News: VAR Experiment (video referees 2016-2018)

This, from the IFAB (and hosted on PRO's channel) is worth the watch:



It's essentially a glossy PR tool to promote VAR, but the behind-the-scenes stuff, particularly in Zurich, is interesting. Elleray's hedge at the end (everything I've heard is that he is the most skeptical--or at least most restrained--about VAR) is potentially illuminating. He says the IFAB could decide in 2018 or 2019. Delaying a final decision until 2019 opens the door to VAR being used at WC18 as an experiment only.

 

Unless the VAR was used primarily to confirm the identity of the 2CT, this is a total disaster. How do you summon the referee after all that and not before cards started getting dished out?

And if it was just for confirmation of the 2CT, I'm not sure how you can come back and add another yellow card to someone else and not book every single substitute who entered the field and book every single player who took an action similar to what #26 from NYCFC did, who is the player who got the 2CT. This is a big problem with VAR, as I see it. The video unequivocally shows a bunch of people who committed yellow card offences (entering the field) and shows several additional players who did the exact same thing the player who was sent off did, yet they escaped punishment while 5 players didn't. You either open up the door to consistency and punish everybody, or you don't review. I don't see how you can have a middle ground here with VAR, because it's no better than what we already have.

There have been a couple decent examples of VAR usage. There have been many bad ones. This is up there for the worst so far, though to be fair the actual handling of the mass confrontation itself was pretty below average on field so that might be coloring my assessment.

 

Right. You also have four players rush in for dissent from some distance. If you're going to have VAR and not cause even more delays, that dissent must be an automatic yellow (with the sole exception of the captain, if he's invited to get the call explained). It is infuriating to see this type of dissent. If VAR is an opportunity for anything, it's an opportunity to curb dissent. Instead, in several cases so far, it's made it worse.

Relatively speaking, this was efficient and got the correct call. But it also showed some of the pitfalls. The goal scored at the other end is one of the nightmare scenarios.

 

I just fundamentally disagree here. From 1:40 onward in the clip, for 9 seconds, you have 4 different players approach the referee, including the captain. One of those players physically puts his hand on the referee. These players are also running in from some distance (difficult to see how far without the zoomed out angle, but it has to be from somewhere else because there's no reason to be there). Plus, the captain is still trying to get his teammates away as the clip ends, so my guess is it probably lasted longer than 9 seconds.

I am obviously a VAR skeptic. But I truly believe one of the potential virtues of VAR is that it could eliminate dissent on controversial calls. When video is being consulted, there should simply be no dissent allowed--period. If VAR gets implemented and the opportunity to curtail dissent is missed, then it will have been done wrong. In this Australian incident above, I'd argue either all four or three of the four (possibly exempting the captain) should be booked. We can use VAR to reset the dynamics here. We always say the behavior we see in this clip is unsavory and something we want eliminated from the game; with VAR, we can do it and I don't see why we wouldn't.

 

I wouldn't go as far to say "nothing," but on everything else in this passage, I freely admit you're right. But one of the purposes of VAR surely has to be to cut back on dissent, right?

Disagree here. The referee has moved toward that penalty area as he's consulting the VAR. The restart was actually an IFK at the other end for an offside. No one had any reason to be there at the time the call was made, other than the goalkeeper. Jogging back to line up on the penalty area? Fine. Running back to confront the referee over a decision that he didn't even make? Sorry, but that just strikes me as dissent getting worse, not better.

While I agree that the lack of transparency on a big screen makes it more difficult, I would say that mandating the yellow card for any dissent after a VAR decision would curb player behavior very quickly. That's my point about this being an opportunity. We've developed a culture in our game where dissent is acceptable, no matter what we say or do. No referee is going to card all three or four players that surround him over a decision he makes. But VAR can start to change that. It's going to put a serious stain on the game if we delay matches due to VAR consultation and then delay them even further due to mass dissent. If VAR goes forward, we can deal with the second problem easily and it might help curb dissent overall.

Would disagree strongly here. You at least hear it all the time from fans, particularly casual fans, that dissent (along with diving) is one of the things they don't like about the sport. Now, no fan wants to see 2 or 3 of his players get booked for dissent each match but if the rule about dissent after a VAR decision is ironclad, then you simply just won't see such dissent except in the rarest of cases.

