The constant media pressure on VAR and referees

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,061]

7 minutes ago, Drunk and disorderly. said:

Are you pissed?

Not yet but working on it tbh.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,061]

2 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

Doncaster. MacLennan.

Sounds like a conspiracy...

[bluenoz 31,077]

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Sounds like a conspiracy...

 

Fucking right mate. What better day for one. We have never had a fair shake since the spfl was formed.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,061]

1 minute ago, bluenoz said:

Fucking right mate. What better day for one. We have never had a fair shake since the spfl was formed.

Conspiracy nentalist. Whit ye like....

[kelvd1873 7,300]

5 hours ago, STEPPS BOY said:

Dignified silence and ex players who are complicit leads to what happens now.

They have almost every ex player on their side, our ex players do nothing but blow smoke up their arses.

Or have a go at our own players/coaches/team/club. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,061]

 

 

[kelvd1873 7,300]

6 hours ago, Bill8972 said:

In every other league in the world Alfredo's goal would have stood. 

Correct mate!! Also got to remember other leagues didn’t hand out zoom call league titles after some dodgy email exchange. They carried on their season to a finish. 

[Inigo 32,581]

1 hour ago, Colin Traive said:

Why are you defending a Rangers hating cunt like Clancy?

Mate, if there's ever someone that wouldn't do that, it's SEMA.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,061]

19 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Mate, if there's ever someone that wouldn't do that, it's SEMA.

I"m 5th columnist imo

The 10 hours of calling out Clancy is just a smokescreen.

[Badger 8,793]

When you watch the decision back, Clancy takes an age to give it. I think it's obvious his thoughts are "I'm not sure, but I'll blow and if I'm wrong VAR will correct me". I appreciate Clancy might not be sure who is to blame for the grappling, however it's inconsistency that is frustrating.

I wouldn't have a problem with that being deemed a foul - if the shirt pull is later is deemed a foul (personally I think neither are a foul, the Morelos shirt pull being IMO more of a foul than the disallowed goal).

We have really poor refs in Scotland. Barring offsides (which are matter of fact decisions), we are still getting random inconsistency. VAR checks for both incidents in question took a combined total of what, 20 seconds? Other things take minutes. 

[gogzy 31,195]

The Morelos decision is one in a long line of utterly insane decisions that Clancy has made against us,  up there with the worst of them.

I don't know if it's total incompetence or something more sinister, but it's consistent.

[ianferguson 2,619]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

When you watch the decision back, Clancy takes an age to give it.

I think it's obvious his thoughts are "I'm not sure, but I'll blow and if I'm wrong VAR will correct me".

I wouldn't have a problem with that being deemed a foul - if the shirt pull is later is deemed a foul (personally I think neither are a foul). However it's inconsistency that is frustrating.

We have really poor refs in Scotland. Barring offsides (which are matter of fact decisions), we are still getting random inconsistency. VAR checks for both incidents in question took a combined total of what, 20 seconds? Other things take minutes. 

Clancy takes time and is in the process of turning to give a goal when he sees Johnstons dive as a way to chalk goal off, cheating imo. Walsh then is so desperate not to put Clancy in a spot so let's it go , we could opine all day about that but the facts are it was a good goal as testified by every pundit and also Walsh never took enough time to view from all angles.

[roboscot 1,176]

I don’t believe that there’s another FIFA grade ref in the world that would have made the decision in the way Clancy made it. 
 

The decision should be goal, VAR is going to look at it and either allow it or make him go look at it himself. Incompetent refs are using VAR to avoid making decisions they don’t want to make.  The penalty Kent got a few weeks ago was the same. The ref had a clear and close view of it and chose not to blow the whistle and wait for VAR to do it for him. 

[GWR1979 1,970]

36 minutes ago, gogzy said:

The Morelos decision is one in a long line of utterly insane decisions that Clancy has made against us,  up there with the worst of them.

I don't know if it's total incompetence or something more sinister, but it's consistent.

It's definitely sinister too many decisions against us not to be Morelos on Saturday was up there with 3 of thier players being offside in the cup final a couple of years ago. 

