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.

[NaeMairNeeps]

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.

Again, Ah disagree ... Ah wis gan tae begin this post wi the word 'sorry' ... but Ah'm nae ...

Silva is a divin' cheatin' barstird, and should hae been sent aff for bein' a divin' cheatin' barstird previous tae the penalty incident ... but ...

Loyalties, colours and grudges aside ... he was brought doon as the result o' significant contact which impeded his movement whilst he had every chance o' still bein' in control o' the baa in the Smelltic penalty area.

Even if he had dived on this occasion, which, Ah'd like tae believe but dinna ... it wis a fkn pen aa day lang ... by auld rules and new ... The only funny thing aboot it is that Celtic fans are still mumpin aboot it.

Dinna join them FFS ... stand free

Stand free as a bottom six club an' accept for the wee while ahead o' us that the top 5's results are fkn irrelevant.

[InversneckieDob]

Canna agree with that Min.
It seems these days that "contact entitles a player to go down".
For me, the JJs defender did not commit a foul, he played the ball and there was incidental contact with the Sevconian player.
If that had been an attacker at Shedsocksley or Inverdee back in the day, their ain team mates are b0ll0cking him for being a f@nny and nae chasing the loose ball.

[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.

[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

[sonofrgmsdad]

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

I'm with you on the 'when was the ball kicked' issue, think I've made that point before. I do have an issue of 'level is onside' and 'advantage to the attacker'. If, and it's a big if, MacDonalds head is in advance of the torso of the defenders, that shouldn't come into it if level is onside and we're giving advantage to the attacker. It should be his whole body is in front of the defenders to give the attackers the advantage they say they want. The current view is a referees view designed to keep the refs front and centre in the eyes of the fans. My different interpretation would be more acceptable to fans and arguments about hairstyle in front disappear leaving arguments about is a heel in advance. More acceptable for stopping goals and I think easier for lino's. I mean ffs they are pißsing about over the definition of level???!!!!

The other issue, you haven't yet discussed is, why did they refuse to let people see how they made their decision? Regardless of any of the above this bit is utterly unacceptable. You can't make rules based on the minutia of measurement and use technology to determine that minutia of measurement without showing the technological explanation for the decision made. Fans have paid money to have the game played in the first place, they CAN expect to have transparency of decision making. We may not agree, we are after all biased, but at least we would know why. Just because some hun chunt thought so is not enough, we need to know why he thought so.

Decent discussion. Would be good if the club and SFA were aware of this.

[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.