Unfortunately, I agree to an extent here. The focus seems to be on implementing VAR and getting it "right" without considering the dissent angle (though principle 8 in the VAR protocols says anyone using the "review signal" must be cautioned and that players must not surround the referee to ask for a review, during the review process or after the final decisions, so the correct text is in place... I just think that the focus is on the first two parts and people are going to ignore the third).

Agree on the captain. I would say that, even in the "current climate," the player that rushes in and puts his arm on the referee should be booked--VAR or not. This is the sort of stuff that we accept, but we absolutely should not.

 

Again, just because this was cross posted... There were at least a half dozen VAR reviews in USL last year. Some of which, in fact, are likely linked to in this thread on the earlier pages.

And the review had to be for the tackle that resulted in the foul. For the review to be initiated, the VAR must have suggested there was a possibility it was SFP. If I'm right,, and Jurisevic determined it wasn't SFP, then he followed the protocols correctly as I understand them. But this does show a weakness of the system... he can review that tackle if it's a red card, but he can't review it and give a yellow since no red card decision was made initially. So, even though I think you have at least a yellow upon review, you can't give it. The challenge is red or nothing. That's potentially a big problem if the player in question is already on a yellow.

 

I think we're actually in full agreement here. I just didn't go into the details on whether Toledo was right or wrong to initiate the review.

This is where I'm still unsure. I need to go back and review the protocols again. If what you're suggesting is true, it would mean that, for example, a referee could sanction misconduct for something off-the-ball while he looked at an offside decision. Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't remember the exact language from the protocols since it's so new. And I am sure that a 2CT decision is not reviewable, so that does mean a VAR would have to at least suggest an SFP red card to get a potential 2CT looked at no matter how it's written, because 2CTs themselves are explicitly not reviewable, there is a loophole that exists.

 

Not a shock to anyone paying attention to what FIFA's been planning for U20s, but I believe this is the first confirmation that VAR will be at WC2018: http://www.france24.com/en/20170426-infantino-confirms-video-refereeing-2018-world-cup?ref=tw_i

And, while not shocking, this quote is maddening and goes to the point that this is a propaganda campaign rather than an experiment:

Kuipers gave a yellow card on an incident where he was going to correctly give a red.

USL had an overturned DOGSO card on appeal, after it was given via VAR.

The Australian penalty, several posts above, was not well-received.

And the CWC had the weird and possibly incorrect incident regarding the timing of the restart.

There have been more.

It's a flat-out lie to say there have been "nothing but positive results." It's just not true and actually contradicts his earlier admission that there had been "little hiccups." But the media will eat it up because everyone loves technology.

 

I would argue many people secretly or subconsciously love them, because it gives fodder for debates and allows for days of discussions in the aftermath--much easier for casual fans to debate or complain about referee calls on internet forums and on social media than to, let's say, deeply analyze tactical midfield decisions. I find it similar to the argument that people actually liked the subjectivity of a national champion in college football before the playoff system was introduced. The history of sports shows that controversy generates interest and animates fans. But such an assertion can never be proven, so let's ignore that debate for now.

Everyone is fascinated with technology for the sake of technology. The "reporting" after the Real-Bayern match should demonstrate that beyond a shadow of a doubt. You immediately saw articles implying or explicitly stating that VAR was the answer. No one delved into the pesky little "detail" that the Vidal card was not reviewable and there would have been no mechanism to send off Casemiro. And not one article addressed a potential review of the Bayern penalty because, well, since they lost that wasn't controversial. There was no critical analysis, it was just a blanket "VAR would have solved this" even though, other than the first (and possibly second) Ronaldo goals, it objectively wouldn't have. VAR in that game would have been a half-measure that might have actually created more controversy, because only certain "obvious" mistakes would have been rectified. But no one said that.

Let's put it this way... AARs were also introduced to prevent obvious referee mistakes, no? How many stand alone articles do you think were produced on AARs in 2009, when the UEFA experiment first hit UCL? Now how many articles do you think have been produced on VAR in the past year, despite VAR not being in any competition with as high a profile as the UCL? There is a clear fascination with technology solving problems in sport. I find it hard to believe you would argue otherwise.