I thought we had a thread for this, but apparently we just mentioned which European referees are there in the UEFA thread. This is the first big test for WC2018--both for the referees and for VAR (I stress "big"--CWC didn't get the attention this tournament should and there were far fewer referees). List of officials immediately below. Assignments will include three VARs per match (VAR1, VAR2 and Assistant VAR)--unclear what the division of labor is, but that's how it's going to be for now. Matches start Saturday local time in South Korea, which is very late Friday night or very early Saturday morning in the US. First assignments likely in the next 24 hours. Referee trios led by... AL-JASSIM (QAT) ABDULLA HASSAN (UAE) KIM J. (KOR) ALIOUM (CMR) GRISHA (EGY) SIKAWE (ZAM) AGUILAR (SLV) LOPEZ (GUA) RAMOS (MEX) BASCUNAN (CHI) CUNHA (URU) HARO (PER) ZAMBRANO (ECU) CONGER (NZL) HAUATA (TAH) CAKIR (TUR) ERIKSSON (SWE) KARASEV (RUS) KASSAI (HUN) KUIPERS (NED) MARCINIAK (POL) MATEU LAHOZ (ESP) VARs BIN JAHARI (SIN) SATO (JPN) SHUKRALLA (BHR) ABID CHAREF (ALG) DIEDHIOU (SEN) OTOGO-CASTANE (GAB) GARCIA (MEX) MONTERO (CRC) PITTI (PAN) ARGOTE (ECU) VARGAS (BOL) VIGLIANO (ARG) WALDRON (NZL) COLLUM (SCO) KRALOVEC (CZE) MAKKELIE (NED) MOEN (NOR) ORSATO (ITA) SIDIROPOLOUS (GRE) ZWAYER (GER) There are also five support referees, none of whom share a country with any other official. They should be getting fourth assignments exclusive, but I suppose they could pull some VAR duty. Two things to watch. The first is obvious, which is just to see who performs and who doesn't. This is now make or break for these officials and some good referees are going to be left behind (remember Skomina and Kassai both missed out on WC14). You look at that UEFA group and you'd probably expect all 7 to be at Russia next summer. But then you consider Mazic, Brych, Rocchi, Skomina, Turpin, and Hategan are all missing (not to mention Clattenburg, if he's still in the mix) and that UEFA will probably cap out at 10 on-field referees, and there are some serious cuts that have to be made. The second thing is the VAR assignments. Very interested to see if only listed VARs fulfill that role or if referees (and ARs) slide into those spots. And, to that end, it gives us a first window into how VARs might be selected for WC2018. For example, does Makkelie, someone who has no shot of going as an on-field referee (this time--he looks good for 2022) go as a VAR because he specializes in it, or would someone like Collum, who is an active on-field candidate but could fall short of a referee selection, have a better shot because it would be a consolation prize and he's currently more highly regarded on the field? VARs will be particularly interesting to watch in the knockout stages, once some officials are sent home.
Your message made me think of the right keyword (unfortunately I was searching "U20," instead of "U-20", which mattered). Found the thread: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/u-20-world-cup-2017-referees.2042630/
First match assignments are out, save for the VARs. So that's a first sign that the process for assigning VARs is distinct and VARs won't necessarily be tied to referees. Of course, that could change. Anyway, referees now (I'll add VARs later): Venezuela : Germany - GRISHA (EGY) VAR: ABID CHAREF (ALG), AVAR: OTOGO-CASTANE (GAB) Argentina : England - ABDULLA HASSAN (UAE) VAR: SHUKRALLA (BHR), AVAR: BIN JAHARI (SIN) Vanuatu : Mexico - KARASEV (RUS) VAR: ZWAYER (GER), AVAR: MOEN (NOR) Korea Republic : Guinea - BASCUNAN (CHI) VAR: VARGAS (BOL), AVAR SAMPAIO (BRA) Argentina-England is a big game, no matter the level, so a bit surprised to see one of the few names I don't know at all on that one; FIFA either knows something or is taking a huge gamble--interested to find out which one it is.
