rossco87

They aren’t. They are correct in that they take the closest frame they can to the ball leaving the players foot which could be +\- 0.02s or up to 30cm (depending on speed of players and direction of travel) and using that as an arbitrary reference for a definitive answer. A margin for error would be factoring in a zone where the result would have to be “we don’t know - go with the on-field decision” or something similar. Personally I don’t think just making thicker lines works as the margin for error will vary depending on the speed and direction players are travelling at and also the moment the ball is played vs the nearest frame that is available, hence I would advocate that the margin for error is varied taking into account those elements.

That’s a little misleading. It is consistently correct (leaving aside squinty lines / lines drawn in the wrong places arguments) in that the lines on the freeze frame shown are correct. At present we have no way of 100% accurately getting an image of when the ball leaves a players foot. The margin for error is 0.02s which, as above, can be up to 20 - 30cm depending on the speed and direction players are moving at. In most instances that variance isn’t going to make a difference, however in very tight calls there is no way of definitively saying that the image the lines are being drawn on represents where every one was at the exact moment the ball left the players foot.

Never been for the line of sight idea as, as you say, just moves the issue on to another aspect. If the new automated system can be that accurate and quick then that changes the dynamic completely and we are in the realms that the technology can deliver a definitive answer. Until we get to that point though (and let’s be honest we aren’t affording that technology up here and other leagues are probably going to struggle - La Liga found out last night they don’t have goal line technology anymore ffs!) I think the system needs to factor in a degree of tolerance that is relative to the limitations of the technology. Using technology to figure out what the error range between the frames (and then maybe putting on a +\- 10% safety factor) takes away some of the argument - i.e. if player x is a judged a fraction outside the zone even after an allowance for potential movement has been made then there really isn’t an argument as VAR has given every variable possible within the limitations of what it can do. The instances where it is so close that it is even going to matter are probably minimal, but the implications of getting them wrong can be huge.

I suspect that kind of long term view shaped the January window. Clement has all but said there was no money for transfers available, however suspect if the right target had been available something could have been done. Given how Clement speaks about his teams playing (high press, mobility, quick on the transition) Shankland would have been a stop gap option at best and would have meant we would have had less to spend on getting the best option possible in the summer. Not doing anything in January was a massive risk, however I think panic buying with a short term view and then not being able to properly address the issue in the summer was also a massive risk going forward.

100% with you however I am not entirely convinced the technology is up to being as accurate as it needs to be to make such tight decisions. Image below was discussing a call from August 2019 but is basically highlighting that VAR uses 50Hz (50 frames per second) and picks the image that they can be certain the ball has been played. In the one they were using Sterling was running at 23.4kph and would have moved up to 13cm between frames so there is a possibility that he could have been onside if the ball was actually played earlier. Easiest solution for me would be to build in a tolerance factor to the really tight calls. Should be pretty easy to get an algorithm to figure out the relative speeds that the players involved were travelling and therefor maximum distances covered between frames - i.e. attacker could have moved 20cm forward and defender 10cm back between the frames, therefore there is a 30cm range where the technology is not accurate enough to definitively say where both players were. Carry out the offside check as normal but if the distance between the two lines is within the range then it is too close to call and goes back to onfield decision (or attackers get the advantage even). The main issue at the moment is that we are pretending VAR for offsides is 100% accurate. For the vast majority of cases it is, however for really tight calls the technology being used can’t be accurate enough to give a definitive answer.

Was saying to my mate today - we have effectively gone through (going through) loosing the league twice in one season. Obviously we were never truly out of it when Clement came in, just as there is still the possibility we could turn it around and go on a title winning streak, but most fans had written off the season last year only for us to get back to being favourites to win it and through it all away all over again.

Be interesting to know what Bailey Rice’s thoughts when he can’t get near the squad as “he has lots to learn” and then has to watch Tom Lawrence put in a performance like that… Same could be said for several young players - I know he is injured but Lovelace has had to watch 2 seasons of pretty atrocious forward play and barely been given a sniff of an opportunity.

If there is money on the table from Saudi this summer I would take it. Nobody can question his return in terms of goals and assists but he isn’t the same player he was (ago catches up with everyone) We need a major rebuild this summer and need to raise funds. Also his continued presence around the club creates too much debate around his role in any successes and failures. Part of the rebuild needs to be a clear intention to break from the cycle of underachievement and whether folk agree or disagree as captain throughout that period Tav is always going to be linked to those discussions.

