AlwaysUnited wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

Shakey Isles Arab wrote:

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.

I'd go further - falsely claiming injury to get fellow professional sent off.  Where that player is incorrectly sent off game changed to 3-0 win to suffering side.  Although, bizarrely that would mean Watt would need to stop his histrionics too...

 

Its almost impossible to tell if someone is feigning injury. Certainly in the case of Goss/Watt, Goss was struck by Watt's studs - the severity is up for debate. In my mind it would be completely unfair to penalise Goss though.

Yet again, PISH!
Watt hardly touched the guy, skimmed his leg at the worst case scenario and while play raged on and when it was stopped and VAR consulted the guy was still rolling about the ground, I noticed he made a remarkable recovery when the red card was shown, he was cheating, plain and simple.

AlwaysUnited wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

Shakey Isles Arab wrote:

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.

I'd go further - falsely claiming injury to get fellow professional sent off.  Where that player is incorrectly sent off game changed to 3-0 win to suffering side.  Although, bizarrely that would mean Watt would need to stop his histrionics too...

 

Its almost impossible to tell if someone is feigning injury. Certainly in the case of Goss/Watt, Goss was struck by Watt's studs - the severity is up for debate. In my mind it would be completely unfair to penalise Goss though.

I know it is probably obvious from the shite you come away with, but you've never played the game have you?

Finn Seemann wrote:

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.  

In general I agree with this. However if you look at Beaton's view from this video, you can see it's an unimpeded view but not a clear view as the contact happens on the camera side and not the ref side of the 2 players.

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

At full speed, I can see him missing that contact. If the VAR guy then says to him "From the angle I have that could be a red for SFP" and Beaton replies "I had a clear view and I didn't see any contact or evidence of violent conduct" and the VAR guy says "There's clear contact from a challenge that could be viewed as SFP - you should take a look" - it's hard to argue with that process.

I definitely think refs will feel pressured to change their original decision if they are asked to review VAR footage, as they are placing their real-time once-only view of an incident up against the opinion of a ref who has multiple angles looked at more than once at regular and slow speeds.

Interesting that you referred to the "damning angle". I'm looking at the video above thinking that's the only angle I've seen that gives a clear view of what happened and leaves me in no doubt. I've referred to it as "contact" but that makes it sound less serious than it was. Goss might have milked it, but I can fully believe that one hurt, and could have been worse. Luckily his studs were off the ground. If his foot was planted, I'd have put my money on a broken fibula. Been there, done that. I tackled a guy years ago where I won the ball cleanly and the shinpad of my trailing leg hit the side of his lower leg. He chickened out of the challenge at the last second and planted his studs to stop himself. His fibula finished up in 5 pieces and his tibia in two pieces, with the lower tibial fragment sticking out through his skin. That was play on, until the ref realised how badly hurt the guy was.

 

AlwaysUnited wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

AlwaysUnited wrote:

 

Its almost impossible to tell if someone is feigning injury. Certainly in the case of Goss/Watt, Goss was struck by Watt's studs - the severity is up for debate. In my mind it would be completely unfair to penalise Goss though.

I know it is probably obvious from the shite you come away with, but you've never played the game have you?

 
Why don't we just have lively debates, rather than making absolutely everything personal/borderline bullying on here? If you disagree with me, fine, but why can't we just stick to the issue at hand?

In all the time we have exchanged views on this board you and others have insulted and belittled me on multiple occasions.

I have never once been been rude to you.

Au contraire, in a discussion I am entitled to suggest that your opinion is shite and that that might be because you don't know what you are talking about.  There is nothing in what I said, in the post above, that is rude.  I'll admit that I have been rude in the past and for that I do apologise but I do find your Asghar tinted spectacles somewhat offensive.  I stick by my view that if you think it is difficult to tell if someone is feigning injury you haven't played a lot of football.  It happens every week on the telly, player goes down like a ton of bricks or rolling around like someone has shot him.  Cue physio comes on player 'hobbles' off but immediately he crosses the line is immediately fit again.  That player was feigning injuty in 95+% of the cases.  Unless of course you believe that the magic sponge is indeed magic?

Last edited by Finn Seemann (03/11/2022 7:12 pm)

Like cricket where benefit of the doubt goes to batsman, in this instance benefit of the doubt should have gone to Watt.    To have it otherwise was mentil.   Beaton plays on, gets called back a minute later has to make the call pitchside, where presumably he didn't see all the camera angles and he was influenced by the fact that ivory tower twat had referred it back to him and he lacked the bottle to stand by his original play on decision.  Clearly there was doubt - no send off.    Concrete there has been doubt in the mind of el supremo twats in SFA.

On feigning injury, here in New Zealand and world Cup coming ahm forever hearing "Don't watch football - always rolling around injured"  - I'll always say (and I mean this with the utmost racism because they ruin our game) .... anyway I'll always say - nah it's just the filthy dagoes do that, we don't do that in Scotland.   Unless we use VAR to the benefit of the game and where a player is clearly feigning injury - offski, no two ways about it, simple. If not we become just like them.

Last edited by Shakey Isles Arab (03/11/2022 9:55 pm)

Well Eh made a bit of a chunt oe it myself.

The incident happened right in front oe meh line of sight, and Eh thought that Watt had pulled oot and hudna touched the boy, but some of the footage shows Eh was wrang on the 2nd point, and Watts baet did come inta contact we the guy's leg.

However it seems that naebody can actually tell how hard it was, or how sare it was for the boyo that went doon.

But Eh think the boy was exaggerating. However Ehv nae phuckin idea what the rules to faking injury are in relation to VAR.

Last edited by Billy_Hainey (03/11/2022 11:02 pm)