For weeks after a Glasgow Derby that ends with a Celtic win and a controversial decision against the Ibrox club, there’s a media firestorm. Questions are asked, answers demanded, and sometimes the club makes hysterical statements calling for inquests and inquiries, among other such things.
We laugh at this because there’s a general paranoia and lunacy that runs rampant over there. Occasionally, they use controversy as a deflection from the fact that they’ve been beaten.
But they deserve credit for one thing: they keep up the pressure. They may do it in slightly insane and bizarre ways—the tactic of trying to have Willie Collum banned from their games was stupid and ultimately futile—but they do make an effort. They make a public spectacle of demanding justice and answers, even if most people can see that it’s just a smokescreen.
We lose these games so infrequently that it seems pointless to bang the drum after them. When you’re enjoying a victory, basking in the warm glow of triumph, and all around you the Ibrox hordes are losing their minds and spewing their venom on the radio and forums, it doesn’t seem like the right time to press your case.
But this is wrongheaded thinking.
In fact, there is no better time to press your case than when all is rosy in the garden. This is the best time to go to the authorities and say, “We don’t think good decisions are being made here. We have issues we want resolved, and questions that badly need answers.”
One question has arisen in the aftermath of Sunday’s game, although I thought it was valid even at the time: the decision that denied us a 10th-minute goal from Kyogo Furuhashi. It’s no less baffling when watched days later.
The VAR footage seems incredibly inconclusive. Now we learn there is serious doubt about whether the technology is even capable of properly analysing a decision that close.
There is a fascinating discussion online right now between Alan Morrison and the referees’ podcast team, “Behind the Whistle,” in which Morrison asks them to explain not only the decision but how the technology works. There’ve already been some stunning admissions: the way the cameras work is “blurry and fuzzy,” the lines are done by hand, and the technology itself is simply not up to the job. These are quite incredible declarations, especially from industry professionals.
Here’s the most important part of the exchange:
“As we’ve said, with all of these daft crayon lines and poor camera angles, we are supposed to just accept that Hawkeye gives a straight line even if it looks way off on the pitch. The Hawkeye aspect is ‘calibrated.’ The attaching lines are applied by hand. They draw it off the ‘sleeve line,’ as anything below can’t be scored with. But as per the prior tweet, the technology is incapable of correcting fact to reverse an on-field decision, so why Associations persist with it for marginal decisions defies any logic.”
Let me explain what that means. The Hawkeye technology relies on side-on camera angles to be even close to accurate. But Scottish football doesn’t have the money to fund a fully accurate system, so we’re restricted to a handful of available angles; we knew this already from one decision at Fir Park a couple of seasons ago, another farcical offside call.
Here’s the crazy part: that means a lot of it is subjective, even Hawkeye itself. Unless the incident happens directly parallel to the camera, you’re always going to get a slightly skewed angle. And the admission that “the lines are drawn by hand” makes it nonsensical.
In cases where the technology is suspect, and where it’s virtually impossible to get an accurate image, the decision should revert to the on-field call, which in this case was a goal. When there is no “clear and obvious” error, VAR should not even intervene. In a situation like this, the VAR itself might be making the clear and obvious mistake. The system in Scotland is not up to snuff, and as such, these former whistlers don’t even think it should be used for marginal decisions at all.
Alan Morrison points out that the rule on this is simple: in a marginal call like this, the attacker should get the advantage. That’s a rule, but one the “Behind The Whistle” guys say has now been superseded by the use of VAR.
Also, our version of VAR is grossly inferior to what they have in England’s Premier League, which makes it even more ridiculous. One reply Morrison got from “Behind The Whistle” offers another revelation from one of their recent podcasts:
“(We) spoke to a Doctor in Optical Technology who did a study into the cameras used for VAR. His findings were that the frame rates of the cameras being used can’t capture an accurate image due to motion blur.”
So, the whole thing is suspect.
The angle is suspect, but even if the angle were better, it would still be nearly impossible to make a proper judgement due to motion blur. As I said at the weekend, this is the dodgiest close decision since Gore vs Bush in Florida and the notorious “hanging chads.”
