lifesanocean wrote:

Kuchernko actually pushes Vicko which causes him to lift his arm. Now way could he deliberately react like they are saying in real time. The whole thing is a joke.

But it won't be overturned because of... reasons.

I think the red might be dropped to nothing.  If I'm going into the appeal I'm saying it is just the same scenario as the Celtic penalty.  What someone else has done has meant the player unintentionally handles the ball.  No card at Killie from memory.  It was unfortunately a pen though (unlike the Celtic one).

United Arab Emarite wrote:

Yeah you wonder how many games this season are going to be affected/spoiled by VAR.
You'd like to think we would get our fair share of good ones and bad ones but with us relegating The Rangers we can expect more of the bad ones. 
And dodgy non VARs as well, think Walton at Killie. Just rank bad ref decisions.
I think our ratio record just now is about 1 good VAR : 5 bad VARs.
Paranoia? Maybe not.

 

 
Not paranoia mate,plain fact

Arabdownsouth wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

lifesanocean wrote:

Kuchernko actually pushes Vicko which causes him to lift his arm. Now way could he deliberately react like they are saying in real time. The whole thing is a joke.

But it won't be overturned because of... reasons.

I think the red might be dropped to nothing.  If I'm going into the appeal I'm saying it is just the same scenario as the Celtic penalty.  What someone else has done has meant the player unintentionally handles the ball.  No card at Killie from memory.  It was unfortunately a pen though (unlike the Celtic one).

 
Let's hope so. I still dont get why,for the 2nd Hibs goal, VAR only looked at the offside and ignored the foul on Vicko? I guarantee that if it was the other way round they would have looked at absolutely anyway they could to rule the goal out. If in any doubt about that, I give you Sam Dalby’s perfectly good goal against them last season as a perfect example

Yeah the decision on the Dalby one still confuses me.  No angle showed it hit his arm.  They just assumed that it did.  I assume that the process here is the same as down south in that they look at everything in the build up to the goal.  Whilst there might have been an initial question of offside, I had assumed that they would also have looked at the 'foul'.  My assumption being that they did and decided no foul.  So with the Dalby one, is that three positive VAR decisions in a row against us?

Arabdownsouth wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

lifesanocean wrote:

Kuchernko actually pushes Vicko which causes him to lift his arm. Now way could he deliberately react like they are saying in real time. The whole thing is a joke.

But it won't be overturned because of... reasons.

I think the red might be dropped to nothing.  If I'm going into the appeal I'm saying it is just the same scenario as the Celtic penalty.  What someone else has done has meant the player unintentionally handles the ball.  No card at Killie from memory.  It was unfortunately a pen though (unlike the Celtic one).

 
Let's hope so. I still dont get why,for the 2nd Hibs goal, VAR only looked at the offside and ignored the foul on Vicko? I guarantee that if it was the other way round they would have looked at absolutely anyway they could to rule the goal out. If in any doubt about that, I give you Sam Dalby’s perfectly good goal against them last season as a perfect example

 
Do we know for sure they didn't look at the foul? Although the official reason for the review was potential offside, they are meant to look for everything.

Football's got itself in an awfie mess.
Can you remember football games being inundated with hand balls like it is now? I can't.
It's like every game has at least one hand ball call these days, we've gone hand ball daft.
In the old pre hand ball days you maybe got a DELIBERATE real hand ball a couple of times a season.
Like when a full back palmed the ball round the post to stop a goal, that was about it.
Now there's flailing arms flapping about in the box constantly, totally INNOCENT hand balls that you can only avoid by having no arms, there's deflections and ricochets and then not even consistency in the VAR decisions.
We probably paid the price for a hand ball decision Hibs didn't get at St Mirren, that's how ludicrous it is.
It's only going to get worse and it's ruining the game, God knows how the defenders must feel about it.
We've gone hand ball crazy.
Typical FIFA, too busy being corrupt rather than sorting the global game.
It's got to be 100% deliberate.

P.S. There was a game at Pittodrie a couple of years ago, not us, where there was an absolute classic, vintage hand ball, defender inside his box flicked out an arm to stop the ball going past him to a waiting attacker. It was 100% deliberate, he flicked his hand out & then back again, it was stonewall. Went too VAR, no penalty, I kid you not.
What are we meant to do??

You know the saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it?

Yeah?

Football didn't.

David_Blunkett wrote:

Vicko appeal successful! 

 
Happy and surprised at this, surprised because I expected nothing but delighted justice has been done. Shows Beaton up for exactly what he is though

Finn Seemann wrote:

It just shows the shambles of the game.  We didn't get the correct decision - we got the wrong one.  It's just that the penalty to the player is rescinded.

They've taken so long looking at it anyway, why not just take a little longer and get the right decision on the park.  

