30 seconds into the second half of this international friendly, French defender Varane clips the heel of England's Alli. Referee, Davide Massa of Italy, called and penalty and initially pulled out a yellow, but waited for VAR for about a minute before showing red. This seems like a situation where a yellow would/could be shown, especially in a friendly, and it wouldn't be a major talking point. What do you think? Minute 55 of this video:
This is one of the weak points of the new DOGSO law. Varane doesn't mean to foul Kane, but he does foul him and isn't challenging for the ball. It has to be red. For my hopes of the VAR experiment failing, it's great that the entire British media thinks VAR got this wrong.
I'm not sure about him not meaning to foul here. What other reason does he have to cut away from the goal if he's not hoping to get tangled with the attacker here. It looks to me like a cynical attempt to break up the attack and sell it as an accident.
What's that part have to do with anything? Intent to foul was removed years ago. Why do we still get stuck on that bit?
You could argue they made it part of the criteria for Dogso red by adding the verbiage "attempts to play the ball". I still think the dogso change was foolish and not needed. With all the "independent" review panels out there now why no just allow them to remove the suspensions for non cynical dogso? At least then they are earning their money.
I would retort and say that it is not even close. If we, as referees see a foul, it's a foul, regardless of intent. If we, as referees see what appears to be a player attempting to play the ball, it is, regardless of intent. For all we know, the defender was trying only to trip the attacker, but with the angle one leg goes, it looks like an attempt to play the ball. To us as a referee (who can't read minds), if it looks something like an attempt to play the ball, it is an attempt to play the ball.
I think I can't wait for post All-Star game MLS when the referee doesn't give any card for this, the VAR corrects it to a red card, and the IRP then upholds the protest. I knew VAR would solve all our problems.
I'm playing devils advocate on the intent thing. I don't necessarily agree that it matters but with the new language I can easily see how someone would think it does.
Sure, if you ignore what the new language says then you could get there but otherwise I don't see it. It's a bit like those wanting to go DOGSO red for a keeper handling a backpass. If you want it bad enough you can get twist the meaning to mean pretty much anything, doesn't mean it's right.
If this forum has taught me anything it's that referee's have the ability to drive a semi truck through a loophole the size of a pin.
This isn't that complicated. Intent matters in a very narrow way. In the penalty area, Law 12 says it is only a caution if the foul was an attempt to play the ball. That means an intentional foul is a send off. But the converse is not true: a careless (I.e. unintentional) foul that was not an attempt to play the ball remains a send off. I'll accept this play was not an attempt to foul -- but it doesn't mayptter on this play as it was careless (therefore a foul) and was not an attempt to play the ball (therefore not reduced to a caution).
The ESPN FC crew actually had a good little segment on this call (with some annoying parts, too). They never really explicitly said it this way, but their point was that this incident exposes a problem: a half-hearted attempt to play the ball is a ticket out of a red card, even if the chance to play the ball wasn't great. But a completely accidental foul, like this one, is a red card. Sure, as referees we're doing our job by giving red here. But it's not what anyone expects given why the Law was changed. Another data point that illustrates how confusing this change will be.
That might be how some parts of the media tries to portray it now but it isn't really true. The incidents that got people going was the ones where defenders and, especially, keepers tried to get the ball but failed. Those "but he has to give it a try" situations. And those are affected by the change, poor body control "accidents" are not.
Ok, sure. That's the actual, acute reason. But fans and players and pretty much everyone associated with the game except referees never like it when--in their eyes--players are sent off for "accidental DOGSO." Referees can point out that careless fouls are still fouls and intent doesn't matter until they we are blue in the face, but the perception for the vast majority of the soccer world is that someone shouldn't be sent off for accidentally denying an OGSO. So when a Law change that introduces more subjectivity into the DOGSO decision making process--including a component about "attempting to play the ball"--you can understand the confusion when referees are (100% correctly, of course) still giving red cards for incidents like this. And what will make it even more confusing is when some referees don't give the red cards (let's call a spade a spade--the referee here was initially going to go yellow and he wouldn't have if not for VAR). No matter who has the moral or correct high ground here, the fact remains that it's a bad Law change because it makes referee's jobs more difficult and it doesn't placate anyone except the occasional goalkeeper.