[KingKirk 25,763]

 

FORMER top flight referee Stuart Dougal insists VAR simply could NOT get involved after Alfredo Morelos' controversially disallowed goal in Saturday's Old Firm clash.

The Rangers striker bundled the ball in at the back post and thought he'd given his side the lead in the derby against Celtic.

But referee Kevin Clancy penalised the Colombian for a push on Hoops defender Alistair Johnston, and the goal was wiped out.

VAR Nick Walsh reviewed the footage, but decided against intervening and on-field ref Clancy's decision stood as called.

Gers boss Michael Beale felt it was a 'rough decision' that went against this side, and the Ibrox club are seeking answers from the SFA over why the goal was chopped off.

On commentary, Light Blues legend Ally McCoist savaged the decision and said it made VAR look like a "laughing stock."

Former SPFL referee Des Roache reckoned it should have been a goal, but fellow top flight whistler Stuart Dougal has explained why, in his opinion, there was simply no way that VAR could get involved.

Dougal doesn't believe the incident meets the threshold of a 'clear and obvious error' - and reckons that the only option was to stand by the referee's initial decision.

Dougal told the BBC VARdict: "Kevin's called it as he's seen it. The problem, if you like, for certain factions is that VAR can't intervene here.

"It's not seen as a clear and obvious error. If there is something much more blatant, if there is no contact whatsoever, then VAR could step in and ask the referee to have a look at it again.

"Where they're looking at that clip and it's 50/50, 60/40, depending on which side of the fence you're on.

"VAR, under the current protocols, can't get involved."

VARdict host Al Lamont then questioned whether or not Clancy could have let the goal stand at the time, letting VAR then rule on it.

However, Dougal dismissed that suggestion.

He added: "The simple reason is that if Kevin doesn't call that the way that he has and he is relying on VAR and VAR says to him 'you're wrong' then it means Kevin's wrong.

"By not making a decision, he can still be wrong. It's important that the referee team call the shots as they see them and if they need VAR to rescue them then that's what can happen."

There was more controversy in the second-half, again involving Morelos and Johnston.

There wasn't much attention given to it at the time, but some onlookers feel the Gers had a case for a penalty.

Replays showed Johnston pulling at the Ibrox striker's shirt as he looked to get on the end of a corner.

Dougal, again, explained why VAR couldn't intervene in this incident although he feels that had a spot-kick been awarded by the on-field officials, then it WOULDN'T have been overturned by the video referee either.

Dougal said: "I think that's into a borderline, whether there's enough in there to get Kevin to have a look at that.

"Both players, and we're seeing a lot, with a bit of jousting is fine. Where one is being clearly impeded whilst the other one is making no attempt to go for the ball, that's where normally where VAR would step in and say there's too much going on.

"In this situation, there's a bit of wrestling and if the referee gives a penalty, VAR wouldn't overturn it because it's not a clear and obvious error the other way.

"High risk but not enough for VAR to get involved

[KingKirk 25,763]

Cheating bastards wasn't enough of a error to get involved 😆😆😆

[bluenoz 31,077]

So it's two major decisions that went against Morelos? Both would have put us in the lead. It's blatant cheating.

Bennett needs to use this opportunity to make a name for himself with strong words to the SFA and the next step should be a face-to-face meeting between them.

Enough is enough.

[BlueboyG 5,270]

4 hours ago, bluenoz said:

So it's two major decisions that went against Morelos. Both would have put us in the lead. It's blatant cheating.

Bennett needs to use this opportunity to make a name for himself with strong words to the SFA and the next step should be a face-to-face meeting between them.

Enough is enough.

And there lies the problem, not one of our board will call out these cheating bastards, the only folk that give a fuck is us Rangers fans.

[magic8ball 27,901]

29 minutes ago, KingKirk said:

 

FORMER top flight referee Stuart Dougal insists VAR simply could NOT get involved after Alfredo Morelos' controversially disallowed goal in Saturday's Old Firm clash.

The Rangers striker bundled the ball in at the back post and thought he'd given his side the lead in the derby against celtic.

