AlonsMosely wrote:

VAR not the problem, Beaton not the problem (until he goes to the screen)... a cheating footballer is the problem rolling around on the deck like he's broke his leg......
Nothing will fix football until the 22 cheats involved in every game get taken to task

Whether or not a player actually is hurt by a challenge has no impact on the referee's decision. It's all down to the actions of the player making the challenge, and the perceived intent. Was there excessive force, was the player in control when he made the challenge, was there an attempt to play the ball, was there intent to injure the opponent, etc.?

I can understand refs getting the call wrong in real time. But for Beaton to look at VAR and change his mind from "not even a foul, play on"  to decide that was SFP is on Beaton.

The fact that there was no second look by VAR at a straight-leg, studs-up, off-the-ground, uncontrolled leg-breaker of a challenge on Harkes in the 2nd half which Beaton actually did decide was a foul tells me everything I need to know about the motives of some of these officials.

Billy_Hainey wrote:

Ye wonder if we do appeal, that it turns oot as it should that Watt didna touch the boy. That being the case Eh wonder what'll happen then, with respect to Long John Goss.

Also, some oe ye it might think it was a contorted view oe mine, that we didna play too badly we 10 men against the Well we 11, but they never took an advantage fae it, well they never scored against us.

 
He touched him, it's as clear as day I'm afraid.

https://twitter.com/pieandbov/status/1586735780852031489?t=RxhXKEAaZhIiKnG8t3sapQ&s=19

Let's hope the powers that be decide that a yellow is more appropriate.

Shakey Isles Arab wrote:

Nobody, please nobody take the bait.  It just encourages him.
 

TBF, Shakey, from that angle that looks far worse than from the only angle I'd seen it from. If Beaton saw it from that angle, I can see why a red was given. If that challenge was made on one of our players, I'd be calling for a red.

If the SFA have that footage, appealing the red is a waste of time and money IMO.

Similar challenge on Harkes didn't warrant a second look though, so Beaton is still a cheating masonic twat.

Canadian Arab wrote:

Shakey Isles Arab wrote:

Nobody, please nobody take the bait.  It just encourages him.
 

TBF, Shakey, from that angle that looks far worse than from the only angle I'd seen it from. If Beaton saw it from that angle, I can see why a red was given. If that challenge was made on one of our players, I'd be calling for a red.

If the SFA have that footage, appealing the red is a waste of time and money IMO.

Similar challenge on Harkes didn't warrant a second look though, so Beaton is still a cheating masonic twat.

Point being a man shouldn't be sent off on the basis of one speeded up shot from one angle.
There was no force in it, which can be seen most clearly on final shot shown on DUTV.

VAR is inherently flawed and questionable: 
- Beaton should be taking the time to looking at it from all angles ?
- Are all angles available ?
- Does Beaton/do the people in the ivory tower have the nous to get it right ?
- If appeal is upheld does Goss get pinged for feigning injury ?
- Will refs get it right in front of 10's of thousands of baying uglies ?

- Or do we suck it up and get used to it, it is after all an international reality to the detriment of the game ? (I suspect this is a silly question)

If a man is sent off, it put a bad mark against his name.
It can affect outcome of the game.
It can compound into a series of calls and incidents which go against us.

Crap decision.

Last edited by Shakey Isles Arab (31/10/2022 11:10 pm)

Appeal successful.....

Only in Scottish football can all modern aids be given and our refs still contrive to get it wrong (after initially getting it right).

AlwaysUnited wrote:

Shakey Isles Arab wrote:

AlwaysUnited wrote:

 
He touched him, it's as clear as day I'm afraid.

https://twitter.com/pieandbov/status/1586735780852031489?t=RxhXKEAaZhIiKnG8t3sapQ&s=19

Let's hope the powers that be decide that a yellow is more appropriate.

Nobody, please nobody take the bait.  It just encourages him.
 

 
I don't normally respond to insults on here, but in this case I was 100% correct, the officials found that there was contact, but decided a yellow was more appropriate. Not sure what I said to warrant your response.

 
At the time, it was interpreted that Tony has been guilty of Serious Foul Play but this has been downgraded to a caution under the offence ‘Reckless tackles or challenges an opponent.’

From Utd’s website and doesn’t say anything about contact ?

What the yellow means is that they are trying to save face by saying it was still a foul.....which it wasn't

BMT wrote:

AlwaysUnited wrote:

Shakey Isles Arab wrote:

Nobody, please nobody take the bait.  It just encourages him.
 

 
I don't normally respond to insults on here, but in this case I was 100% correct, the officials found that there was contact, but decided a yellow was more appropriate. Not sure what I said to warrant your response.

 
At the time, it was interpreted that Tony has been guilty of Serious Foul Play but this has been downgraded to a caution under the offence ‘Reckless tackles or challenges an opponent.’

From Utd’s website and doesn’t say anything about contact ?

 
A player can neither recklessly tackle, nor challenge an opponent without contact.

If the offence had been non-contact, but malicious intent had been present, the offence would have been "recklessly attempts to tackle/challenge an opponent".

Canadian Arab wrote:

I'll be totally honest. From the TV angle I was 100% certain it was not a foul, even though that angle suggested there was contact. Then when I saw it from the (better) angle posted earlier in this thread, not only did it look to me to be a clear foul, but it also looked like there might have been intent. Not saying there was, but that's what it looked like, and that's a red.

I'm honestly surprised the appeal was upheld, and I can only imagine that there was enough doubt caused by contradictory video footage from different angles that they backed away from a red. The fact it's still a yellow for a reckless challenge means they fully believe Watt committed a foul that warranted a card and that he wasn't innocent.

The thing is VAR is not a panacea.  It will be limited by the angles available.  I think the appeal will have thought what you thought and decided that on the balance of probabilities a yellow was fair and would keep most people happy (not much they could do about the fact it probably cost United points).

Now, with a little bit of a pre-warning regarding coming out for the refs which might shock some - I feel sorry for the ref here.  He made a decision on the pitch that was probably just about right.  We don't know what footage VAR showed him, but in the time available you can pretty much be sure that VAR man starts with the damning angle.  He has to make up his mind pretty quickly.  The dilemma that they need to learn from here is the VAR man needs to be absolutely sure that the ref has it wrong before he calls him over.  I'd suggest that VAR should not interfere for a red card where the referee clearly sees the incident and plays on not even giving a foul.  

Hear what you are saying re the refs.....and going by whats happened over the border, there must be an unwritten rule that if you go to the screen you MUST change your decision.....

Wtf are shin pads for anyway ?

Fwiw in NRL - Aussie Rugby League -  they have what's called The Bunker.
4 arbiters look at various views of try/no try decisions in real time.
Final call made by the twats in The Bunker, not the ref.
Purpose - to speed up decision making, check all angles rather than VAR which makes ref put hes cock on the block pitchside, where he's influenced to a greater or lesser extent by the fact that he's been told what to do by VAR twat. 

Trouble is with NRL system is you have a committee meeting and guess what - with the best intent in the world they still manage to fuck it up.

For me VAR is crap, but it's here tough tit, the best we can hope for is that it can be continually reviewed and improved upon.    One thing they do need to look at is histrionics - Watt's appeal should have been upheld, Goss should have seen yellow.

Last edited by Shakey Isles Arab (03/11/2022 8:32 am)