While I think that is pretty reasonable and fair my concern is there are things he could be doing to try and right this slump. He could move away from the 433 and try and find a formation that suits the players he has available. He could try dropping Tav off all the corners. He could recognise that Lawrence was contributing nothing, or that Sima was done 10 minutes before he took him off. He could try and publicly criticise the players and the performance. It doesn’t need to be OTT but he has tried being gentle after Motherwell and Ross County and it hasn’t worked. The injuries and the squad he inherited are obviously out of his hands, but not trying to find ways to work around them causes me some concern.

While I am probably going to give him some leeway as he is working with a squad severely lacking in quality and with a lack of mentality, there are some major red flags now appearing: - we have been on a run where we have played with no definitive style for large parts and even whole games - the same issues keep reappearing (eg Goldson’s long balls to nobody or Tav taking all the corners) - he is rigid in his tactics, meaning we are playing players out of position as we are scratching around looking for quality He will be given time to reshape the squad over the summer but starting to worry the run of results up until the Motherwell game was an abnormality and not what we can expect long term.

Absolutely raging at that performance. They knew what was on the line after the abomination that was the weekend and turned in such an insipid performance is totally unacceptable. The last few weeks should be the end of the discussion on numerous players careers at Ibrox.

What makes it even worse is they have tried to cover it up. Sportscene said on Saturday night they hadn’t been provided with the usual footage for VAR offside decisions with the lines and when they had asked the SPFL they had been told (paraphrasing slightly) “The SPFL doesn’t need to issue the footage, in this instance the decision is so clear and obvious that there is no need to provide the VAR footage”. It has echos of the handball that was ignored and then conveniently found to be offside 30 minutes later in the OF at their dump. In both instances the broadcaster has effectively outed their lies (at the time the Sky commentary team effectively confirmed they had heard no conversation of offside in the discussions between the ref and VAR), but nothing will come of it.

Another absolute red neck for the SPFL management. The list of fuck ups is so monumental I am wondering what it would actually take for the clubs to decided enough is enough and vote to get rid of the current management and put in place a leadership group actually capable of taking the game forward…

Yup. Whole thing is just a(nother) sorry example of the poor leadership from the league. It was bad enough that our game was called off, but that should have been a major warning sign to the “powers” that run the league that there was an issue. They have just tried to ignore the problem and hope it all sorts itself out, forced Motherwell to play on a pitch that didn’t look like it was playable and now the rearranged fixture is in doubt (while every other ground in Scotland has been fine) never mind what happens post split if the weather doesn’t suddenly change and bring us dusk to dawn sun until the end of the season. The instant our game got cancelled the severity of the situation should have registered with them and alternative solutions should have been put in place (like force Dundee to play at another ground and foot the expense for ensuring it was compliant and not just floated out as last minute save face).

Yeah I am an NFL fan so probably influenced by that. My opinion is that the game is in effect being re-refereed remotely as it is, but is only (and can only ever really be) done partially as to do so would need massive breaks (ironically the side of NFL I least enjoy) to allow VAR to fully review every incident from multiple angles to make sure nothing was missed. If we use Sunday as an example, in my opinion under the letter of the laws of the game (and that is a different argument) every decision was correct and the main discussion I have seen is more on whether the rules are right, rather than whether they were implemented correctly. My only gripe would be that no one saw Goldson’s handball, therefor was it actually a clear and obvious error? The way VAR is set up is totally flawed - for example the referee could incorrectly give a corner from which the ball brushes a defenders arm which is so slight no one picks up on except VAR that asks the ref to review. In that scenario the clear and obvious error is the awarding of the corner, not missing the handball, but the result would still be a penalty. If you follow that argument through the the logical conclusion it is only a matter of time before you get folk arguing that every decision should be open for review (the other example that springs to mind is two yellow cards where one - or both - aren’t bookings can’t be reviewed) which would just kill the game. Letting teams ask the referee to look at an incident they feel particularly aggrieved by, but forcing them to be judicious about that decision in case the referee disagrees and then they can’t highlight something later in the game, gets us closer to where we were before VAR came in. I am generally supportive of giving the ref the chance to review something on instant replay, just feel the way we have implemented it with remote referees trying to review footage in real time is clumsy.