VAR technical screw ups

[Fa1833 166]

30 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Referees don't see everything.

 

The referee does have the power to go with VAR or not. There have been a few instances where the referee has stuck with his decision. 

Agree but when the Ref is in plain sight and said he didn’t see it that’s the biggest cop out there is. 

[Rousseau 9,782]

32 minutes ago, Fa1833 said:

It is I apologise,  that’s my medication and VAR in general can’t have it both ways I suppose, Michael fish the ref should of seen the “foul” and acted accordingly but he didn’t he left it to the machine to decide and then the machine Slowed down the speed of play to show a soft tackle look like a Red card. 
 

also the ref said he didn’t see it come on man ! Watch this video and tell me category he didn’t see it 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/67889013

the game is gone indeed if that is the way Michael Fishes or Gollums decide to Ref games 

I can only say it so many times: sometimes Referees miss things; they're human. 

 

It makes sense to have VAR to identify things they miss. 

[Fa1833 166]

14 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

VAR has given us penalties against Hearts, Livingston, Aberdeen and Dundee this season when the ref missed the incidents (and maybe more, that's all I can remember).

 

It's got its faults but it's hardly a waste of time. It generally does pick up referee's errors, deliberate or otherwise, and generally works in our favour when refs in general are so pro-Celtic. They can't get away with all the stuff that they did before VAR was introduced and that's why Celtic are so against it.

 

There's obviously a human aspect involved and it's never going to be perfect but things are a lot better than they were before its introduction.

But the errors it does pick up are the Refs ones he didn’t see supposedly? Now a Lee Bowyer and What’s his name incident is pretty hard to miss you don’t need VAR for those incidents same as when the ref is in plain site of a “Foul” and doesn’t whistle as he has deemed it not a foul but not now, as VAR clearly whispers in his 👂 m8 I think you have missed a potential foul  Ref to VAR did I let’s have a look at this Then, Then  VAR just to be clear and make sure we get the correct outcome we are going to slow down this sliding tackle on the player ( Ref) who clearly seen it has the opportunity to come clean and say I did see the tackle and it wasn’t malicious it was the slightest of touches yellow card for studs shown,

No the ref has to go with the slowed down version to keep his Ref status from being scrutinised by the VAR team who are plugged into the Matrix of VAR. totally unacceptable behaviour from Michael Fish the referee in my opinion. 
 

sorry that was my inner voice playing VAR 

[Fa1833 166]

1 minute ago, Rousseau said:

I can only say it so many times: sometimes Referees miss things; they're human. 

 

It makes sense to have VAR to identify things they miss. 

So  do you think with the video shown in the comments that the Ref missed that tackle and didn’t see it ? , I’m not buying it for one second 🤣

Edited January 5 by Fa1833

[Rousseau 9,782]

17 minutes ago, Fa1833 said:

Agree but when the Ref is in plain sight and said he didn’t see it that’s the biggest cop out there is. 

Maybe he didn't see the contact. 

 

There's not much contact, but there is contact.

 

You're basically just having a go at the referee for missing it. Fair enough. He should have seen it, but it happens. 

 

I don't know why you're using this instance to have a go at VAR, though - it did its job. 

[Rousseau 9,782]

4 minutes ago, Fa1833 said:

So  do you think with the video shown in the comments that the Ref missed that tackle and didn’t see it ? , I’m not buying it for one second 🤣

There's not much contact according to you, and there are about 5 players in his eyeline, so it's not outwith the realms of possibility. 

[Fa1833 166]

6 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Maybe he didn't see the contact. 

 

There's not much contact, but there is contact.

 

You're basically just having a go at the referee for missing it. Fair enough. He should have seen it, but it happens. 

 

I don't know why you're using this instance to have a go at VAR - it did its job. 

VAR did do its job in identifying the missed potential foul but in doing so it’s made the whole football game look worse in all aspects of the game, Who ever thought if footballing tactics failed they can just go back to Good old matrix VAR to get a player sent off for such a bad foul, as players in all games this season have been using a potential light touch into something blown out of proportion, I’m not mocking the VAR process I’m highlighting its dangers in a thing that could of been dealt with by the Gollums and Michael Fishes of this game. Use VAR for Offsides and out of sight views maybe, In my opinion he seen the tackle and seen no problem with it but VAR flagged it up to him and he has went with the voices in his ear instead of gutt. 

Edited January 5 by Fa1833

[Gonzo79 14,136]

This debate is worse than listening to John Hartson and Karen Carney.  🤣

[Rousseau 9,782]

Just now, Fa1833 said:

VAR did do its job in identifying the missed potential foul but in doing so it’s made the whole football game look worse in all aspects of the game, Who ever thought if footballing tactics failed they can just go back to Good old matrix VAR to get a player sent off for such a bad foul, I’m not mocking the VAR process I’m highlighting its dangers in a thing that could of been dealt with by the Gollums and Michael Fishes of this game 

You're talking nonsense.

 

They got closer to the correct decision. 

[Rousseau 9,782]

Just now, Gonzo79 said:

This debate is worse than listening to John Hartson and Karen Carney.  🤣

That's harsh. 

 

Hartson's barely got two braincells to rub together.