A referee's decision isn't the same as a police or court decision. There is no legal right to an "appeal" at least in the same sense as a criminal conviction. That said, it's up to a league how much they value supporting the referee vs. supporting other agents (the teams, the players, public opinion, etc.). Professional leagues that get their money from star players and star teams can have huge incentives to not support referees and allow appeals of referee decisions. That may result in biased decisions based on power dynamics, money or public opinion and not based on an unbiased referee's opinion. If you want more "unbiased" decisions you would want these decisions to be left to the referee. I think that's what GoDawgsGo meant.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The punishments are encoded in the disciplinary regulations, which are the same as any other in society and in it must be an appeal regulation.
I mean, the Laws of the Game literally say that a referee’s decisions concerning facts of play are final. So in that regard, they are unappealable. Competition authorities have set up appeals processes and their own judicial systems to allow for anything from replayed matches for misapplication of the Laws to the rescinding of suspensions. You can debate whether those processes and range of outcomes are good or bad but it’s wrong to say there MUST be appeals regulations. Any competition could literally say “there will be no appeals of referee decisions” and be perfectly in line with the LOTG. Back to the original point, I’m with @GoDawgsGo. Excusing the intervention of bureaucrats based on VAR being new is very wrong to me. You never wrestle a power away from an authority once it has it. It’s not like, 3 years from now, the MLS Review Panel is going to say “oh, things seem to be running smoothly now, we won’t jump in anymore.” When a red card is given in a VAR competiton now, either a qualified referee said it was a red card and his colleague—with the help of video—said it was not clearly wrong OR that colleague used video to say it would be clearly wrong not to give a red card and the referee agreed. Either way we are talking about two qualified officials using video to make a decision that both agree is perfectly reasonable*. At that point, why is a third party without any active league referees telling them they are both wrong? *the exception here would be if a referee rejects an OFR, of course, and takes a decision opposite to the VAR. if appeals bodies wanted to claim the right to intervene in these (hopefully increasingly rare) situations, I could reluctantly accept it. But even then, the decision would apparently be so borderline that you couldn’t get two qualified referees to agree, so I still don’t know why an outside body would be seen to have more authority.
To be fair, we've seen mistakes where there are 4 officials on the field (only one CR of course) and the laws were still applied incorrectly. So there are certainly possibilities that the CR and the VAR both screw up and make an obvious mistake. Those scenarios should be fairly rare though.
Fixed it for you. Humans are humans. Even with VAR there could be a disasterously bad decision that could warrant post game intervention, but they should be so stunningly rare that it is hardly worthwhile to even have the apparatus to deal with them.
Fodder for the argument that VAR is better at taking away goals than helping to generate them. No chance this is a clear and obvious penalty if the participants were inverted. https://streamable.com/v6z8e
A new one, but a good use of VAR. Strasbourg player is called for being offside. He is fouled right before the whistle goes. VAR is able to show that the key touch for the offside offence is actually by the defending team. Therefore, there was no offside offence and the foul can be punished because it occurred before the whistle and it constituted DOGSO. So, VAR changes offside to DOGSO.
OK...agreed mostly, but a couple of contradictions here. "He is fouled right before the whistle goes." Don't we teach that it matters when the decision happens in your head, not when we blow the whistle? If you have already decided offence #1 in your head, that is the decision point, not when you actually blow the whistle. "...touch for the offside offence is actually by the defending team. Therefore, there was no offside offence and the foul can be punished because it occurred before the whistle..." So which is it? Are we punishing the foul because offside is actually not offside because it came off a defender? OR are we punishing the foul because it occurred before the whistle?
It takes both. If he was OS, that came before the foul and there can be no foul. Once the OS is removed, the question is whether the whistle had blown before foul occurred—if the whistle had blown before the foul, the only restart possible would be a DB. I think the whistle is clearly the magic moment. That is why ARs in VAR games are being taught to delay the flag.
Agree with this. You can't blow the whistle unless you've decided there was a foul. The blowing is simply to stop the match from continuing.