I didn't see this but in several of the clips the referee clearly draws a rectangle indicating review. I hope this doesn't become a crutch deflecting criticism to the VAR. In other words the ref in this case shows red, draws the rectangle like 'I wanted to go yellow but the VAR said red' as he shrugs and runs to position - NOT saying this happened here (again I didn't see it) just a hypothetical of what I hope does not become a practice. ---edit-- I went back and watched and he points to the earpiece several times I guess indicating the review so it could have been a similar deflection of responsibility. I also agree the letter of the law then or now says this is a RC, what everyone including the referee expected was a YC.
@camconcay, I'm a little confused by what you're asking/saying/implying. The drawing of the rectangle review must be done if a review is being initiated. It's not a deflection of responsibility, it's a required mechanic and method of communicating with the larger world. I urge you to read the protocols, particularly page 7 and 8, which are relevant to what you're talking about: http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/216/VAR_Protocol Summary_v1.0.pdf The VAR is talking to the referee all the time with silent checks. The referee pointing to his ear piece here is an informal way of saying "hold on, we're communicating." Only once the rectangle is drawn has an actual review been initiated. That is the signal to the wider world that the VAR is actively involved. As you'll read in the protocols, the VAR either then goes over to the booth to do an on-field-review (for more subjective decisions like missed violent conduct) or gets the input of the VAR for more objective decisions (like offside). This one--whether or not a foul is DOGSO or not--is on the border, but thus far we've seen CRs take the advice of VARs so there's probably a consistent instruction to let VARs reassess the DOGSO criteria on situations like this.
It might just be different experience but I think you are wrong. I can't remember many (if any) big discussions about incidents like the one with Varane where people have argued it's wrong to send him off. But there have on the other hand been countless discussion about keepers and defenders getting a raw deal when being just a fraction late in their goal stopping attempt, the thing that is their job after all. And pretty much everyone I've heard coming out against the sending off has had something about it being a friendly in their comment. I'd bet quite a lot on this having been pretty much a non-issue if it had been a competitive match.
Either different experiences or just a different perspective. I'm not asserting there have been serious arguments in point of Law whether or not sending someone off for "accidental DOGSO" was right or wrong. But I think that, from the moment DOGSO was introduced (or morphed from an old component of SFP), plenty of non-referees have argued there should have been a carve out. The goal was "always" (in the eyes of people who were watching the game back in the 80s and early 90s) to eliminate and properly punish "cynical" fouls like the Koeman one in 1993. So it's not that there have been big discussions where people feel that referees have been wrong in situations like this, it's more a general worldview that the Law should have focused on "cynical" fouls to begin with--I have heard that consistently for two decades.
And wasn't that the history? Didn't it begin as recognizing a cynical foul to stop a goal as a species of SFP. And then when referees didn't apply it consistently morph into any foul that denies an OGSO to take the subjectivity out of the process, perhaps based on the theory that "honest" fouls denying OGSOs were relatively uncommon?
Pretty much, yes, that's my understanding and memory. I also think that, in addition to the "honest" fouls being uncommon, there was a push to make DOGSO its own thing in an effort to get more referees to enforce it.
I wasn't aware it was required, what I was trying to say is I hope that signal doesn't become a way out for the referee. Not likely at that level but sometimes a decision is not made at all (no call) as a way to handle a very hard decision. I was trying to say that drawing a rectangle could say "it's out of my hands so don't blame me". Again VAR is only at the top levels and will likely remain there so those referees probably would never do this.
Right, on top of the fact that the referee must make a decision--even if that's no decision--prior to initiating the VAR because the VAR is being used to decide if the decision was an error or not. In this case, the decision was a yellow card and that card was out in the hand ready to be presented if the VAR confirmed that initial decision.
Considering Webb is overseeing the implementation of VAR in the US, this is interesting: To start, he says what I tried to say during the U20s, which is that the referee has to show the yellow card and make the decision publicly before consulting the VAR. I believe @Fanison pointed out that FIFA doesn't want the card shown if there's a chance it's going to be reversed. So there seems to be some disconnect there. Second, Webb essentially says this should have been a yellow card. He seems to avoid ever saying a red card is legally wrong (because it's not) but implies he would have given a yellow and everyone would have been happy with it.