According to this article, 3.6mm https://www.express.co.uk/sport/foo...hnology-WRONG-Man-City-Premier-League-Ederson
Why? If the FA believe VAR improves the game, why not have it at as many games as possible. Having VAR in game 1 has no bearing whatsoever on game 2 that doesn't have VAR.
Also from the match yesterday, do we think this should've been a RC? Do you think VAR could or would change this call next season? https://streamable.com/m6dd9
Maybe. Absolutely not. I was more intrigued by this challenge from earlier in the week. Only a foul given and no retrospective punishment. This is the type of challenge that VAR might intervene on. Maybe not in the EPL, but in a lot of other leagues like MLS, the VAR would at least get involved. https://streamable.com/ycsj4
I agree. Furthermore, you can't plan to start VAR in Round 4 because you don't know when the last round a club below the EPL will host in. Japan was denied a goal against Saudi Arabia that crossed the line in World Cup Qualifying when VAR was at the stadium and not used because not every team in the group had VAR. FA Cup games are independent, so you can have it in as many games as possible without reducing the integrity, but there could still be complaints from fans. Man United and Man City are both at home, but imagine this hypothetical. Both of them are away, with Man United at a lower level club and Man City at an EPL club. Man United loses by 1 when they would have gotten a draw and replay at home if the lower level club had VAR. Man City gets a draw and replay at home that would have been a loss without VAR. Man City fans laugh at Man United fans for being eliminated by a lower level club.
Agreed. The first one was questionable and there's no way they are going to find "clear error" there. The Newcastle one was really bad. I can't believe there isn't action by the league. I can't see VAR not getting involved there.
I disagree, on the first one, the defender leaps toward the attacker and is high above the ball. Straight and locked leg that makes contact with the studs. The only reason the contact is less severe is because the attacker is trying to avoid it. On the second one I am shocked that it wasn't a Red Card. Studs exposed to the back of the knee.
Which point are you disagreeing on? That it should be a red or that VAR would get involved? If you're saying it should be a red, fine. By the instructions people have gotten for years as they've moved up the ladder, it ticks plenty of boxes and you're right that the nature of the challenge is SFP and we're supposed to punish the nature of the challenge. The counter-argument is that there's been more leeway recently at the professional and international level and that there are enough mitigating factors here (actual contact is very slight and it ultimately occurs very low--possibly on the toe of the left foot and just over the boot of the right foot) to say that yellow isn't an unreasonable decision in this day and age. When you add in the match context and the stakes, some might say yellow is the expected decision and a perfectly reasonable one. And that's why VAR would never get involved.
I think that's what he said--the stadium had VAR capability, but it wasn't being used and would have changed the game if it had been used.
But that’s not the full context of what he said. He said it wasn’t being used because other group members didn’t have capacity. That’s not the reason. The reason is there was no VAR—period—in WCQ.
I missed the part about VAR getting involved. From looking at the videos,at real speed, that is what it is supposed to be judged on, I can see the VAR not getting involved in both scenarios if a yellow card has already been issued.
Not to belabor the point, but since VAR is still new... the discussion can't involve "since a yellow was already issued" as an actual consideration. It's either a clear red or it's not. If the VAR can't reach the determination that it's a clear red on Kompany, he can't intervene whether a yellow was issued, only a foul was given, or the foul was missed entirely. And back on point, in the second video, no yellow was issued. Marriner just missed the severity of the challenge. I like Marriner overall, but this is a second high profile situation in just a couple weeks where he got the foul but missed the severity of an obvious red card entirely (Fellaini's hair pull was the other). Either he's getting unlucky, or he suffers from a type of tunnel vision that guys like Oliver and Dean don't seem to have.
