Absolutely. I’ve seen him do this more than once in the Spanish league, also in response to appeals for defensive infractions in the penalty area.
Do what he did in real time, wave it off and run up the field. He was looking straight at it. I guess the defender is guilty of "making himself bigger". Buts that not really what he was doing. He is jumping to head the ball, using both arms for balance and height. He believes he is going to get the ball and closes his eyes. If the ball had hit his forward arm, I would think most would call that, but his trailing arm is just along for the ride (along for the jump). The attacker gets his head on the ball and it immediately deflects off the trailing arm, in 0.1 second by my VCR. There is no room for deliberate here, without resorting to 'making himself bigger'. The header was not on goal, it may have gone out for a throw-in, in fact the arm glance deflected it more toward the goal. Not deliberate, not impactful. Personally, I am letting this go in my games. Note: I couldn't find "making yourself bigger in the LOTG, but I did find these items to consider: The following must be considered: • the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand) • the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball) • the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
But that’s not how VAR works (or is supposed to work). An incident occurs. Either CR can indicate he wants to look at it or the VAR official can indicate that the CR might want to look at it. CR reviews. CR makes decision. So we don’t really have 2 FIFA officials saying it’s handling. Only one should be making that determination. If not, VAR is a total fraud. So we have only one FIFA making this determination and I happen to disagree with him. Regardless, your premise is faulty. Poll agrees with an improper call post game and people still argue it despite 2 referees giving their opinions. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I think that we have to take this situation as instruction. I really believe that defending in this way is a tactic. Jumping to head a ball while keeping both hands above your shoulders is not only not a natural movement, it’s not easy to- try it sometime. Players do it because they seldom get sanctioned for it- it’s bang bang, hard to tell if it happens in the first place. But if VAR means this gets called more, that’s not a negative, because eventually players will stop doing it.
You're always just so caught up in semantics and technicalities on every issue. It's like when a league rescinds a red card, you keep arguing that "technically" the red card still stands. No matter how you cut it or you want to say it, you have two of the best referees in their own regions coming to a consensus that a penalty kick should have been called.
No. Despite believing you know how VR works or is supposed to work, you don't have this correct. The CR can ask for a review, but this is going to be very rare and likely non-existent (because the VAR is already checking everything in real-time anyway). The VAR will recommend a review if and only if the VAR has determined that the CR has made a decision that is clearly wrong (or missed a major incident that falls in the four categories). In other words, the VAR is only pinging the CR if he (the VAR) has already determined the decision is wrong. So @akindc is absolutely correct when he says two referees--Geiger and Mateu Lahoz--have deemed this a clear and obvious mistake. I
Mass If that’s the case, I’m mistaken. But that’s bullshit. That’s not a review, that’s being told what to call. That violates the laws themselves as the determinations are no longer being made by the CR.
Except IFAB approved it, so it's within the law. Also, there have been VAR referrals that the referee has not agreed with, so the final decisions are still the referee's to make.
How is it being told what to call? He's being told that the VAR believes there was a clear error. Also your last sentence is completely wrong. The referee is still making the determination. We have already had one review this tournament where the VAR said not giving a red was a clear mistake and the CR went with a yellow. You are objectively wrong in what you are saying.
I'm sorry, but there's been 2+ years and thousands and thousands of posts about VR and VARs in our main forum now. All the relevant documents are posted in this very forum and were done so well in advance of the tournament. If someone is going to be wrong about things and assert they are right, then I am going to say they are wrong. I didn't insult you. I just said you were wrong.
I find the "VAR is going to make players change" argument a bit strange. Every rules change or new enforcement tool has made players change in some way. For offside, for handling, for fouling. Some are big changes (for example: back passes) that people playing today barely even realize were different. Some are more technical differences ("deliberate" as the determining factor in handling). Either way, the game evolves. Without VAR the game spent over 100 years evolving into a more and more violent and cynical game where players learned how to foul and avoid cards or foul and avoid being noticed. At the same time embellishment and diving evolved. If a ref isn't calling fouls, players have to make them more obvious. If that's rewarded, then outright dives become more common. These things don't change overnight. But they don't happen in a vacuum. VAR I think has the potential to be a very positive change in pushing back against some of the stuff players get away with, whether intentionally or not, that go against the spirit of the game.
Question - is the VAR replay in slo-mo? The video that is ostensibly what the CR was looking at looks like it may be slowed down. That would really skew things I think. In real time it's a blink of the eye. The arm comes up briefly as the players collide. Too fast for thought I think - although you could sanction it as something the defender must avoid. (Defenders head the ball all the time. Why would they do something that makes it harder and risks a PK?)
I think the argument in the other direction can be made just as easily. Ref thinks "wow my colleague thinks it was clear and obvious, let me go make sure and change my call" If the ref watches and thinks "wait, I'm not 100% sure yet" he should already be moving towards thinking that's not clear and obvious and he might not change his decision.
Just a question, to those arguing the “natural” position of the arms. Why aren’t the arms of the attacker, who jumped higher and managed to head the ball, up nearly as high? Edit: matter of fact the offender is litterllay the only player in the camera frame with their arms that high.
This is the problem with the rather vague description of deliberate handling in the LOTG. It's really no different that deciding careless vs reckless vs excessive force. A strict reading of the LOTG doesn't tell you what is a deliberate handball vs not deliberate. Its only when you go beyond the text and watch clips from FIFA that you get an idea of what the text means. FIFA/IFAB says this is deliberate handling. I also understand how you can read law 12 and not understand why. That's a big problem with the LOTG.
Having reviewed more documents, the majority of what I said was correct. The CR can request or VAR can request. My only mistake was not knowing VAR can only request when they think CR was clearly wrong. My apologies to akindc. That is still a flaw in the system. The CR is making the call in real time. Most CR’s are going to feel they can’t go against another ref watching on review no matter how correct they think the original call was. It will be interesting to see if they are actually free to rule contrary to VAR without it affecting future assignments.
I still fail to see how this was an issue. There was a clear and obvious foul (handling) that was missed. The Danish defender jumped and had his arms around head level. The ball came off of his fist, which was near ear level. It happened fairly quickly and at a tough angle for the center to see. VAR spotted the "clear and obvious" error and informed the center. The center took one look, realized the error, and awarded a penalty kick. I realize I may be thinking of this too simply, but it sure seems like this is exactly what VAR is supposed to be doing. A clear and obvious error was made right through the help of technology that did not impact the flow of the game at all. I've certainly been a skeptic of VAR as it's been implemented, but this particular incident seems to have been handed close to perfectly. We want to "get it right". Sure seems like that happened.
I so agree! I've pointed this out at length before in another forum but no one seemed to catch on. This is a big issue! It's almost like the CR has to change his mind out of "courtesy" to the VAR who suggested he was wrong. Imagine the dynamic between CR and VAR if the VAR suggests a review and the CR disagrees. Can't be beneficial in building a trusting relationship... It's the technological equivalent of the CR waving down an AR's flag for a foul. Changes the referee team dynamic for the rest of the game! The answer to this dilemma (for me at least) is to have set pairings between CR and VAR. Will help to build a relationship and trust between the officials (It will be easier to be honest with a colleague you trust and are familiar with). The phenomenon is most pronounced at international tournaments where the cross-continental teams have no prior experience.