I think this is confusing the scenario presented. The whistle was for the OS, not the foul. The sequence is: -possible OS infraction -DOGSO foul -whistle for OS (even though the OS call was wrong) Since BOTH there was no actual OS infraction AND the whistle had not blown before the foul, the foul can be punished. (I THINK that if it were merely an ordinary foul it could only be given if the R (or an AR) recognized it. But since it is a potential send off, VAR can look at that, too.)
I think you need to read the full VAR handbook closely. With VAR in play, not all the old stand-by "rules" apply. Your first bullet point is irrelevant. If the whistle hasn't gone, everything that occurs is in play and subject to sanction as if the ball was in play. Otherwise, what is the point of even having VAR? Taking your point to its logical conclusion, a goal could not be scored following the wait-and-see approach that professional ARs are now told to use with VAR. As to your second point, well, it's both. We are punishing the foul because VAR proved there was no offside. And we are allowed to punish the foul because the whistle never went. I think the important points to understand here are: 1. That if the foul occurred after the referee blew the whistle for offside, then the foul cannot be punished even if VAR proves the offside was wrong. 2. The only reason VAR can intervene is because there was a potential punishable DOGSO decision. VAR can't intervene for run-of-the-mill offside decisions. It can only intervene to overturn an offside if doing so would lead to a goal, penalty, or red card. We've seen it done for goals and penalties. This is the rarer situation where it leads to a red card.
One point of clarification. If the whistle had blown, the restart is an IFK to the defending team for the offside. The offside cannot be overturned if there's no potential red card foul to review. So if the whistle had gone early, all that we're left with is an incorrect offside decision that stands. Restart IFK to the defense.
Again, reiterating the point of clarification... the VAR has to determine there was a punishable red card scenario AND believe that said red card was clear and obvious in order to prompt any of this. In other words, the offside isn't the mistake. Missing the red card is the mistake. And because the missed red card occurred before the whistle went, the whole scenario can be reviewed and everything can be fixed. If either the whistle went early OR the incident wasn't a clear red card, you're stuck with the bad offside call. But the baseline entry point for intervention here is a missed DOGSO, not a bad offside call.
I agree, as this concurs with my point the whistle is the moment the play is stopped by the ref. But the ref still can punish players when he has stopped the match/put the match on hold by whistling. Otherwise a player can punch someone/kick someone while the game is on hold unpunished.
Meanwhile, in Spain, apparently it's fine for this to be a goal: What a disgrace VAR is in this country and League pic.twitter.com/RsLiA3cyba— Florentino Pérez (@RealFloPerez) January 20, 2019 1087106057095315456 is not a valid tweet id
Former Orange star van der Vaart pleaded in Dutch Footie show Studio Voetbal for a VAR with each coach of the two teams given three opportunities to call for a VAR review. It cuts back on interventions by the VAR, it gives control back to the AR and the coaches will not waste their opportunities on what could be silly reviews. This came after a weekend of VAR interventions that contained several nobody would have complained about if the VAR hadnot intervened. I like the idea, as it would also cut back on the drama performances of coaches by the side lines addressing the 4th officials with complaints about the referee, because we could make such behaviour an official request for a VAR review. Coaches quickly will learn not to be theatrical as that could cost them their opportunities to get real situations be reviewed. Could be extended to players calling for cards for opponents (=a request for VAR) too.
In the sense that two humans were involved, sure. In all seriousness, I don’t see any comparison. At all. Goalkeeper is stationary and about to catch the ball. Attacker challenges with leg, making contact with keeper. Incident is in his goal area. Keeper is kneeling. It’s a potential rebound from a save. Not one of those aspects was part of the incident you reference. What makes you think of it here?
I think there's a glancing knee to the head of the goalkeeper here, but this should have been a foul regardless, and to address a few other comments, whether or not the goalkeeper had control is irrelevant IMO. Challenged for the ball in a manner that is at MINIMUM careless.