I'm not sure I've witnessed a referee in MLS or at the World Cup (the two competitions I've followed where VAR is in-use) where a referee has asked to see a replay completely on his own. I'm guessing that's not allowed, but that is completely an assumption I'm making. I definitely have seen that in other sports, though.
I think I have seen it done. But since it was in another poorly officiated match in this World Cup, and I don't feel like opening another can of worms, I will just say that unless shown otherwise, my assumption is that the referee can indeed ask to review VAR on his own.
He really isn't pulling away when he butts him on the chin. It's a second (deliberate, imo) move at striking an opposing player.
FYI, the Colombian press is now spreading fabricated news story about Geiger and USSF being sanctioned by FIFA. I hope they give him the final and make the announcement a Colombian television exclusive.
From the VAR protocol v8 (there may be more recent versions, but this is the most recent that is available to the public -- google "var protocol" to find the document)... Since the incident was (obviously) brought to his attention by someone on the field crew (AR1, AR2, 4O), the referee, in this case, obviously felt that they'd clearly seen the incident and therefore no review was needed. The protocol (and various other VAR documents) state that the issue isn't whether it is a "clear and obvious error" to not dismiss... but whether the decision taken by the referee isn't a clear error. The caution isn't a clear error, so therefore... VAR isn't going to suggest a review.
The laws are the laws as written, and not what we think they might be or what we want them to be. "A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball." Was it excessive force? I think that's debatable. There wasn't really much force there. Was it brutality? In my mind, yes. But I think it's debatable. It's the equivalent of a soft slap on the face.
Balu, Iranian Monitor, M, Karloski: Please give up this argument. Not because you are wrong. Indeed you couldn't be more right. Instead, you should give up this argument because this forum is filled with a bunch of insufferable, frustrated American kiddie league zebras (can't take credit for this - someone else came up with it) who ballwash Mark Geiger because they somehow seem to think it vicariously validates them. You will never, ever, ever convince them Geiger ********ed up. He awards an extremely dodgy penalty in Mexico-Panama that could just barely maybe be justified by the letter of the law? "Hurr durr it's a penalty by the laws. Such a brave and uncompromising decision." He chickens out on sending a guy off for an exceedingly violent headbutt that couldn't have been a clearer example of a red card offense in England - Colombia? "Hurr durr it's da FIFA directive, even if it's a red by the book, don't want to ruin the game and escalate tensions by sending a guy off. Such a brave and compromising decision." Basically heads he wins, tails you lose. Believe me, I hate England and I'm shocked that wasn't a sending off, and I'm also disgusted by how much of a shitshow that game turned into. If it's on players to act like Boy Scouts even when it's not in their best interest for winning games and advancing in tournaments, then it better damn well be on the refs to enforce the laws - particularly ones that keep guys from trying to cave other guys' faces in by using their head as a battering ram - even when it might piss off FIFA and cost you another assignment. Oh, nearly forgot my other favorite line of moron logic in this thread: "FIFA ARE A BUNCH OF CLOWNS WHO ARE HANDCUFFING THE REFS AND NOT LETTING THEM CALL GAMES PROPERLY. ALSO, THE FACT THAT FIFA GAVE GEIGER A POSITIVE ASSESSMENT PROVES HE DID A GREAT JOB." Anyway, just take comfort in the fact that the 15 or so dorks who frequent this sub are almost literally the only people who think Geiger handled this game well. The rest of us fans - who, incidentally, are the people for whom this game is played, who pay FIFA's bills, and who should be catered to - thought it was a farce. And it didn't need to be.
Well, I was one of the guys that thought he was subject to some criticism, but after that nonsensical attack, this thread has run its course... Mods please lock.
Gee, who knew that FIFA was bastion of integrity. It’s not like they’ve ever been rife of corruption. No, this isn’t a conspiracy theory. I find it hilarious that people are falling in lockstep with what FIFA is mandating and taking their word for gospel. Did the 2002 World Cup magically get erased from your memories. FIFA tried to sell that disaster as legitimate ... ahh right maybe FIFA shouldn’t be mandating anything.
A lot has been said on relation to the head-butt, and the possible approach that the CR took by only showing a yellow card (to me, not being a referee, but simply a fan, should´ve been a direct red). Honest question to referee's here in this forum (by an "ignorant" part, as myself) : In order to use the VAR as how it was purposed, couldn't the CR inmediately show a direct red, to have the play afterwards re-viewed at the screen (by himself), to finally have the red card being taken back, and show the yellow card instead ? -------- . At the end the effect would be the same, with a colombian player getting sanctioned with a yellow card, but at the same time, besides clearly sending the players, the message that VC was not going to be tolerated, Barrios (and to certain extent, all colombian players as well), would have felt, that they really got away with a lower sanction, when it could've been worse (which together with the time spent in this whole process, also helps to lower their hot mood at the time). By only showing a yellow card, specially to those most prone to VC, has the same effect as blowing to the wind. A red card however, all players fear it, with no exception.