Zambia : Portugal - RAMOS (MEX) VAR: GARCIA (MEX), AVAR: PITTI (PAN) Iran : Costa Rica - ERIKSSON (SWE) VAR: ORSATO (ITA), AVAR: SIDIROPOULOS (GRE) South Africa : Japan - CONGER (NZL) VAR: WALDRON (NZL), AVAR: KRALOVEC (CZE) Italy : Uruguay - LOPEZ (GUA) VAR: MONTERO (CRC), AVAR: VARGAS (BOL)
Several examples related to VAR on Day 1. First, a no-foul decision leads (almost to an own goal) and then a corner kick. https://streamable.com/ccjue Incident around 74:01. Despite a full minute to assess the resulting injury, it doesn't seem like the VAR intervenes until about 75:28, right before the corner kick is to be taken. At that point, it takes about 30 seconds until the referee signals that a VAR review is happening. He opts for, or is prompted to do, an on-field review (OFR). Red card is shown a little more than a minute later at 77:07. Normal dissent then commences and play doesn't restart until at least 77:50. Also, not sure, but hope, it was restarted with a DFK for England. All in all, we're talking about 4 minutes in stoppage, a minute of which you can assign to the treatment of the injury, so really a 3 minute delay in the match. Also, while I would support the VC decision and would certainly give it with the benefit of multiple replays, per the protocols is this really a "clear and obvious error?" If the CR, AR1 and 4th don't even call a foul on a swinging arm, then we have a red card for the incident 3 minutes later... Later in the match, a flailing hand from an English defender strikes an Argentinian attacker on a corner kick, after the ball is in play. https://streamable.com/20p46 No call. No review. If a missed flailing elbow is enough to prompt a review that leads to a red card, why is a missed hand to the face during dynamic play not enough to even prompt an OFR, nevermind lead to the awarding of a penalty? And then apparently VAR was used to annul a goal in the Korea Republic : Guinea match. Not sure on the specifics yet, but will post video if/when it's available.
They said that was a "clear and obvious error" and the attacker was offside? Wow. Looks like a great call to me. If he was off, we're talking under 5cm. Can't believe they reversed that. Also can't believe, apparently, there is no camera on the goal line to adequately review the potential goal kick/ball-in-play decision. I figured that was going to be the reversal justification when I first watched the video.
VAR assignments for today are up in the post above now. They created confederational teams, it looks like. Only two VARs assigned per match, with the "VAR2" slot left open. Interestingly, the Assistant VARs are referees; I had presumed the creation of that position meant both a CR and AR would be in the booth, but that's not what's happening.
AVAR and VAR2 are different roles under the protocol. Not sure VAR2 is necessary. AVAR is supposed to make sure the VAR doesn't miss checking something that happens while the VAR is checking something that happened already, and is supposed to be the contact with broadcast crews etc. As I understand it, a VAR2 would alternatively DO the check on second incident potentially. Neither has to do with the AR/referee split, although I agree it could be useful to have experts in each in the booth
20 seconds into these highlights: I need an explanation how not calling a PK here is a clear and obvious error. Also need an explanation how, if this is a penalty, it's not red.
But Webb, Elleray and others have been forceful in saying it shouldn't be. It's supposed to be about correcting errors or mistakes that are glaringly wrong or simply should not be missed for the good of the game. It's not supposed to be the re-refereeing of subjective incidents. I've identified a lot of problems with VAR, but many of them are ultimately manageable--if the will to manage them is there, of course. If the end result at WC2018 is to just add another layer of subjectivity to subjective calls, however, it's going to be a disaster. Forgetting all the technical aspects of the system, if FIFA can't train its officials to apply the protocols consistently and uniformly, we could have a tournament with more controversy than usual, rather than less. I really wish--and hope--FIFA would come out and say "yes, that was a good review" or "no, the VAR erred in intervening in that incident." Doing so would show transparency and would allow the soccer world to see how this experiment is supposed to evolve and what the end goal really is. But they likely won't. Partly because doing so undermines the maxim that there has been "nothing but success" and partly because, when you're dealing with live trials at a youth World Cup, you can't exactly go out and say "yes, Team X got screwed in that match by the VAR--sorry" anymore than you could throw a CR or AR under the bus for a judgment call.
