This piece from Alan Morrison of Celtic By Numbers today is worth your time.
As I had previously reported, the Jota offside decision had become a developing story after the SFA statement that was, presumably, meant to kill the controversy.
Alexa, show me a work experience PR own goal!
Alan’s piece is forensically accurate and might meet with the approval of Celtic’s legally qualified CEO.
Now, in another dimension of the Fitba multiverse, someone at Parkhead has already worked out that there is a prima facie case against the SFA and has taken action.
If, in the here and now, the folk at Celtic do not think that, then they’re not fit for purpose.
Discover more from Phil Mac Giolla Bháin
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The biggest compliment I can pay Alan Morrison is…
I wish I had written that.
It is clear and concise…but most importantly….It is totally accurate.
I have said before Phil…..I’m convinced that someone at Celtic Park is “charged ” with reading the major Celtic blogs (of which yours is surely one) and reporting back any articles of major interest.
Well, I am certain that Alan’s piece falls into that category…so here’s hoping its brought to the Board’s attention.
You know my views on their “inaction” regarding Res.12 …EBT’s…and many other issues.
But if they are made aware of this article….yet continue to do nothing…..I wouldn’t be at all surprised.
They are not fit for purpose as it stands…but ignoring this would confirm everything I think of them.
Once more….Hats off to Mr. Morrison…and to you for picking it up.
Hail hail.
The biggest compliment I can pay Alan Morrison is…
I wish I had written that.
It is clear and concise…but most importantly….It is totally accurate.
I have said before Phil…..I’m convinced that someone at Celtic Park is “charged ” with reading the major Celtic blogs (of which yours is surely one) and reporting back any articles of major interest.
Well, I am certain that Alan’s piece falls into that category…so here’s hoping its brought to the Board’s attention.
You know my views on their “inaction” regarding Res.12 …EBT’s…and many other issues.
But if they are made aware of this article….yet continue to do nothing…..I wouldn’t be at all surprised.
They are not fit for purpose as it stands…but ignoring this would confirm everything I think of them.
Once more….Hats off to Mr. Morrison…and to you for picking it up.
Hail hail.
Add to this, the inconsistent application of the handball rules in favour of Sevco and we have more reason to doubt the independence of the ‘refereeing’ fraternity and the SFA
The article is brilliant clear and succinct. His main point is it doesn’t matter if it was offside or not …. It’s all about the process followed to make that decision. Was it fair we’re there lies. Terrific article. So simple there is no reason why Celtic board should not follow up and ask Sfa exact same question. I shall be disappointed if they don’t. It’s an open goal for Nicholson.
Incredible the amount of Celtic fans still thinking this is about a disallowed goal
SFA clearly know this present group of incumbents at Celtic are heavily compromised,with 5 way agreement etc,that they are supremely confident they won’t rock the boat.Well it’s time they tipped the feckin thing over.This simply can’t continue,end of.
This is a storm in a teacup. AM says: “It doesn’t really matter whether Jota was or was not in fact onside.”
A few paragraphs later he says: “If there is a definitive image showing Jota was offside, this can be quickly put to bed.”
So which is it?
I was as annoyed as anyone when the goal was disallowed, but I’ve since seen a ‘still’ that shows Jota’s head in an offside position at the time the pass was made. The linesman also raised his flag.
If the ‘right’ camera wasn’t able to confirm onside or offside, what was Collum to do? Overrule the linesman?
Imagine our reaction if the referee overruled a linesman’s offside decision that had gone in our favour!!!
The bottom line is that the camera wasn’t, apparently, able to assist; but most importantly, the decision was correct, Jota was offside.
If we need to make a point, ask for an explanation of the non-penalty at Hearts compared to the Matt O’Riley handball on Saturday.
If we’re going to pick a fight, make sure it’s one we can win. This Jota-gate is a waste of time.
Sorry James, I think you are missing the point here. It’s not so much about the decision, it’s the facts about how it was reached and the apparent lack of honesty form SFA and officials.
Had they said they’d screwed up the tech, couldn’t tell and were going to rely on the on pitch assessment of offside that isn’t brilliant but is at least open and honest.
Instead we have a flow and set of comments which make no sense really and appear to be withholding what actually happened. If the audio of the discussion in VAR room was available i wonder what wed hear.
Lastly if I was in charge at the SFA, on introducing VAR I’d be anticipating all sorts of accusations of bias and I would do my utmost to show the evidence these were unfounded and not at all true. Not stoking the fire.
Disagree – its a great, well written article
Where was the “still” you seen mate
Let’s see the footage of the camera focusing on the “other place” let’s see it !!!! Prove it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Indeed, though it may be that Sky have not retained those images not used in the broadcast and only keep them temporarily for replay and / or after-match analysis?
The fact that Sky have not replied to the allegation is interesting.
A key point about the VAR installation is that ‘high speed’ cameras capturing a higher frame rate are required for offside decisions. They are critical in getting better resolution as to the exact point the pass is made and the relative positions of the attackers. The SFA are implicating Sky as having control over these? Why would you install a system that you are going to rely on for decisions then cede control to a 3rd party who can use them to film other shit? Why would that 3rd party then use a high speed camera to film the back of the dugout? These are the more critical questions and yes, we smell rodents.
Anyone agree that it might be time to ditch the whole idea of “offside” as it stands. I find it ridiculous that someone’s toe or a hair on a player’s head might qualify it as offside. It’s not the Epsom Derby. Why not bring in the offence of “poaching” whereby a player is punished for parking himself in the opposition’s penalty box a la McCoist. Details to be worked out. It was designed to do away with “long ball” football but that is all that the lesser clubs have. It would certainly even up the playing field and do away with the need for VAR to be involved leaving it free to decide on red cards.
It might be naive but something has to be done.
Bottom line is Celtic should be demanding to see the footage of where the VAR camera was actually focused. Not fit for purpose or are only interested in running a business. YOU DECIDE !!!!
It makes you wonder given Celtic were instrumental in bringing in Var that the club knew these issues would arise with VAR and those operating it and their decision making would be highlighted.
Given Celtic have lost out on so many decisions thanks to those officials they now need to ask why
The Bunnet certainly would have relished this chance
The calibration they are stating is for the lines on the pitch but here’s the one.
The operator has to pinpoint the players. Why would Hawkeye know who Jota and the defender are or what part of their bodies to pinpoint. Especially from the M74 motorway camera they used
We knew that VAR would help to highlight dodgy match decisions,
but within a matter of weeks it has also highlighted the incompetence at Hampden!
“…received the ball…” ?! Incredible. 🙁
This is gonna get messy folks