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the only reason the criticism of Geiger has been so over the top is because Mark Geiger is an American. We've seen so many other instances where games have not been called in a manner that the average referee working your typical Saturday afternoon U15 game would call it, yet the criticism has never been as crazy as with this game. Hell, Felix Brych - a UEFA Champions League final referee and someone generally considered as one of the 2-3 best officials on the planet - was sent home after a single game without the public backlash that Geiger has received. Was Geiger perfect? Absolutely not. Much of that was because of how the Colombians decided to play the game after they knew James Rodriguez couldn't play, but Geiger wasn't perfect. If the referee of this game was Bjorn Kuipers, Sandro Ricci, or Felix Brych, the criticism would be nowhere near what we have seen. Because Geiger is American, it just amps up the focus, the pressure, and the criticism. I've always said that when it comes to US Soccer, the level that anything associated with it needs to be at a much higher level than it would need to be with other countries to avoid or warrant the same amount of criticism. This game has proven my point.
@MassachusettsRef Help, please: On a goal, VAR can look back for potential offside prior to the goal and/or fouls committed by the attacking team in the (immediate?) buildup. Yes? On a penalty, can VAR look at more than a specific incident? My first thought was that Kane's penalty would be overturned since Kane appears to foul the Colombian player to gain an advantage which resulted in the Colombian foul. If Kane doesn't grab and move the Colombian, then he isn't in a position to score. But I'm not sure that what Kane did prior to being fouled is itself reviewable. So is what is reviewable in a play that results in a goal different from what is reviewable in a play that results in a penalty? Thanks. Sorry to interrupt the whatever is going on in this thread now.
Not sure why Kane fouling is such a big deal. Watch the play again — the Colombian defender is all over Kane from the outset, restricting his movement (foul). Kane does what ppl do in the box to get free, and then the Colombian fouls him a second time. It not like the Colombian was minding his own business and Kane decided to throw him down to get free. Push posh.
Other than Colombian's complaining, nothing Kane did was a foul to the Colombian player. Kane is trying to get free of a defender intent on holding him from the outset. Kane has eyes for the ball from the start. The defender doesn't have a clue where the ball is from the start and is only playing the man. Regarding VAR you are correct. If the VAR thought the CR made a clear and obvious error by NOT calling a foul against Kane during the APP, then a DFK could have been awarded to Colombia coming out. Also, no one has any idea what is going on in this thread anyway
Maybe, the game was a shit show and was horribly painful to watch. While many have come to his defense, I think his failure to control dissent from the beginning led to that shit show. England was guilty too even though the Colombian's were obviously sub human during most of this game. Henderson in particular was guilty of dissent multiple times but he acts the same for Liverpool all the time. He had opportunities to stamp out dissent early from both teams and he chose not to use cautions or enough personality or a combination of the two. He was able to right the ship eventually, but from a spectators perspective it was an awful event to witness. By the time he decided to draw a line in the sand the game was gone.
I don't recall if this was mentioned somewhere in the previous 740+ posts, but any referee who has worked tournaments knows that there often are rules of competition (ROC) for that tournament that supplement and sometimes contradict the Laws of the Game. For example, youth tournaments may have ROC that say there will be absolutely no added time because the games need to stay on schedule. Referees know these ROC ahead of time and agree to abide by them. If referees have a problem with the ROC for that competition, they don't accept referee assignments for those games. What they don't do is accept those assignments and then deliberately ignore the ROC. FIFA has chosen not to enlighten the general public on the specific instructions they have given the referees (effectively ROC for officiating at the World Cup), but it is pretty clear from the 56 games already played that the referees are expected to minimize the use of cards, and particularly avoid red carding players if there is any reasonably defensible alternative. FIFA no doubt has reasons for this apparent restriction, but it has limited the use of one important tool referees usually have for controlling a game. I seriously doubt that the referees are happy about this and other specific referee instructions, but they have to abide by them if they want to work these games. To do otherwise would be unethical and would result in their being sent home (and already has, for some). To say Mark Geiger had a challenging game in Colombia-England is an understatement. His attempt to manage the Colombian dissent without the use of cautions was ineffective for much of the game. In hindsight he may wish that he had dealt with the dissent differently, but we have no idea how that might have affected second caution situations later in the game. For the headbutt Geiger, in conjunction with the VAR, determined that a red card was not required in this World Cup based on the requirements he was expected to uphold. You may disagree with it. I may disagree with it, But apparently FIFA is satisfied with it, and they call the shots. In the eyes of FIFA (and many people with some understanding of the pressure of refereeing), Mark Geiger did a good job on a difficult game -- particularly under the restrictions placed upon him. Not perfect. That's why he is still in Russia. Hopefully most will accept that in time, or at least move on.