Lot of assignments came out over the weekend, so catching up--including with matches played this morning: France : Honduras - CUNHA (URU) VAR: VIGLIANO (ARG), AVAR: SAMPAIO (BRA) Vietnam : New Zealand - ALIOUM (CMR) VAR: DIEDHIOU (SEN), AVAR: ABID CHAREF (ALG) Ecuador : United States - KUIPERS (NED) VAR: MAKKELIE (NED), AVAR: SATO (JPN) Saudi Arabia : Senegal - KASSAI (HUN) VAR: ORSATO (ITA), AVAR: ARGOTE (VEN) England : Guinea - AGUILAR (SLV) VAR: GARCIA (MEX), AVAR: PITTI (PAN) Korea Republic : Argentina - CAKIR (TUR) VAR: ZWAYER (GER), AVAR: COLLUM (SCO) Venezuela : Vanuatu - KIM, J. (KOR) VAR: BIN JAHARI (SIN), AVAR: SHUKRALLA (BHR) Mexico : Germany - SIKAZWE (ZAM) VAR: AL SHARIF (ALG), AVAR: OTOGO CASTANE (GAB) Zambia : Iran - MATEU LAHOZ (ESP) VAR: MOEN (NOR), AVAR: SIDIROPOULOS (GRE) Costa Rica : Portugal - AL-JASSIM (QAT) VAR: KRALOVEC (CZE), AVAR: WALDRON (NZL) South Africa : Italy - ZAMBRANO (ECU) VAR: VIGLIANO (ARG), AVAR: SAMPAIO (BRA) Uruguay : Japan - MARCINIAK (POL) VAR: MAKKELIE (NED), AVAR: COLLUM (SCO)
This review likely started while the player was down. It continued after the player was taken off, so now there is a need to hold up the game. Just because the referee is now touching his ear, don't think that the review just started. You also can't discount the 1 minute that the injury took. It was a 4 minute stoppage for the review. This should have taken less time, but they got it right. This would not seem to be a "clear and obvious error", so I see no need to force a review on it. You might give a YC for it, so it is not a serious incident that needs to be fixed. The review would have happened, but the message to the referee is likely something along the lines of "minor contact, no review necessary." This is very different contact than the previous incident. This is a complete & utter disaster that should be exhibit B (Kuipers red-to-yellow is exhibit A) that there are many, many failings with this system right now and that it's not yet ready for WC18. It may get there, but it's not anywhere near ready yet.
Very different contact, yes. But I'm not suggesting it's a RC review. I'm suggesting it's a penalty review. A missed careless trip is going to necessitate a review for a penalty, right? So why wouldn't a missed careless strike? The idea of VAR on penalties is that we are supposed to get them objectively right--is this not "objectively" a penalty?
I'd say it does. This is a great incident for VAR tech because it is something that is easily missed live if the referee is more focused on the lower body contact but also easily seen on a review. It's precisely the kind of situation that irks fans because they can easily spot it during a few replays but for the referee it's a blink-and-you-missed-it moment. It's not about second guessing your first decision but rather getting to act on information you didn't have when you made the first decision. I do think that it took way to much time to get to a decision though. I'm not at all sure that there is enough force or contact (or intent for that matter) for that one to be a foul. It could be reviewed on the same principle as above, that the referee didn't see it live, but I wouldn't expect it to be called as a foul and a PK in many games at the professional level.
I can't tell with any certainty from the video if he was on or off so I won't offer an opinion about that. But if the VAR decided that he was off then I can very much see why they reversed it. This kind of offside decisions might be devilishly difficult at live speed but that doesn't make them judgement based decisions. They are, in theory at least, fact based decisions. And if the AR thinks he's on but the VAR decides he's off, then that is, factually, a clear error and thus it would be reversible. So procedurally I have no issues with changing it. I agree on both counts. That really is a decision that the referee has to be able to decide on without a review otherwise we'll end up with matches having more stoppages than basketball games. And yes, if you call that as a foul it has to be a red card. Without the challenge it is a tap-in from 6 feet with the keeper out of position, if that isn't a DOGSO then nothing is tbh.
