Onside

[sonofrgmsdad]

Our "goal" on Saturday was shown by the BBC to be clearly onside.

Yet the BBC barely mentioned it almost bypassing the missing lines.

Can you imagine the right royal row that would be kicked off if that happened to the scum? (I'm obviously dreaming here as it would simply not happen)

But VAR ruled out a good goal without showing any evidence on why. That is utterly unacceptable.

I think this should be the subject of a quite open discussion between our club and the SFA. There is a case to ask on what basis the goal was ruled offside. They should be able to answer that question. If they can't/ won't it would seem reasonable to assume some biased hun in the VAR room just chose to rule out our goal for the fun of it - watch sheepie greet type hun behaviour.

I am asking the club to pursue this. ( I have whatsapped them directly) Please take this forward openly. We have seen too many questionable decisions and not even looking decisions to have any confidence in the system. This is particularly so when the evidence is not provided.

Please take this up. Please.

[GASC1980]

VAR is certainly spoiling the enjoyment of the game. I was jumping around like a loony thinking we had secured a ***** 3 points and then over 3 minutes later it is cruelly snatched away from you.

It's like any goal in a crowded area has a more than 50% chance of being disallowed now due to an "infringement" of sorts. Not one Livvy player claimed offside yesterday either.

[NaeMairNeeps]

Our "goal" on Saturday was shown by the BBC to be clearly onside.

Sorry min, but haein watched the highlights, Ah hae tae disagree. At the point the baa was kicked, nae only wis Miovski affside, but McDonald and Sokler as weel. Even if Miovski had stayed onside, the phase o' play leadin tae the goal began wi McDonald's cross, followin' the forward pass he received while affside, so the goal widna hae stood.

Ye dinna really need the computer generated lines ... the scrapes across that disgustin pitch are indication enough

[InversneckieDob]

Can I just say, if Sevco's penalty in the New Firm game was a penalty in any fu cking real universe, the game is truly, well and fu cking truly, gone.

[TheDeeDon]

According to the rules our goal should have stood.

As to what the rules are in the Scottish game is anyone's guess, including the referees.

Apparently the SPFL or SFA, whoever makes the shyte up, refused to release the video used of the lines used to determine the offside decision.

We can argue the point all we want, but not just us who have lost out due to VAR since it's inception in our game. It impacts every club.

The only action to take is the club's taking collective action and telling the authorities to ram it until they implement a better version of it.

[sonofrgmsdad]

Sorry min, but haein watched the highlights, Ah hae tae disagree. At the point the baa was kicked, nae only wis Miovski affside, but McDonald and Sokler as weel. Even if Miovski had stayed onside, the phase o' play leadin tae the goal began wi McDonald's cross, followin' the forward pass he received while affside, so the goal widna hae stood.

Ye dinna really need the computer generated lines ... the scrapes across that disgustin pitch are indication enough

I can only go by what I saw on the BBC. In their prog they stopped the frame at the kick of the ball. MacDonald looked a yard onside, centre halves in the middle playing him on. Where Miovski was is irrelevan at that time as he was nowhere near interfering with play. He comes into consideration when Gartenmann heads the ball. Onside at that point. Therefore a good goal chalked off by no evidence provided. That they refuse to justify their actions is inexcusable. If they think he's offside why can't they show it? More likely they won't show it. If he was offside, fair do's. But they need to show it, not hide.

[GASC1980]

Goldson finally punished in the box for an elbow ball. All the huns down here at work agreeing by the letter of the law these days it was a penalty. None of them seem to say the same though when the ball came off Polvara and hit his raised elbow in our game at ibrox. Of course VAR never even checked that one.

[NaeMairNeeps]

I can only go by what I saw on the BBC. In their prog they stopped the frame at the kick of the ball. MacDonald looked a yard onside, centre halves in the middle playing him on. Where Miovski was is irrelevan at that time as he was nowhere near interfering with play. He comes into consideration when Gartenmann heads the ball. Onside at that point. Therefore a good goal chalked off by no evidence provided. That they refuse to justify their actions is inexcusable. If they think he's offside why can't they show it? More likely they won't show it. If he was offside, fair do's. But they need to show it, not hide.

Agree the Gartenmann/Miovski exchange puts Miovski onside ... but .... looking at the still when the ball was kicked, McDonald's head is a wee touch forward o' the head o' the nearest defender, and well forward o' any anatomical component o' the centre backs ... let alone 'parts legally allowed tae play the baa'.

Had the linesman .. sorry, assistant ref ... spotted this, and seen McDonald receiving the forward ball, a flag would have been raised and play stopped in favour of a free kick tae Livi. Had he nae been first tae the baa .... it would be a diffrent story.

Look at the still again ... it is marginal ( though Ah'd say aboot a full 'headsworth') ... which prob explains why the decision took so long. As much as ye love the famous AFC - which is commendable, and as much as ye hate VAR - which is understandable, and as much as Ah'd like tae be wrang - which is inconsequential .... tae me, if McDonald hadna been leanin' so far forward, his napper, or at least the offendin half o' it, would hae been onside... But fae the still, Ah see an affside napper, and can understand it might hae been as marginal as tae tak a wee minute tae call it.

Noo ... fit aboot we look at the wee blur on the still, and calculate how many milliseconds efter the instant the baa was kicked that frame was captured, and far McDonalds napper wis at ... and extrapolate far Gus' napper would hae been at that aforesaid instant?

Ah believe normal vid speed is aboot 24 frames/sec.
I short bursts, a fit human being can move aroon 20 mph ( maybe mair) ... like aboot 9metres/sec ... 9 metres is aboot 29 an' a half feet ... divide by 24 fkn frames, and ye hae aboot 15 inches o' movement atween frames .... near enough two Clarkson sized nappers!

Maybe VAR uses higher resolution, higher frame rate cameras than the BBC use for transmission .. Ah dinna ken, though Ah doubt it .... but if they dinna, then it leaves so much margin for error that they might be as weel jist leavin the ref tae get on wi the fkn game

[NaeMairNeeps]

Re latter part of my above post .... found this ...

https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements...ide-decisions/

[NaeMairNeeps]

Seems VAR film at 50 frames per sec ... so by my above rough calculations, between frames .. 7 inches of movement. That's about 2/3 of a football boot. ... 2/3 to 3/4 of a head.

I propose that we stick with VAR because it does get things right more often than not .... ... but .... if within 30 secs of a call, the VAR cannot discount margin of error, they shut the fk up.

Managers, pundits and fans are gonna cry 'foul' whatever the outcome .. whether ref error or VAR error. No change there ... but although we generally don't like refs, we do like when they allow the game to flow.