If it’s not corrupt, it is at the very least a horrendously bad call to overrule the on-field official with something that looks as debatable as this. And if the image of Andrew Dallas himself drawing these lines doesn’t get you, nothing will.
There is no better time for our club to ask for a full and frank explanation than now, after we’ve won. This is something we can put in front of the fans to inform them, and the wider Scottish game, about how unreliable VAR, as used here, actually is.
The media should be pulling this apart, but as usual, they don’t want to draw attention to what might be a blatantly wrong decision against us, no matter what the wider implications are.
No one can accuse us of sour grapes or deflection, nor can this be dismissed as a one-club issue. This is not a one-club issue. If VAR is that suspect, if the technology is being used subjectively, or if the technology itself is subjective, then that’s a much bigger problem than one decision, one game of football, or one club banging the drum.
We’re all guilty of putting too much faith in technology. We know the officials behind it can’t be trusted, but the technology is supposed to remove doubt, and instead, it introduces a new level of it. Let’s not pretend that it does not introduce new possibilities for corrupt behaviour because it clearly does. If there is an element of subjectivity in the system itself, that can be manipulated.
I have to think we’re making noise behind the scenes because when you look at that single decision, more questions arise than they have answers for and they concern the whole game here and how this technology is being used—or misused, as the case may be.
At the very least, it’s uncovered some horrible facts about our subpar version of it. Considering Scottish football isn’t exactly rolling in cash, we have to wonder whether we’re getting value for money out of a system that doesn’t do what it’s supposed to.
And that’s not good enough. It doesn’t matter who’s on the end of the decisions; you cannot make major calls in major games based on such a flawed piece of technology. If we’re not asking for answers, we bloody well should be and so should others.
James they did get rid of collum( he won’t REF a rangers game ever moved him upstairs job done
Var video advantage ranger’s
I was screaming at the time that it was never offside and VAR would find a way to chalk it off.
Sure as night follows day, a Scottish refereeing official drew angled lines to justify his intervention which can only be fuelled by bias or complete incompetence.
We all know why.
I knew that the corrupt officials in this country would use VAR to further cement their contempt for us and would use it in plain sight to justify their criminal decisions.
I say criminal in the most critical terms. On Sunday I had a build a bet on that included an assist from Kuhn and over 3.5 match goals. All other elements in the bet came in, corners, bookings and Maeda to score. The bet would have yielded £880.00. Not the end of the world and we all know we spin the wheel and take our chances, but that one corrupt angled hand drawn line changes not just the game, but many other outside factors.
Celtic should be all over this.
The media won’t for the obvious reasons, unlike when Kyogo could’ve been offside by the length of a midgie’s wedding tackle.
The only consolation is that we are so far in front of their favourite team that no matter what they try we seem to overcome.
Remember that photo of Beaton and Co after we had won again at Hampden? They were sick, pig sick and couldn’t hide it.
This year we put to bed the survival lie and next year we kill every single lie they cling on to.
Well said! Another farcical decision against Celtic involving Andrew Dallas and John Beaton. Celtic is failing in its duty to its fans, its employees and its shareholders by continuing to meekly accept these major controversies time and again. The linesman would have had the best view of this particular incident and he awarded the goal. There was no clear and obvious error. VAR should not have got involved and Beaton should have ignored whatever he was hearing in his earphone.
The suspect element is that of the officials.
Non-parallel lines are often used to draw conclusions.
If you watch a replay of the actual incident, you will see that Kyogo had timed his run perfectly and and the goal should have stood. The technology is very poor and open to abuse by the officials.
It wasn’t Kyogo that was deemed offside, it was Khun. And he wasn’t!
I was convinced at the first viewing of the VAR photo that Kuhn was onside.
There was therefore no reason to change an onfield decision other than the motivation and partiality of Andrew Dallas.
This cheat should be nowhere near any more football matches in Scotland in ANY capacity.
Answer is simple Dallas Drew the lines.
Rule would be simpler if they encouraged goals by changing offside rule.
Every part of the attacker has to be clear of last defender before it’s offside.
Dallas should not have any part in football officiating, my perception of him is he favours theRangers.
He was never offside, when they showed the replay before ruling on it, I was relaxed that it would definitely stand. Scottish football wanted the shiny new thing that was VAR, if it was the World Cup version or CL version or the English one, I’d be less against it but the Scottish cheapskate Video Assisting rangers(tribute act) is a joke.
