Caen : PSG [R]

Almost all of this has to do with VAR, but there's so much going on that I figure this is worth another thread.

Three big incidents from the semifinal yesterday. The first one, to me, is the most baffling because it flies in the face of what we were talking about with the Bundesliga penalty a little while ago. Clip here: https://streamable.com/bidvw

Seems pretty simple. PSG scores, but there is a VAR check. After consultation with the VAR, the goal is disallowed for offside. Let's ignore the issue of offside position for a moment, because I'd normally first argue that OSP is in doubt here unless the FFF is using calibrated lines to which we are not privy. More importantly, how is this an offside offence? The ball is in the air for 40 yards, the defender plays it with his right foot, then plays it again with his left foot, kicking the ball high into the air. The attacker--the one allegedly initially in an OSP--then seizes on this mistake and sets up his teammate for the goal. What am I missing? This seems like a really poor application of the offside law and a situation where VR leads to the clearly wrong decision.

Moving on, watch this clip all the way to the end: https://streamable.com/dbtzv

Now explain to me how the first clip resulted in the goal being annulled for the player being in an OSP, yet this goal stands. Neither situation is incredibly clear, but if you're going to pick, disallowing the first but allowing the second seems almost certainly wrong.

Finally, we have this SFP red card from late in the match: https://streamable.com/37uhc

VAR checked but did not intervene. This reminds me a lot of the first minute Ted Unkel red card that got reversed in MLS. It has enough to justify a red card for SFP, but given all the particular aspects of it, it's probably taught as a yellow in the classroom. In this situation, the VAR does not intervene because, presumably, he (rightly in my opinion) determines the SFP red card is not clearly wrong. But with Unkel, we get an intervention. I just think this highlights how silly it is to have SFP red cards reviewable. Because right now some VARs and competitions are using the VR system to get to the most ideal decision, while others are strictly following the protocols, applying them conservatively, and going with the referee's call almost no matter what. This needs to be sorted out.

This was a domestic cup semifinal in a major country. You won't see too much controversy because the "right" team won, despite the merits of these decisions. What happens in the World Cup semifinal where both of these offside decisions go against the team that loses?

 

Right. This is the main reason why I didn't toss this game into the larger VAR thread. Forget VR for a moment. The call is wrong, correct? I suppose it compounds the error that it was prompted via the VAR, but that's really irrelevant to the larger fundamental issue, which is that the referee team disallowed a goal for a gross misinterpretation of our current Law 11 instructions.

Did you watch all the way to the end and see the final replay? Because if OSP is a black and white, objective decision with VR (and it's supposed to be) I think they got this one wrong. Close enough for 99% of games, but when a VAR is in place, this seems like a straightforward offside decision.

Nor do I, to be clear. I think tackles like these are or can be just as bad as a set of studs showing and high. I think SFP is completely justifiable. But I also feel very confident this would be taught as being on the border of yellow and red--somewhere around 9 or so on the Futuro scale that FIFA has used. So I just think it's interesting to highlight that this tackle gets no review while the Unkel tackle in MLS gets reviewed and changed.