We end up in a position where the VAR probably gets the penalty right but still changes the potentially correct outcome of the game by changing it to 11 v 10.  If it is that difficult to figure out at the monitor then take a breath and think if I'm deliberating for this long then it probably isn't a red.  Absolutely nobody in the ground would have been aggrieved at that (only Beaton in his wee room elsewhere).  We err on the side of the game and let both teams have a fair crack at the end of the game.  I have to say that maybe it because the refs don't get to know all the foreign players, but if there was one player I would not consider a cheat it's Vicko.  To be fair, the refs have figured out Bowie already though.

I still think we need to move to more like rugby and hockey where the ref can ask for any referral and the two teams get one referral a half which they lose if their claim is not accepted.  

 
I getting closer to the opinion that it would be better without VAR completely
It slows the game down and decisions are still disputed .
The only positive is that their is now an extra official to hurl abuse at.

Stillliving wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

It just shows the shambles of the game.  We didn't get the correct decision - we got the wrong one.  It's just that the penalty to the player is rescinded.

They've taken so long looking at it anyway, why not just take a little longer and get the right decision on the park.  

We end up in a position where the VAR probably gets the penalty right but still changes the potentially correct outcome of the game by changing it to 11 v 10.  If it is that difficult to figure out at the monitor then take a breath and think if I'm deliberating for this long then it probably isn't a red.  Absolutely nobody in the ground would have been aggrieved at that (only Beaton in his wee room elsewhere).  We err on the side of the game and let both teams have a fair crack at the end of the game.  I have to say that maybe it because the refs don't get to know all the foreign players, but if there was one player I would not consider a cheat it's Vicko.  To be fair, the refs have figured out Bowie already though.

I still think we need to move to more like rugby and hockey where the ref can ask for any referral and the two teams get one referral a half which they lose if their claim is not accepted.  

 
I getting closer to the opinion that it would be better without VAR completely
It slows the game down and decisions are still disputed .
The only positive is that their is now an extra official to hurl abuse at.

 
I was one of those in favour of it at the beginning, but I could not have been more wrong! It's absolutely destroying my enjoyment of the game

I wasn’t that impressed with what i saw from fatah (i was at the game). On the bus up the road my mates were raving about some of his bits of play as was my father in law (none were at the game).

It wasn’t until i rewatched the game i realised how good he was. He was involved in all 3 goals including that cracker of an assist for Luca. I’m hoping this is him getting used to our game now.

RogerTheAlien wrote:

I wasn’t that impressed with what i saw from fatah (i was at the game). On the bus up the road my mates were raving about some of his bits of play as was my father in law (none were at the game).

It wasn’t until i rewatched the game i realised how good he was. He was involved in all 3 goals including that cracker of an assist for Luca. I’m hoping this is him getting used to our game now.

Yeah can feel that.
He's no your typical gerritaetaethem player... mebbe a bit like Bannon,  dunno.
But he is going to  be an asset in a balanced  squad. 

Fixing Kuch is the imperative - training training training - crosses crosses and headspace. 
 

I think it's more than just looking at the keeper, it's the interaction with the defence that is the issue.  At set pieces we seem to favour zonal marking meaning that there are lost of bodies in and around the keeper.  Punching the ball with so much traffic is dangerous.  Ideally we should be relying on the defenders to get a good head on the ball in that set up.  Last year, we did that and Walton generally stayed on his line.

I am not sure that our current starting CHs are as competent as last years at winning aerials and we certainly miss Graham there too.

Jim needs to either tell Kuch to stay on his line more and trust the CHs (risky too) or go back to a man for man approach and give Kuch free-er rein to come for the ball.  Clearly that also depends on how the opposition set up for set pieces too.

I think we'll get there, but it is no. 1 thing to work on in training.

Finn Seemann wrote:

I think it's more than just looking at the keeper, it's the interaction with the defence that is the issue.  At set pieces we seem to favour zonal marking meaning that there are lost of bodies in and around the keeper.  Punching the ball with so much traffic is dangerous.  Ideally we should be relying on the defenders to get a good head on the ball in that set up.  Last year, we did that and Walton generally stayed on his line.

I am not sure that our current starting CHs are as competent as last years at winning aerials and we certainly miss Graham there too.

Jim needs to either tell Kuch to stay on his line more and trust the CHs (risky too) or go back to a man for man approach and give Kuch free-er rein to come for the ball.  Clearly that also depends on how the opposition set up for set pieces too.

I think we'll get there, but it is no. 1 thing to work on in training.

 
We changed to zonal after the hearts game

The box is far to crowded for the sort of keeper we have, we should be leaving 2/3 up the park instead of bringing everyone back so he has space to come out and get the ball.