Can VAR rule on something that happens off the pitch? I would assume so, but possibly it is a technicality. Most people seem to think Layun would have received a red from VAR, but didn't because of Neymar's histrionics. Whether true or not, it isn't a good look for the referee crew.
That is a moment. The game is held while he is treated. But he is off the pitch and there was no card shown to Layun. Play should have continued while Neymar is being treated.
Depends on what you mean by "something." VAR can review for send off offenses, which would include violent conduct and include this play. I don't hink there is any doubt whatsoever that this was reviewed by VAR. But the standard is a clear an obvious error--the VAR only sends for an on field review if the VAR concludes there was a clear and obvious error. I don't think failing to send off hear was a clear an obvious error, and I think the VAR was proper in not sending down to the field. (I also don't think it would have been a clear and obvious error if R had sent him off.)
So, basically, VAR tells the ref that there is a stomp. The ref says, "I saw it and don't want to call it". VAR has done its job; the ref did his job as he wanted to do it.
Maybe. But it wasn't a stomp. It was a step as he grabbed for the ball. The VAR is going to tell the R that VAR is reviewing. The VAR will either tell the R that the check is complete, and that's it, or the VAR is going to tell the R that the VAR believes there was a clear and obvious error. In this case, I don't believe it was the R saying I saw it and don't want to call it. I find it hard to believe that he would not have at least cautioned if he saw it (and I think it would be easy to miss). And I don't think he would have refused to look at it again of the VAR said it was a clear and obvious error to not send him off--that would likely be the kiss of death in how his performance was evaluated (and appears to be a reason three refs are no longer reffing). So I think the simple solution is correct: VAR reviewed, saw that it was step without much force while grabbing for the ball that Neymar was trying to hold and delay with, realized Neymar was grandstanding, determined that it was not a clear and obvious error to not send off, and told the R the check was done.
The discussion about VAR on that play has the side-effect of obscuring the real referee issues it presented. First, if we think the R saw the step, why did he not deal with it? Was that the right choice? Sort of a "It should be a caution, but Neymar's flopping makes me not want to give it" (which, tbqh, I'm fine with). Or, if the both the R/4th/SAR all missed it, how could they have? There was a lot going on, but that's the kind of situation where you can't lose sight of the ball, and you can't lose sight of the Neymar, and here it seems that if they did miss it, they lost sight of both.
Stomp, step. Not sure it matters. I think there is more going on, but I'm probably wrong. It seems that VAR is constantly being tweaked during the tournament. My understanding is that there is more discussion. The VAR will say they have views of a step. But if the ref says he saw it and declined to call it, there is no clear and obvious error as it is a subjective call. Unless VAR has information the Ref does not have, there is no OFR or anything. In other words, if what VAR finds, the Ref already knows, nothing is done. It is only if the Ref didn't see the stomp, that VAR would then recommend/tell the Ref to go with their call or OFR.
That is what I'm saying; if they missed it, then VAR would act on it. The fact VAR didn't act means: 1. The Ref saw it, and made a subjective call that is not reviewable. 2. The Ref didn't see it, but VAR made a call not to do anything. Hard to believe the VAR would just let it go. COA at least would have them tell the Ref they see a step/stomp. But if the Ref says he saw that but decided not to do anything but take an impromptu, unofficial, water break, they can't do anything more.
How much force is need to become excessive? He was on the ground off the field of play and an opponent intentionally stepped on his ankle with an intent to at least cause pain if not injure. Why are so many here going out of their way to defend the CR/VAR. Dead ball, out of bounds. There aren’t really grounds for a caution, it has to be Red or nothing. Neither the CR or VAR had the courage for the red so they want with nothing. Their lack of courage should not be excused. They are failing the game on its biggest showcase. They are feeding the stupid “fixed” crowd.
Sort of. The referee doesn't make a subjective call that its not reviewable. The VAR woud do that, and he'd do it independent of what the referee saw (so don't link the VAR response to the Ref seeing it or not). But again, the VAR piece obscures the real referee issue, which is why did the referee see it and not act, or, how could all three have missed it? I personally would have liked to see all three (R/4/SAR) huddle briefly and figure out what happened. The fact they didn't do it lends credence to the idea they saw it, and decided it was not a big enough deal to punish, or that Neymar's antics made punishing it (even with a caution) unwise. After all, had they cautioned for it, it could have given the impression they were suckered by Neymar... even if they did indeed see the step.
