Do we need to discuss that VAR today?

[GazzaG]

I thought it was a hand ball for their second goal. the ref didn't give us much today.

I thought it hit our players hand but I only saw one replay.

 

[Fergie90]

I thought both were offside and I thought Mugabi handball when he went up for the header before scoring their second.

 

[rossgers]

By the groundsman's dodgy lines across the pitch both goals were offside. It's not a surprise that McFudden, Fanta Baws Stewart, Sportscene, sky sports et all think VAR works from the lines made by a lawnmower.

 

[BlueSevenTwo]

Celtic aided and abetted by their media chums have undermined VAR.

 

[Valley Bluenose]

I thought it hit our players hand but I only saw one replay.

It appears to hit two Motherwell arms, one of them a black one with a white wristband on it (Mugabi, who scored). That said, Colak had ample opportunity to put it out for a corner but appeared to hold off striking the ball - and Mugabi nicked it into the net.

 

[Edweird]

 

[wee_bear]

Whatever the definitive case is I think both are that close that benefit should be given to the attacking team, there’s been no huge injustice here.

(I can say this as I sit here satisfied with the 4-2 victory, lol).

 

[TN8]

Still absolutely no idea whose hand that hits, and neither would the var. If it's not clear cut they can't rule out the goal.

 

[Ali59]

Clearly hits no52s hand. Goal should have been disallowed

 

[Dale Cooper]

The camera angles used today were laughable. If you can’t get the number of cameras needed for VAR then don’t use it.

 

[Valley Bluenose]

Still absolutely no idea whose hand that hits, and neither would the var. If it's not clear cut they can't rule out the goal.

Motherwell 52s right arm (with the claret sleeve) and then Mugabi’s left arm (black arm, white wristband) by the look of things.

However , the handball rules are wild. Is it not the case if it hits someone else’s arm and falls to you to score then the goal stands or something along those lines? Recall it from a Scotland v Israel game.

 

[Talktalk]

The Motherwell one is almost impossible to tell from the angle given.

The Sakala one I’m still surprised was given. I know VAR said he was onside but he looks offside to me.

The angle the photo is is way off being a straight angle

 

[JamieR1121]

Problem I have with the M'well 1st goal is, I think the player who received the ball then crossed it is just on side. However the goalscorer is a metre offside when the ball is played forward, its the same passage of play.

Who Van Veen? Was he not behind the ball though?

 

[Edweird]

Still absolutely no idea whose hand that hits, and neither would the var. If it's not clear cut they can't rule out the goal.

VAR should have a higher resolution and frame rate which should make it plainly obvious who it hit.

 

[TN8]

VAR should have a higher resolution and frame rate which should make it plainly obvious who it hit.

Don't think it's ever going to be obvious from that angle though. All 4 players involved have their arms up/out and swinging around the place.

 

[Japandroid]

Both looked offside on first replay, Motherwell's especially, but that was before the lines were drawn. It happens quite often, remember Roofe's against Brondby last season.

What got me was the reactions on Sky. At half time they were all about trusting VAR and the technology that draws the lines, but at full time they wanted to have a forensic analysis of it and the Sakala one.

 

[Timardim]

Still absolutely no idea whose hand that hits, and neither would the var. If it's not clear cut they can't rule out the goal.

The Motherwell player with number 52 on his back ...ffs are you Mr. Magoo?

 

[BlueSevenTwo]

Both looked offside on first replay, Motherwell's especially, but that was before the lines were drawn. It happens quite often, remember Roofe's against Brondby last season.

What got me was the reactions on Sky. At half time they were all about trusting VAR and the technology that draws the lines, but at full time they wanted to have a forensic analysis of it and the Sakala one.

Sky in anti Rangers shocker.

 

[Smkz23]

Motherwell 52s right arm (with the claret sleeve) and then Mugabi’s left arm (black arm, white wristband) by the look of things.

However , the handball rules are wild. Is it not the case if it hits someone else’s arm and falls to you to score then the goal stands or something along those lines? Recall it from a Scotland v Israel game.

Yes, it’s only disallowed if it hits the hand of the goal scorer.

 

[Ramoan]

I actually think it was wrong on two occasions. I have no confidence in it after seeing these or is it just the angles making it look onside?

The Motherwell first goal:

Sakala in the build up to 3-2…

Why do you think Motherwell’s is offside ? They’re both on the same line, and the attacker gets the benefit of that. The two Motherwell players in the middle dont count, as the ball didnt go to them.

 

[Bobans27]

An honest game changing mistake in Glasgow earlier…

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637114596640129025

 

[Teddy bear]

The Motherwell players knee looks.like it's playing Sakala on.
Sky sports spent ages scrutinising the decision, yet barely questioned motherwell goal.

 

[Kilwinning74]

Yup. Same thing for Sakala:

Orange lines create a triangle with a vanisning point. Blue lines are 25%, 50% and 75% of the stripe in the field.

It's close but Sakala was level.

Edit:

That said, due to lens distortion, the lines to not always converge on the exact same point:

So for the Motherwell goal, you will see that the blue line I have drawn, which is 25% of the grass line, is actually wider at the near-side and far-side, compared to the middle.

Either way, both calls were correct..

Both looked off IMO. Yes i understand we need to trust this technology but it seems poor quality and Boyd’s hinted about this on to. From the lines drawn for the first goal look at the linesman right foot this is meant to be in line with the Motherwell players left knee (boy that makes the cross) - looks dodgy to me.