I think you're on the point there. With the VAR being introduced, I was hoping it would lead to more red cards for serious foul play and violent conduct, especially early in the game. From everything that has been show so far, I doubt that will be the case. In fact, I'd argue less red cards will be given as a result as the referees will have the VAR be a crutch that will give them credibility in the eyes of everyone else. "I saw the video and it's not a red card." I think what FIFA want from VARs is to prevent goals being allowed or disallowed for offside and to get penalty kick decisions right and help out with blatant acts of misconduct. I think they really have a desire for the system to be used for serious foul play.
Much of this analysis is correct. It is the conflict between the actual LOTG that we are all taught and how to actually apply them. The fact is that if a referee called a match as Aguilar did in competitions at a lower level, he would almost certainly not pass the assessment nor would he progress very far in his career, as he would not get any more appointments. Things have been trending this way for about 10-15 years at the high levels. Certainly the impact on the ticket buyers and TV contract holders to see a match played with 11 vs. 11 and the big stars not suspended is the major over-riding influence. However, there are some people who regularly instruct at adult and youth regional tournaments who also advocate this style of refereeing. Usually given as "Technical vs. Practical" or some such wording. The message is that the "Practical" referee is preferred, and so this is what up and coming referees try to do, often with dire consequences at these lower levels. As a result, I know of several long-time established referee instructors and assessors (now called coaches) who no longer work at these events, viewing them as a waste of time as far as referee improvement in the traditional sense is concerned. Bottom line is expect more of this, not less. Maybe the VAR will help, we will have to see, although based on the obvious trends, I seriously doubt it. It is just window dressing and lip service. PH
I honestly don't see how they'll be able to get away with having VAR and not punishing obvious SFP or VC with a red card. Maybe I'm just hopeful, but in the past they had an excuse of the referee only gets to see it once and if they're not sure they shouldn't give the red card. Now with replay the dimensions have shifted, it will no longer be an excuse, and people will be calling for blood. Furthermore I think the U20 world cup just doesn't have enough eyes on it for the missed calls to be noticed. If in the 2018 world cup Pepe puts his head into a downed opponent like in 2014 and the VAR doesn't catch it, it'll be around the world anger immediately.
That's not clear, and no pun is intended. http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/216/VAR_Protocol Summary_v1.0.pdf Final paragraph under "reviewable decisions" heading says that the VAR can only be used in the four enumerated situations once the referee has made a decision (which includes no decision) or if a serious incident has not been seen by the match officials. But then Principle 5 talks about a decision needing to be "clearly wrong" to be changed. Second paragraph under "Review Process" also is relevant. The question that all leaves for me is what happens when a decision to make no call (like with Aguilar and the elbow) is shown to be clearly wrong, but the potential remedy is more subjective and does not automatically fall into the red card category.
Matchday 7 United States : Costa Rica - PITTI (PAN) Trinidad & Tobago : Honduras - GUERRERO (MEX) Mexico : Panama - LOPEZ (GUA) Matchday 8 Honduras : United States - AGUILAR (SLV) Panama : Trinidad & Tobago - BEJARANO (CRC) Costa Rica : Mexico - GEIGER (USA)
Seriously, none of the players respect him. Charging him every call, not responding as he shoos them away. Several KMI's missed, beginning in the 4th minute.
I think people have just gotten numb to bad Concacaf refereeing. Instead of rushing here to complain about the calls, people just shrug and say, "yeah, what do you expect?"
Was there a VAR on that game? Wondering because Dempsy was on the receiving end of a subtle kick in the back while sitting on the ground before he reacted and earned the caution.
My guess is it's actually a combination of the holiday weekend and the U.S.'s performance. People were busy and there just wasn't a lot of traffic on the board generally. And I also think that, when the US team performs poorly or has a poor result, there's much less focus on the referee from non-referee USMNT fans, who often do come here to ask questions and make points when that isn't the case. Personally, I thought the 4th minute potential SFP was a pretty bad miss--particularly not to even sanction it with a caution. The penalty shout on the Altidore collision is probably the sort of thing that VAR gives as a penalty, but is 50/50 insofar as being given in real-time. Aside from those two incidents, I thought Pitti lacked command presence and the ability to address PI, but he wasn't awful. CONCACAF is still CONCACAF and Pitti wasn't good. But relatively speaking he (and it) is better than some of the referees we faced in these sort of situations in the past.
VAR does not exist in international matches except for select FIFA tournaments and selected friendlies.
VAR might have also looked at the potential handling in the lead up to the first goal. The American defender called for it, and it looked like it might have been. I would have liked to see a better view of that play. (Unless I got distracted, ESPN never showed a good view.)