Fair enough on this. I would still argue the crew has to be docked points for not having anything here in real-time. The 4th or AR1 has to be on the mic saying, at minimum, this is a foul. But you're right that VAR is catching VC that shouldn't be missed. With that said, the time it took and the dissent that still came needs to be cut and eliminated, respectively. I'm still not convinced here, though. It's a strike to the face that eliminates a player from an attacking corner kick opportunity. It's clear as day on replay. Yes, it's "only" careless." And yes, it's the type of foul that is going to be missed or ignored 80%+ of the time during dynamic play. But it is a foul--unless one wants to argue that a hand directly into an opponent's face during dynamic play can be "trifling," I don't see how anyone can say it's not. So when we have a clear foul on video that occurs in the defensive penalty area, what is the justification for not having the VAR intervene? I want to be clear that I don't necessarily want VAR intervention for a foul like this; but I also don't understand why it wouldn't occur, given everything we've seen so far and everything in the protocols. I disagree here. Offside position is, theoretically, a factual decision. But even with video replay, there's no way for a VAR to have absolute factual certainty in cases that are this close. You have to freeze the video the exact moment the ball is played, you have to have high enough definition to see everything clearly, and you have to be sure you're looking at the right angle. There are variables that introduce a margin of error even when you're freezing the video and then watching it a few times in quick succession. Like you said, you can't tell with any certainty whether he's on or off. Why can a VAR? Other than a communication system linked to the referee and the ability to change angles at his pleasure, he has the same tools as you. My point here is that there are situations where OSP is simply just too close to call. In such situations, the VAR should be going with the on-field decision based on the protocols. Doing otherwise will start to retard the progress we've made on keeping the flag down on very close decisions and encouraging attacking soccer. Agreed. This is the type of decision where I wish FIFA would come out and say whether or not they are happy with it and why. Same goes for the offside decision above. It would really help everyone understand how the experiment is going.
Here's a weird one. 16 seconds into the highlight package: Goal scored by Venezuela. AR flags the goalscorer for being in an offside position, but the whistle doesn't go before the ball crosses the goal line, so the situation is reviewable. Upon review, VAR determines that the final ball was played back by the Vanuatuan defender. Goal is consequently awarded. For this call to be correct, the VAR has to be sure the ball didn't even touch the Venezuelan attacker when the Vanuatan player headed the ball backward. I don't know how you can be sure of that from these replays (and FIFA has stressed that the VAR has the same broadcast angles as everyone else) so yet again I'm not sure this satisfies "clear and obvious." The decision on the field may have been wrong. But it also might have been 100% right. I find it particularly odd that the referee didn't just intervene himself--he's looking straight at the contested header at field level, so he'd have been able to tell better than anyone if this was played back by the defender.
Final MD 2 on-field assignments below (now with VARs included). VARs from today filled in above. France : Vietnam - HAUATA (TAH) VAR: ORSATO (ITA), AVAR: DIEDHIOU (SEN) New Zealand : Honduras - HARO (PER) VAR: VARGAS (BOL), AVAR: ARGOTE (VEN) Ecuador : Saudi Arabia - ALIOUM (CMR) VAR: ABID CHARIF (ALG), AVAR: OTOGO-CASTANE (GAB) Senegal : United States - CUNHA (URU) VAR: VIGLIANO (ARG), AVAR: SAMPAIO (BRA)
Four penalties awarded today in the four matches in real-time by CRs/ARs, none of which were reversed by VAR. First assignments for MD 3, with VARs to follow: England : South Korea - RAMOS (MEX) VAR: MONTERO (CRC), AVAR: PITTI (PAN) Guinea : Argentina - KASSAI (HUN) VAR: ZWAYER (GER), AVAR: SIDIROPOULOS (GRE) Mexico : Venezuela - ERIKSSON (SWE) VAR: MAKKELIE (NED), AVAR: COLLUM (SCO) Germany : Vanuatu - LOPEZ (GUA) VAR: KRALOVEC (CZE), AVAR: WALDRON (NZL) Essentially a go-through match for Guinea and Argentina (with the added bonus of a draw likely be devastating for both), so pretty tough assignment for Kassai.
It looks like the ball hit the Costa Rican player's upper arm while it was down at his sides, so I disagree with calling the handball.
I just don't see what you're seeing. He's in the air and he stiffens his arm--I don't see it "down at his sides" at all. To me, seems like a deliberate attempt to make himself bigger. I personally think it's a great catch by the AR. Regardless, I think the most important part here is the role the VAR played. On debatable handling calls, you're not going to see them overturned. In this regard, the VAR system worked well here. Similarly, the VAR (hopefully) wouldn't have intervened if no call had been made.