For Tennis it is 3.6mm but for football stadiums, they claim 5mm. However, that is a claim from the manufacturer (Originally Hawkins and now Sony) and has never been really independently verified. It also changes depending on whether the ball is in the air or on the ground (where it compresses and deforms). Hawkeye needs about 3 full frames to triangulate properly. Anyway...lets say it is 5mm. I cringe at reports "Still in by 1.12cm..." That's 11.2 mm. That sort of precise declaration is hyperbole. I call it technical sensationalism. Anyway, this has nothing to do with refereeing and I apologize for the sidebar.
I'm not certain we disagree. When I said the it was questionable, I probably should have used a different word. But, for the reasons you state, you could definitely justify a red. However, contact was minimal. The slide was across rather than into the attacker. etc. You could also justify something less than a red. So, if one ref could see it one way and correctly based upon ITOOR give a red, and another correctly based upon OTOOR give a caution, I can't see VAR getting involved because there is no clear error.
I actually agree with you about this. We live in a world where precision is pretended far too often--especially with decimals that go past the margin of error. As you allude to, the precision sounds good but is utterly meaningless. (Goes along with people who say "It's not statistically significant, but . . .") This would be a more intriguing discussion if the goal had been reported not scoring by 4 mm . . .
Lets go with unlucky because of the screen from the other Newccastle player -- right in his line of sight. Good reason for VAR to get involved.
FA Cup game between Manchester United and Reading. Mata is clipped in the area, but the ball goes to Fred who puts the ball in the net. Fred is called for offside (correctly, IMO), then Atwell (with Moss as his VAR) awards a penalty kick that Mata converts after VAR consultation. A few talking points as I saw it. Do I think it was a penalty in live action and on replay? Yes. Do I think it was a clear and obvious error? In my opinion, no. Of course, my threshold may be biased because of watching too much MLS and not seeing that much overturned. Atwell never went to the monitor on his own. He awarded the penalty after talking with Moss through his headset only. I wasn't focused on the time, but I think this took 2 1/2 minutes from the time of the whistle for offside to when Atwell pointed to the spot. This tends to support my opinion in point 1 that if it took Moss over two minutes to advise a penalty kick, it likely wasn't "clear and obvious". This is also where some sort of communication to the audience watching about why the penalty kick was given would be helpful.
It was 2m10s from whistle to kick. Having said that, I think that the incident took a bit of time because VAR was trying to make sure that the trip of Mata took place before the PIOP (Fred) actually interfered with the play by touching the ball. As in, did the offence resulting in penalty happen before (or simultaneous with) the offside offence.
Good point. I didn't think of that (haven't had my coffee yet!). That reinforces my point that having some sort of final communication about what was reviewed would be helpful. As for the foul itself, this is one where I think VAR shouldn't have overturned regardless of the call on the field. Had Atwell called the penalty kick straight away, then that call would have stood. To use American football terminology, the referee would have said "the ruling on the field stands" as opposed to "the ruling on the field is confirmed".
Having not seen this yet, I could be speaking out of turn, but... If Atwell never went to the monitor, it sounds like he DID call the penalty himself. Awarding a penalty solely on the VAR’s recommendation is a big no-no. However, telling the VAR, “I’ve called a penalty but I’m not sure if it came before an offside, so help me out” is more plausible. That’s a scenario that could be left solely to the VAR because it’s a factual question. Obviously, this wasn’t clear either way based on the descriptions you’ve both given. But if Atwell actually took advice to award a penalty he didn’t call in real-time without looking at it himself... well, he’d be in clear violation of the protocols.
A clip of it: https://streamja.com/AAg6 It would appear Atwell did not call the foul himself, so I was wrong. I’m reading elsewhere that England plans to only require an OFR if the incident involves off-the-ball VC. Otherwise the referee is to take the VAR’s word. The idea is that this will minimize delays. First, this incident would seem to show that that isn’t true. Second, it is a violation of the protocols, but I suppose the FA and EPL just don’t care. But most importantly, it’s not going to be good for the EPL to have an entirely different approach from FIFA and other major competitons; that’s only going to lead to more confusion. This is a bad idea.