits your arm/hand then it's a foul..90% of the time it will be indirect. Only if there is obvious intent should it be a penalty.

[B.H.F.C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why not say var can review 60 secs prior to the goal scored. Nothing else.

Because then you’d have folk wanting it reviewed for 90 seconds or whatever.

Easiest solution, get VAR tae ****.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The start of the phase of play rule means that Ross County's second goal should not have stood. The foul throw from the wrong place means it was involved in the phase of play.

I'm sure VAR looked at it and came to the conclusion there was nothing wrong with the goal, in their heads.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[PatHead]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm sure VAR looked at it and came to the conclusion there was nothing wrong with the goal, in their heads.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Because it didn't involve Sevco they probably never bothered. In fact bet the var man had already packed up and gone.

[LaMotta]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The start of the phase of play rule means that Ross County's second goal should not have stood. The foul throw from the wrong place means it was involved in the phase of play.

You would think that would be the case but according to the SFA VAR wont intervene in incorrect decisions for something like a throw in, regardless if a goal follows it. Same for corners incorrectly awarded. Same for two incorrect yellow cards - cant be looked at by VAR, player gets sent off unfairly.


Which begs the question what is the point of VAR if it only corrects some wrongs but can fail to correct other game changing decisions?