Well there are some grounds. But perhaps the better verbiage is “incorrectly adjudged it to be a fair challenge.”
There was another moment later on when Aslani clearly fell too easily right outside the box and it was called a foul and a dangerous free kick. That one could have been easily called a non-foul. I guess the CRs are still human in spite of VAR.
Why must we do this? The match is over. Why do partisans have to pretend like something that didn’t happen actually happened? It’s not like admitting this was a missed call (or at least very credible penalty claim) here is going to change the result. The Swedish player is possessing the ball. The Dutch player challenged, didn’t get the ball, and contacted her opponent. You can claim the contact is trifling. You can assert this is the type of close play that normally gets missed so it’s not an egregious error. But don’t make the patently laughable statement that the Swedish attacker, in possession of the ball, “kicked” the defensive player who attempted to dispossess her by tackling. That’s absurd. The attacker did not foul the defender.
Hi! I'm not a ref, so I'm just asking in order better to understand: Why and how was this "miss" different than the VAR replay and pk in the England - USA game? Is it the "scoring" play aspect? Thanks!
The Swedish player didnot kick on purpose. She made the swing with her foot to the ball, while the Dutch player launched her tackle towards the ball.
So, what you're saying is that the Dutch player challenged for the ball, and in doing so collected only the Swede's foot. That's a foul. It doesn't have to be on purpose.
Mmm, that's not what I wrote. The Swedish player collected the Dutch foot in the process of the kick she made.
Unless the ref thought the Swedish player got the ball then we could be talking the clear missed incident standard like we probably saw in the USA match. Or is that still under clear and obvious? I don't know at this point.
There is no authoritative answer. The best real world answer is that the VAR in today’s match did not deem a decision not to call a foul to be clearly wrong. Meanwhile the VAR in yesterday’s match deemed the lack of a foul call on the challenge in question to be clearly wrong (or that the referee missed the challenge entirely). What is “clearly wrong” relative to penalty decisions is inherently subjective, despite a lot of people believing or hoping otherwise.
I haven't been paying close attention to these things, but do we know enough about different VAR's to have an idea of where everyone's "clearly wrong" line is? I assume there's some variation and some VAR's are more likely to get involved that others.
Those of us who follow leagues and tournaments from a ref perspective have no idea sometimes. IMO this was a PK that I'd expect a vast majority of VARs to send down based on what I've seen.
We aren't privy to the CR/VAR conversation are we? For all we know the CR assured the VAR she had seen it. It doesn't get much different than a trip preventing a point-blank shot on goal, and a wrestling take down facing away in the corner of the box. For my 2 cents, there were elements of fair challenge there. The gals were hip to hip. There was a lot of ball showing when the Dutch player stretched for it. The Swede stepped in first, got her foot knock sideways, but she was leaning pretty hard on the Dutch player and they both went down. There were Dutch defenders all around. I like the non-call.
If the VAR determines that not calling the penalty is clearly wrong, this sort of discussion is irrelevant (which is why, at least at the FIFA level, it’s not really happening except possibly in some select cases). The VAR is obligated to recommend a review if he determines the decision is clearly wrong. To put it in the most basic terms, that’s his one job. The CR can conduct the review and stick with her decision. But she can’t just ignore a recommendation for a review (not without ending her career).
No. The whole standard is constantly evolving and that means VARs are getting coached and instructed and corrected and re-taught as it goes. Everything is fluid.
Red, which looks almost orange on TV. Black. Which is stupid close to the navy blue. And I can't remember if the other is green (similar enough to orange on TV) or baby blue.
So the overnight 'coaching' was if something like the England pk call happens again don't send it down for review? ;>)
I'm guessing the question in the US/UK match was whether Batista saw it more than whether she misjudged it (although that's kind of difficult to cleanly separate.)
Thank you all for the replies. From a mere soccer-fan perspective, this undermines VAR significantly. In both cases nothing was initially called but video showed clear contact. A system that allows for different results in these two scenarios seems bizarre!
The main reason (I'm conjecturing) that the CR (Beaudoin) missed the call was because the Dutch player van Lunteren made 3 or 4 similar tackles (along the touchline, not in the area) and they were clean, beautiful, textbook-perfect tackles.
I would have liked to have seen a replay of the Fischer-van de Donk play in the Sweden box not long after the Hurtig-van Lunteren play. Not exactly quite suggesting that could have been a penalty, but I think it's likely enough that Fischer went through van de Donk there. However, I suppose van de Donk was possibly off balance enough anyways for that call not to be made.
someone on the Sweden-Netherlands game forum said that Umpierrez has been sent home as she is not fit to do the final. Is this so? Any thoughts on who will get the final?