But referee Kevin Clancy penalised the Colombian for a push on Hoops defender Alistair Johnston, and the goal was wiped out.

VAR Nick Walsh reviewed the footage, but decided against intervening and on-field ref Clancy's decision stood as called.

Gers boss Michael Beale felt it was a 'rough decision' that went against this side, and the Ibrox club are seeking answers from the SFA over why the goal was chopped off.

On commentary, Light Blues legend Ally McCoist savaged the decision and said it made VAR look like a "laughing stock."

Former SPFL referee Des Roache reckoned it should have been a goal, but fellow top flight whistler Stuart Dougal has explained why, in his opinion, there was simply no way that VAR could get involved.

Dougal doesn't believe the incident meets the threshold of a 'clear and obvious error' - and reckons that the only option was to stand by the referee's initial decision.

Dougal told the BBC VARdict: "Kevin's called it as he's seen it. The problem, if you like, for certain factions is that VAR can't intervene here.

"It's not seen as a clear and obvious error. If there is something much more blatant, if there is no contact whatsoever, then VAR could step in and ask the referee to have a look at it again.

"Where they're looking at that clip and it's 50/50, 60/40, depending on which side of the fence you're on.

"VAR, under the current protocols, can't get involved."

VARdict host Al Lamont then questioned whether or not Clancy could have let the goal stand at the time, letting VAR then rule on it.

However, Dougal dismissed that suggestion.

He added: "The simple reason is that if Kevin doesn't call that the way that he has and he is relying on VAR and VAR says to him 'you're wrong' then it means Kevin's wrong.

"By not making a decision, he can still be wrong. It's important that the referee team call the shots as they see them and if they need VAR to rescue them then that's what can happen."

There was more controversy in the second-half, again involving Morelos and Johnston.

There wasn't much attention given to it at the time, but some onlookers feel the Gers had a case for a penalty.

Replays showed Johnston pulling at the Ibrox striker's shirt as he looked to get on the end of a corner.

Dougal, again, explained why VAR couldn't intervene in this incident although he feels that had a spot-kick been awarded by the on-field officials, then it WOULDN'T have been overturned by the video referee either.

Dougal said: "I think that's into a borderline, whether there's enough in there to get Kevin to have a look at that.

"Both players, and we're seeing a lot, with a bit of jousting is fine. Where one is being clearly impeded whilst the other one is making no attempt to go for the ball, that's where normally where VAR would step in and say there's too much going on.

"In this situation, there's a bit of wrestling and if the referee gives a penalty, VAR wouldn't overturn it because it's not a clear and obvious error the other way.

"High risk but not enough for VAR to get involved

So basically VAR can be interpreted to suit ,That’s not what’s needed ,

[graeme_4 34,871]

31 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

So it's two major decisions that went against Morelos. Both would have put us in the lead. It's blatant cheating.

Bennett needs to use this opportunity to make a name for himself with strong words to the SFA and the next step should be a face-to-face meeting between them.

Enough is enough.

I think the second is a hard one to see tbf.

First one is a shocker. 

[KingKirk 25,763]

9 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

So basically VAR can be interpreted to suit ,That’s not what’s needed ,

The worry is not a big enough mistake to get involved. Goal or no goal what can be a bigger issue than that? 

[KingKirk 25,763]

1 minute ago, graeme_4 said:

I think the second is a hard one to see tbf.

First one is a shocker. 

To see in terms of officials or yourself😆 it's a 100% a pen mate 

[graeme_4 34,871]

Just now, KingKirk said:

To see in terms of officials or yourself😆 it's a 100% a pen mate 

Anyone. Don’t think a single player claimed for it. Was it even mentioned on commentary? 

[bluenoz 31,077]

Just now, graeme_4 said:

I think the second is a hard one to see tbf.

First one is a shocker. 

 

When you watch on TV, sometimes you miss things and you rely on TV replays. Had it been the other way around, SKY would have shown that incident numerous times. I was not aware of it until McCann brought it up. 

[KingKirk 25,763]

12 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

Anyone. Don’t think a single player claimed for it. Was it even mentioned on commentary? 

Nope course not but its why var is there.