The Adams red card in Orlando might be the most fascinating clip this year insofar as VAR protocols go. Kljestan drags Adams down off the ball and then Adams reacts by kicking out at Kljestan. Personally, I'd like two red cards, but let's ignore that issue for the purposes of this post. Saghafi sees the tail end of it and/or is advised by his AR to go red on the kick out. No problem there. Adams is gone for VC. But apparently no one saw the initial takedown. That means, theoretically, you're left with a PK restart for Orlando for the Adams VC, even though Saghafi doesn't appear to signal for a PK. Instead, he checks with the VAR, which he would be doing on all red cards (or PKs) anyway, so all good so far. Here's where it gets interesting. Saghafi then shows Kljestan a yellow and awards Chicago the DFK without going to the monitor. So he's taken the advice of his VAR on both the proper restart (which is either a change from the initial restart decision or he's farmed the decision out completely to the VAR) and misconduct to Kljestan. None of this violates the IFAB VAR Handbook per se, but it does appear to violate one principle (that the referee is supposed to take his decision, which would/should have been a PK, before going to the VAR) and definitely violates one instruction from PRO, which is that non-monitor VAR decisions are only for factual issues (misconduct to Kljestan is subjective). I'm interested to learn what PRO ends up making of all of this. To be fair and to keep leaving aside the issue of the card color for Kljestan, this was relatively efficient. But the protocols and instructions exist for a reason and deviation from them likely won't help anyone in the long run, as all parties are still becoming accustomed to the very existence of VR.
According to the twitters, both the Higuain and Adams reds are being appealed by the clubs. Time for another round of What Wildly Inconsistent Ruling Will the IRP Make This Time?
So maybe his Assistant or 4th officials said to him. Caution to Kjestan and he fouled the player so we have a free kick coming out. Why does it have to be that VAR did all of this.
Maybe. But Saghafi was using the ear piece signal which is now officially linked with VAR and it seemed like he was saying that he was checking with the VAR. You could be right, but the problem is no one knows because the VR process in soccer isn’t transparent like it is with rugby.
Let’s see how the WC goes. Rugby is successful because there are so many natural stoppages and officials have been wired for public audio for a long time. Soccer doesn’t have that. I don’t think having the dynamic conversations between ARs and CRs is a good thing because it would change the nature of those conversations for the worse. So it’s tricky. I don’t think you can or should get to the rugby model. But maybe some transparency could be implemented.
I do think that something needs to be done for transparency. When you look at the major sports with video review, they all have some level of communication with fans and broadcasters. The NFL and NHL has the microphones. Rugby has even more communication to the fans. Tennis and cricket have the Hawkeye style graphics. The NBA refs will explain their decision after review to the arena PA announcer and often the commentators from ESPN/TNT -- plus every replay decision is posted on their website with an explanation. Assuming the VAR system comes out of Russia in one piece, I think the lack of transparency and communication will be one of the biggest flaws to fix.
One logistically simple option would be to have a mic that the 4O could announce the decision at least in simple terms to the TV and the stadium when there is a VR reversal. But does that become a slippery slope of wanting explanations of other decisions? And give the kinds of decisions being reviewed our often subjective, would it really reduce the controversy?
I was told by PRO on their "askPRO" twitter feed that what is being checked is communicated to the TV people and the in-stadium PA announcer who is supposed to announce what is being checked. But then there is no follow up with respect to why a decision was made or what was officially decided. I guess everyone is supposed to figure it out via what happens next. But I also agree that more information needs to be communicated and that other sports really do it better. I am not so familiar with rugby but watch a lot of Aussie Rules where the umpires are all mic'd up and you can hear what they're saying all match long. But in the stadium you don't hear anything except when there's a score review - a system causing a lot of controversy down under at the moment because even with replay they're not always getting it right and it takes too long...criticism which sounds familiar. One other feature of this game is that the umpiring interpretations change from week to week depending on what the commentariat complains about from the week before. Not exactly the greatest way to do things as it is so reactive.
So what is media and the "league" going to do when as the Referee is announcing upon Further review #69 Jim Shorts is being sent off for Violent conduct and as he is saying the the lovely F bomb drops followed by the lovely adjectives that we all know they say. I am sure TV rating will Drive up for that.