Of course there is a basis for a caution: USB. If the R (or another on-field official) saw the play and did not believe it rose to the level of VC, he could easily have cautioned for it. I don't see how you get to "intentionally stepped on his ankle." He was trying to get the ball from Neymar to take a throw-in. And I think the VAR also did not see it that way--if the VAR concluded it was clear and obvious that it was an intentional step onto N's ankle, it would be VC. I think the VAR was 100% correct in not sending to the field--I do not think it was a clear and obvious send off as I saw nothing in the replay to show that there was a lot of force or that the player was trying to do so. And I think the on-field team missed what should have been (at least) a caution.
I am surprised there wasn't misconduct for Layun of some color. But I think the referee crewed managed their way out of it just fine. Remember, Neymar was on a yellow card already and would have been suspended. And on that play, he intentionally blocked the player from getting the ball and taking a quick restart, as well as potentially kicking out after getting stepped on. I don't see a world in which only Layun is carded, and given that FIFA wouldn't want Neymar to miss a match, I think they're fine with this outcome - as am I.
What is this, the second day in a row that you accused a ref of being a coward for not calling something the way you saw it? It takes more balls to step on the field as a ref in any of these games than you or I will ever hope to have. The fact you immediately turn to a lack of courage to explain their decisions, instead of the myriad factors that are in play, is beyond reproachful to me.
Neymar had missed a practice earlier in the cup due to reported pain in his right ankle - the same one that was stepped on. Watching the replay again I believe Layun attempted to step on the ankle twice, simply coming up short the first time, then once he had his right foot on the ankle he twice took all the weight off his left foot. Maybe this would have taken too long for VAR to see, but with the benefit of multiple looks at slow mo replay, I am convinced this was nothing other than deliberate. Fair or foul? 😳 pic.twitter.com/XMJUEzEctz— FOX Soccer (@FOXSoccer) July 2, 2018
Maybe FIFA needs to do away with this ridiculous yellow card suspension rule for tournaments. I cannot possibly be convinced that a player who earns a caution in their team's opening match should be SUSPENDED a game for another caution in a game 3 matches later. I could buy a rule where a yellow in consecutive games results in missing the 3rd rule, but here we have a robust discussion (and we always do in major tournaments) about referees who don't want to caution for dissent, FRD, DRST and simulation lest a big star miss out on a game for a "cheap" yellow.
With the predictable result that opponents they can rough Neymar up pretty good with impunity. Second straight cup where he is the most fouled player, plus the most fouled in all European leagues, two years running? Something like that. That’s some odd meta match management issue there
There is a lot short of a broken ankle that can hurt like the bejesus. I’ve twisted my ankle with incredible pain, and now if my ankle even begins to twist I go down in a heap of curse words (while trail running, not on the pitch). That’s not what Neymar is doing here, but frankly a lot of players can be in serious pain, then get ice or injections or whatever and then be running. Professional athletes have al sorts of hilorrible stuff done to them. Just an aside. Neymar was selling
And to follow up, a clear and obvious yellow doesn’t get send for on field review, right? 1) ref doesn’t see the step on the ankle 2) VAR does, but it isn’t clear an obvious VC, so doesn’t send down Something like that.
Correct. VAR cannot correct clear and obvious failures to caution. If VAR thought it was a clear and obvious send off, VAR could send it down. Once sent down, however, R could have decided it was not a clear and obvious send off, but did warrant a caution. (We saw that once early in the group stage.)
With respect to the statements that Neymar cannot be cautioned here (setting aside the observations to the effect that no ref in his right mind would do it) ... why can't this fall under "attempts to deceive the referee e.g. by feigning injury?" Of course, it was a lot easier for those of us who came up under the old ATR, which called for cautioning "Fakes an injury or exaggerates the seriousness of an injury."
And down the rabbit hole we go... I don’t think the language of Law 12 is limiting here, per se. Note that it says “e.g.,” which means “for example,” and the language itself is among examples of what can be USB. USB is a big bucket. But regardless of could, it seems pretty clear that the expectations are not for a caution here. And the knockout rounds of the WC are certainly not where a ref is going to give an unusual caution like that—even if it were not to one of the major stars.