As soon as it went to VAR and you knew who was on it
there was no chance we were getting that goal
Dallas is a crooked c*nt
Get after him
Or,
our club does what it always does: doesn’t complain.
But,
the club issues a bland statement stating that it is withdrawing its
support and any financial assistance to VAR,
as soon as it is contractually possible.
No explanation, no moans or groans.
The only people to be adversely affected will
be the match officials.
They’re unwanted at the WC and Euros.
No VAR means no European club games either!
Regardless, VAR – as it is operated in the SPFL –
is a wasted resource which adds nothing to the game.
According to Phil McG Celtic has contacted Collum for an explanation of this decision given the video evidence.
Do we employ another system for CL games. Surely the standard for var is better as they use an automatic system with 3 D imagery.
Also our system does not measure the point of contact between the boot and the ball.
The whole thing is a joke
So what are the options if any, who is checks the work of the officials both on the field of play and in the VAR room/studio wherever it is located. Is there even a system of appraisal in place or being being carried out by responsible people. Surely there is someone is that not the job of the head of Refereeing ?
Now here is a question if we use VAR here in Scotland to help in making the correct decisions, is the system we have used for the European games that take place. Does FIFA or UEFA know that we have a substandard system in use here. Now these games generate huge amounts of revenue so just wondered if there is a industry standard that needs to be in place to ensure that it is working to the standard it should be for these games.
Dallas you’d normally associate with Cowboys – Yet in Scotland we have to associate it with CORRUPTION…
We are gonna pay for our supporters that threw charitable coins at Daddy in 1999 for sure…
The board of old yellow men in grey suits will of course not utter as much as a murmur –
If they didn’t do it when it was costing Celtic millions, there’s not a snowballs chance in hell that they’ll do it after a convincing win…
But now of course IS the time to do it…
But nah – not happening m’Lord – We have the points now move on our customers and be grateful of where we are…
That won’t always last though – One time it will cost us dearly…
Perhaps a Celtic supporter could raise it all on Clyde Superscoreboard – But there again they wouldn’t get passed the first screening in the vetting process…
On a personal level – I’m just glad that I no longer pay through a turnstile towards the bent and corrupt football farce that clearly is The SPFL Premier League !
There was no VAR replay of the Tavernier challenge on Maeda that looked a penalty as well in the first half.
Just sack off VAR… everywhere! With half time, the time added on and VAR stoppages games last 2 hours! This is when pubs are still open. It’s scandalous!
It’s also very unfair in Old firm games. Hun defenders are always going to be static and Celtic wingers are always going to be blurred because of their respective talents!
I’d say that VAR wasn’t invented when Old Firm games used to take place Yorkshire Bhoy (Last one was May 2012 just before ‘Rangers’ kicked the bucket and no longer the ball !)…
But yes indeed – The rest of your Post is very valid !
PS – Do you have a favourite Yorkshire team – There are plenty there (No need to name if you don’t feel comfortable doing so) !
Magdelena’s Nag, I also had a bet worth about 800Euros for 5:0. Chalking off that goal and ignoring the blatant penalty scuppered that. I’m sick of ridiculous decisions given against Celtic. Reveal the conversations of the untouchable arbiters of our game…. if they are so honest, what have they to fear?
I’ve been forwarded a photograph (no idea of its authenticity) that shows the ball leaving CalMacs foot and the relative positions of Khun, Kyogo and the Sevco defenders. If it IS authentic, Khun is clearly onside when the pass is made.
What do you expect from Dallas, the guy that pre VAR gave the Ibrox cheats 4 dodgy penalties in one game, one of which was a yard outside the box. Scottish refereeing is and always has been corrupt. That’s not to say that every referee in Scotland has been corrupt, but a sizeable % have been. I have hope that Collum and Moss may get to grips with this parochial Scottish problem, and maybe bring more professionalism to refereeing in Scotland.
To do that they need the backing of the SFA and therein may lie the problem.
I see that Phil over in Donegal is saying that Celtic have asked for an explanation regarding the chalking off of that goal. I won’t hold my breath of that forthcoming from Hampden.