Maybe that would force the referees to finally start dealing with the profane dissent. Or the league to start doing something about it
PRO made an official statement about the Cristian Martinez (CLB) incident: http://proreferees.com/2018/06/02/pro-statement-skc-v-clb/ "During the 54th minute of the match between Sporting Kansas City and Columbus Crew SC on May 27, violent conduct was displayed by Crew SC midfielder Cristian Martinez. The incident was not seen by the on-field officials. However, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) checked and analyzed the play, but incorrectly assessed the nature of the offense." Furthermore, on Howard Webb responded to someone on Twitter asking if the VAR thought it was a yellow card offense with the following: "No Nate, he just got too wrapped up trying to confirm whether there was contact or not, rather than looking at the big picture, which showed at least an attempt to strike, which is a red card offense and one which VAR should get involved in." I hope to see more of this from PRO. It would be greatly beneficial to PRO in the long-term if there was more transparency in all stages of the process
WOW. The assumption everyone was operating under was that VAR didn’t have video of the incident. In fact I think Sinovic said that was what the center ref told him, that they didn’t see it either live or on video. Now PRO is confirming that not only did VAR see it, but they said it was worthy of no card at all. I hope I’m not saying this with SKC-colored glasses, but as a former ref myself, that is just awful, awful, refereeing. Whoever the VAR was on that call made an absolutely outrageous screwup. CLB should 100% have been down to 9 men at that point, which may very well have cost SKC two points. Unbelievable.
I don’t think anyone should have been operating under that first assumption. The referee likely told Sinovic that they didn’t “have enough” to send it down. Remember the VAR should be saying “check complete” and using similarly terse and standard language if they aren’t sending something down. They shouldn’t or wouldn’t be saying “well he swings at him but there isn’t contact so I’m not sending it down.” It’s unfortunate in this case, but there’s not supposed to be a long running dialogue with the VAR describing the video because he shouldn’t be planting seeds of doubt with the referee for the rest of the match. Every conversation on a subjective decision is supposed to end with either “check complete” (which means I don’t have enough to say you were clearly wrong) or “I am recommending an on-field review” (which means I think you clearly got this wrong or missed something obvious). So if the VAR was looking for the wrong thing and never found it, he’d be saying “check complete.” The VAR was Gonzalez. He screwed up and he knows it. Forest for trees and all that. Note that Geiger replaced him as VAR on 5/30 immediately after the incident occurred.
VAR can only send to the field if the VAR thinks it’s red? Or if the VAR reviews looking for red, can he send down to recommend a caution?
If the VAR believes that the referee has clearly and obviously missed a red card, he can recommend that the referee goes to the monitor to view it himself. The referee after watching the video can give out whatever misconduct he wants, however you cannot go to the monitor if you think it is only a yellow.
Correct. And though we've yet to see this in MLS yet, this part of the protocol opens up the backdoor for 2CTs in certain (rather arbitrary) circumstances. Because let's say a tackle goes completely unpunished but it's borderline yellow/red. And the guilty player is already on a yellow. In such cases, the VAR is supposed to be 100% confident that a red is missed or he can't send the video down, as you say. But if it is a clear, no questions asked second yellow and the VAR now knows the referee has missed it, might he feel compelled to send it down as a "missed red" (even if he doesn't think it's clear SFP) only for the referee to go look and say "well that's only a yellow," thereby getting the result that all fans expect? This is where human nature will be fighting the protocols, I think.
Agree. And where we get it oddly arbitrary results in some cases. The NBA finals saw something similar in the first game. Block/charge calls are not reviewable, except that they can be reviewed to see if a defender was on the semi-circle under the basket. And once under review, can be reviewed broadly. LeBron was clearly outside of the semi-circle (raising the question of whether it was even close enough that the ref should have initiated review) so that was readily dismissed--but the call was nevertheless reversed on the merits of the block-charge.
I've wondered why second yellows aren't reviewable. I thought the idea was to only review events that had a major impact on the game (goals, penalties, red cards), but a second yellow is such an event.
Because there is no way to review only 2nd yellows while not reviewing every potential yellow. And in this sport there are ten tackles a match that are potential yellows. The line had to be drawn somewhere to get "maximum benefit and minimum interference".