Of the replays I saw, only one showed the play from the point of the potential handling, and it was really unclear as to whether it was or not. The other replays all started from much closer to the penalty area on the last 2-3 touches by the Costa Rican player.
My theory about USMNT performances must hold... In all seriousness, even when Aguilar is okay-to-good (and I thought he was pretty good yesterday for most of the match), he still shows the old Aguilar. There is obviously the 2CT in the 90', where he had no idea that he had booked the same player twice (and almost certainly wouldn't have done so if he did know). And you had the strange incident where AR2 had his flag in the air on a Honduran counter-attack, which was done because I believe the ball had gone out on the other half for a goal kick and Aguilar missed AR1's signal. Aguilar waved the flag down, the ball went out for what would have been a US goal kick, but we actually restarted with a Honduran goal kick. At least that's what I think I saw. It makes some sense if the radios and flags, malfunctioned, but it still doesn't make too much sense. Anyone else catch this?
Oh, and from an assigning perspective, it looks like the USMNT has screwed Geiger and Marrufo. Unless Geiger gets Mexico back-to-back, this time at home against Trinidad & Tobago, there isn't a match that an American can do in the final two days of the Hex. So for 2017, there will be three American assignments in the Hex. 2013 had seven. 2009 had seven. 2005 had six. There's a great irony in that the 2017 tandem is clearly the group of Americans mostly highly-rated by FIFA since American referees started working the Hex. But Geiger's issues with Panama coupled with his and Marrufo's Confed Cup appointment followed by the USMNT's struggles have made things very difficult logistically. Something similar happened with Mexico last go-around, where they only had four assignments in 2013 (and none after MD 7). This time, they already have four (and I would bet at least two more on the final two MDs). Mexico had six in 2009 and eight in 2005.
For that 2CT, it took well over a minute to resolve, sapping up one out of three minutes of stoppage time and then some. Of course nothing was added on to compensate. Like you, I'm guessing he'd never would have booked him again if he remembered he had already done so. He likely just blew for full time to negate a one minute man advantage that he inadvertently created. I did recall that incident where the goal kick restart ended up being at the other end of the pitch, with the commentator mentioning the waive down. I didn't quite catch what was going on the time, though my concerns over the USMNT performance and future prospects were weighing heavily on my mind to be thinking clearly.
If the US hadn't scored in the 85th minute, I really wonder how much Aguilar would have put up because it should have been a lot more than 3. As it stood, once the match was tied, given the US seemed happy with the point, I think he went with the "don't reward Honduras with more time to score" because they had been the ones wasting it. Of course, then the red card happens and there could have been a man advantage and he added nothing. No matter what, stoppage time just wasn't handled well and left a sour note on an otherwise decent performance. And the goal kick at the other end of the field thing was absolutely bizarre. I hope others noticed. If it's what I think it was (ball went out in US attacking end, signal missed and AR's mirror waved down, counter-attack all the to opposite end and then goal kick awarded to Honduras) it really was a bad mistake AND had the potential to be an absolute disaster if Honduras had scored.
I saw the wave down and I think Aguilar thought he was waving down a flag that he misinterpreted as some kind of foul and he wanted to keep the counter moving as advantage. He didn't signal advantage that I saw but that I admit that I don't always catch the new one handed signal.
Yeah, I agree this is exactly what it looked like. The question becomes, if true, how did it happen? From a technological standpoint, it means failure of both radios and beepers (given how Aguilar was communicating over the 2CT, which was very visual, this seems possible). From a mechanics standpoint, does AR2 have a obligation to not put his flag down since it's an out of play situation? And how did Aguilar miss a flag for a goal kick from AR1 in the first place. All very strange. And almost catastrophic.
After the second caution, one of the commentators mentioned that we would see more stoppage time due to the loss of time on the card. I instantly thought, "I really doubt it."
I think that's the right answer where it is clear that the R is not understanding what the flag is. The magic book currently says "If the AR signals that the ball is out of play, the signal must be maintained until the referee acknowledges it." In one sense waving it down is acknowledging it, but if it is clear to the AR that the R is unclear on what the flag is for and it is not a call for which the R could reasonably be expected to overrule and to which advantage is inapplicable.
The tricky part here, though (again, if what I and others think we saw is accurate), is that AR2 couldn't be sure of what AR1's flag was for--he was simply mirroring. At this level, given the position of AR1, what just happened, and the fact that AR1 didn't drop his flag, AR2 would have a pretty good guess, of course. But at this level you'd also be thinking that beepers and radios both don't fail (which I still find hard to believe). I know I'm repeating myself, but it was all very strange. One of the more peculiar things I've seen at the international level, but since there was no real consequences other than a wasted 30 seconds, it's getting overlooked.