Would they have awarded a penalty via VAR if the push was the other way round? I doubt it, so I'm not too bothered by that decision given everything that goes on in the box at every corner.
He’s blatantly pushed the player meaning he can’t the compete for the ball. I think it’s a penalty the other way too. Regardless there will be a similar issue in another game and I bet it goes the other way.
I wouldn't even notice these kind of small fouls in the penalty area anymore, it's really pathetic if Brazil blame the referee for that goal. It is true though that the referees' practice is not unified for cases like this.
Yeah, I agree. It's like the old saying, 'If that's a PK, there's gonna be 15 PK's every game'. TBH I think people are expecting too much of VAR. As they say, it's only meant to catch the most egregious errors but that could be called either and it wouldn't be that wrong. I thought that French call against the ozzies being 'corrected' was a poor choice as well. If you have to watch it 15 times to figure out then maybe it's not that bad. I don't mean it was the wrong call necessarily but it wasn't immediately obvious that it was.
I'm willing to bet that if you reviewed all activity in the box as the ball came in that there was a Brazilian fouling someone, either holding or pushing
The thing is, how far are we gonna take this? Maybe we should send all the players out with scales so they can measure precisely how many pounds of force was used on a push or pull and for how many seconds. I'd say the current thinking for VAR which, AFAIK, is based on the worst errors being looked at again is about right.
It's designed to correct "clear and obvious" errors. I would expect in this situation the VAR team have told the referee there looks like a push, and the ref has responded that he's seen the incident and deemed it not a penalty. If he hadn't seen it I would have expected him to review it, and likely disallow the goal. I see it working like Umpire's call for LBW in cricket, where the decision on the pitch is in the hands of the officials unless clearly wrong. If he saw the push, then this becomes a judgement call and outside the remit of VAR.
I think a lot of these comments come from people who haven't played much. As you say, if you tried to play, (on set pieces in particular), on the basis you never touched anybody, you'd lose every game 10-0.
'Clear and obvious', yeah, that's the phrase. We don't want to end up with some half-baked yank style rule book that reads like a bloody legal contract.
This is why I wasn't surprised that Germany could be beaten. They've been wide open for quite awhile and it's the main reason why they concede often.
It’s not a small foul though. He makes it impossible for the defender to deal with the ball. Granted the positioning of the defender puts him in a vulnerable position but it’s still a blatant foul. It’s not really comparable to any type of contact that does not impede an opponent.
Germany need to change their setup. Way too open and for what? Most of the chances they create are usually dealt with and don't put themselves in harder areas to defend. Kroos and Khedira don't offer much cover while Boateng and Hummels are slow. Having said this I hope they don't make too many adjustments.
What sucked for me was while covering a baseball game during the Germany and Brazil matches: Go on Twitter and the first thing that comes up is a meme by a fake Darth Vader account referencing that Mexico beat Germany. Then before I leave I see a message from a dumb ass friend of mine who randomly texted me that Brazil drew with Switzerland. I record these matches for a bloody reason! The Germany game was quite fun to watch and have yet to view the Brazil match. That's why I wasn't posting at all yesterday lol.
But the defender is starting to reverse back towards him if you watch so maybe he could say he was simply standing his ground by sticking his arms out to hold his position? To be clear I agree with you... he DID push him in the back a bit but it's not like he shoved him over like you sometimes see. Also, you say contact 'that does not impede an opponent', well that's kinda why they're doing it after all. They're not pushing and shoving just for a laugh. If the ref calls it then, for me, it has to be blatantly wrong for it to be reversed. Not one where they have to try and gauge to the width of a certain part of a gnat how much pressure has been applied.
The French incident will have depended on why the referee gave the original decision. If he thought there was no trip on the player then it wouldn't be reviewed, as this is in the referee's opinion. However, if he thought the defender played the ball and that the ball movement after the challenge was due to this, then the VAR team will have told him there was no contact. This is a matter of fact and changes it from a perceived fair challenge to a foul, so is in the VAR remit. It's like retrospecitve punishment for violent conduct. If the officals have seen the incident, then the decision on the pith remains. If not, then it can be reviewed. I do agree that if it takes more than a couple of views then the decision should stay on the field though.
The other thing to consider is that the force involved should not have resulted in the defender reacting like he did. He felt contact and played for the foul. Reading the laws from an entirely literal interpretation, a push in itself is not a foul. I would like to see FIFA come out and explain the decision making process based on incidents that have occurred, especially with VAR being new. My biggest concern is that because this involves Brazil, the officials will be scapegoated.
I'm not sure that they'd approach it in such a granular way, would they? The rule is that the VAR communicates with the ref if he makes a "clear and obvious mistake" (or misses a serious incident entirely), not if he's mistaken on a single aspect informing his decision. On penalty decisions specifically, the VAR can ask the ref to review a penalty decision one two bases: 1) A foul leading up to the penalty. 2) A foul by the attacker. So surely the question for the VAR should be: was it clearly and obviously wrong not to award a foul on Griezmann? And it wasn't, as far as we're able to tell, because the question of contact on Griezmann was anything but clear. But they're assessing the possible foul as a whole, not just one factor in it.
This is why I would prefer that FIFA came out and explained the critical VAR decisions. There's no doubt that there was contact between the defender and attacker, the question is whether it was a fair challenge. For me, the only part of that incident that would give a clear and obvious reason to review is if the referee thought the ball was clearly and cleanly won by the defender, which VAR advised was not the case. The officals may have viewed it differently - I suppose I'm looking at this incident more in how I hope it would be used to maintain the integrity of decisions on the pitch wherever possible. Every review is going to be slightly different, and I don't think there's been sufficient clarity to the public on how VAR should work. You've even got ex-referee pundits with contrasting opinions on the decisions.
I like VAR, but feel it only should be used on off sides and red card decisions that are missed or wrongly given and hand balls, too early for fouls , as I think a lot is open to interpretation of the refs.
I think the situation is a little clearer when you acknowledge that matters of interpretation lead the VAR to refer the decision back to the referee for review, whereas for matters of fact (e.g. offside decisions, or whether a foul was inside or outside the box), the VAR simply advises the referee that he's made a clear and obvious mistake and the ref doesn't bother with the monitors. In this instance, you're exactly right that the question is whether the contact amounted to a foul, so the VAR is asking himself "do I think the ref made a clear and obvious mistake in not awarding a foul?" and then telling the ref to review so that he can see if he agrees. But that's also the flaw in the logic of VAR, as a decision isn't clearly and obviously mistaken if a knowledgeable ref can just say "nah, I was right in the first place". So really, there's no reason at all for the ref to be reviewing the decision. They'd do better to have an extra ref or two in the video room so that they can make sure they're unanimously agreed on advising the ref to overturn his decision.
I thought there were four officials reviewing incidents (which isn't going to happen if it's rolled out to club football). I'm not sure on the protocol for referals though. It could be one senior offical who decides, or require a certain number of those present.