Just watched a replay of the France-Italy match and IMO the CR had a masterful match. It was France v Italy so there were still plenty of challenges, a few cards and a PK. For me this was a real clinic of refereeing. I'm going to try to save this match and watch a few more times to get the feel for positioning and anticipation, as well as field presence.
Marciniak is quickly becoming one of the best in the world. You're going to see him in the mix for the two UEFA finals next year and I would not be surprised to see him on one of the the last three matches in Russia. As things stand, he's probably the favorite for the final at this tournament, too. QUARTERFINALS Venezuela : United States - ERIKSSON (SWE) Portugal : Uruguay - RAMOS (MEX) Italy : Zambia - ZAMBRANO (ECU) Mexico : England - ABDULLA HASSAN (UAE)
The goalscorer was in an OSP when the ball was last played by a teammate. I think VAR worked correctly here. But it would be interesting to learn for referees--though academic to most--whether the AR kept his flag down because he was unsure of OSP or if he was unsure if it was a play or deflection by a US defender. Either way, with the advent of VAR ARs are going to err further on the side of keeping the flag down in situations like this. But it still would be nice to know what was communicated as the decision unfolded because the question of OSP is a "clear and obvious error" if the AR thought he was not in an OSP. The play v deflection question is more subjective so, technically, if the on-field call was a play by the US defender, that probably shouldn't be overturned.
that is exceptionally close. #3 looks to be even with him, but I can't quite freeze the video at the time of the touch.
It's not that close (relatively speaking, of course, with the benefit of replay). The fact that the American defender is in the foreground is playing tricks on you. Look at the cut of the grass. The goalscorer's back leg is even with the penalty spot. The American defender is a full yard away from the equivalent spot if you follow the cut of the grass. He's a full yard offside.
Given that the player can be objectively shown to have been in an offside position, there are then two subjective decisions here: as per Law 11, a) whether or not the touch by the US defender was a deliberate play; and b) whether or not the touch by the US defender was a save. Then, naturally, the only way this can stand as a goal is if a) the touch was found to be a deliberate play and b) the touch was found not to be a save, so the VAR must have found differently as to at least one of these decisions. Given the highly-debated grey areas that exist within these two decisions, this play would be highly instructive if we could find out what the powers-that-be endorse here as to each of these two decisions. Even if it is determined that this is a deflection, it would be very useful to know whether or not this otherwise would be considered to be a save, meaning it would have been offside even if the touch were determined to have been a deliberate play.
Thought Eriksson was excellent. Might have missed one advantage call vs US but that might have been the only call I disagreed with all match...
Though the powers that be might have a declarative opinion for your two questions, be careful in presuming the VAR determined anything relative to them. If the AR had the OSP wrong then the VAR would correct that clear and obvious error. He would then make no determination on your two questions unless it was clearly and obviously decided wrong on the field. So, my point here is that if the on-field referee team had already determined that there was no resetting touch from the US, this really might have only been a VAR judgment about OSP. Remember that the onfield officials are always supposed to make a decision and not simply defer to the VAR to decide for them. So by the time Eriksson is asking for input, he should have already made his own judgment on the two questions you've raised. Only if his judgment is clearly and obviously wrong would it then get overturned.
So, looks like we have our first really controversial VAR decision and the first one where the protocols were definitely not followed correctly. Video here: There's a lot to unpack. I'll try to do it in chronological order. First, the referee calls a foul. It's unclear if he calls the foul on the defender #14 or the goalkeeper. There are actually context clues in either direction. On the one hand, it does look like he hesitates to go PK or DFK and might actually check with his AR on position; that would indicate the foul was on #14. On the other hand, the whistle comes after the challenge from the goalkeeper and he is the one who seems to protest the most vehemently and all the post-call focus is on him, so that indicates the opposite, which is that the referee felt the goalkeeper was guilty. Then again, even if you were calling the foul on the defender you likely are doing wait and see here to see if he can score without having the call the foul. Bottom line is that it's unclear. Second, either way, he fails to show a card for what would be a mandatory card no matter what the initial decision was. If it's a DFK, it's red. If it's the goalkeeper, it's yellow. And if it's the defender in the penalty area, it's red. There is no scenario where this isn't a card. And the VAR protocols say the referee is supposed to make his on-field decision before consulting the VAR. In this regard, he's violated those protocols. And that violation leads to more confusion because (see point one above) it means we don't know what foul was called while the VAR does his check. Third (and this is where we enter the guessing phase, due to the lack of a card being shown), the VAR either confirms the on-field call of a foul by the defender but re-spots the foul as being outside the area (a clear and obvious error on replay), leading to the DFK and red card for the defender; if he did this, the VAR has followed the protocols correctly. OR, if the on-field call was on the goalkeeper, the VAR correctly rules that such a decision is a clear and obvious error but then takes some liberties (unclear if this is fully prohibited or not) with the "mistaken identity" clause and reassigns the foul to the defender. There's also the chance, I suppose, that the CR just told the VAR that he thinks he had a foul but now he's unsure, so check everything--this is obviously a violation of the protocols, so I hope that's not how it went down but given everything is new, who knows? All told, it took a while and the full time lost was not accounted for with stoppage time at the end of the first half. We had some "video replay" signals from the Italians (which is supposed to be an automatic booking). And, most importantly for the purposes of introducing VAR to the wider soccer world, you end up with a very soft red card in a World Cup knockout stage. Remember that the VAR can't say, "oh, it was a soft foul so you need to overturn it"--he can only intervene in clear and obvious errors. I think that fact is going to upset a lot of people if and when a call like this happens on a really big stage next summer. VAR has gone better this tournament (since the first two days or so) than it has in other competitions so far. I think that's because of the intense training directly from FIFA that some of these early specialist VARs are now getting. There is some promise here. But there are some scenarios that are going to end up being worst with VAR than they are without it. It will be very interesting next summer to see if this ends up being a net positive or negative in the eyes of fans and players. If it saves one huge horrendously wrong error (like, let's say, the Argentina v Mexico offside that Rosetti had) it will be hailed. But if it forces something close to an obviously wrong, but still subjective call to stand (like, let's say, a dive that causes an opponent to get sent off on a 2CT), it's going to be panned.
He sent off #14 blue, and the DFK was eventually spotted just outside the PA. My guess is he was waiting for confirmation that the foul was outside the PA or not, since he originally signaled PK. Either way a very weak call, IMO. I would have rather he cautioned #14 orange for simulation.
I think you missed my point. Referees are still obligated to take the appropriate on-field decision before consulting VAR. Initially, he calls the penalty and awards no card to anyone. Not carding someone here is either an intentional violation of the protocol or a gross dereliction of duty. The card is supposed to be shown when the initial decision (PK) is made. Then the VAR checks everything and determines if any clear and obvious errors were made. As it stands, the VAR corrected the PK and turned it into a DFK. But we don't know if the VAR was also involved in determining who committed the foul in the first place because the VAR never made that decision clear. I think that would have been far, far worse. The attacker has an absolutely open goal to shoot at from like 4 yards away. It seems pretty clear that he was out of control with pace and stumbled over at the most inopportune time for him. Whether he was still off-balance from the initial contact outside the area is really the only question. But it looks like a huge stretch to say the attacker was trying to simulate a foul by the goalkeeper. For me, no call is the best decision.
Is getting the spot right before showing the card improper procedure? It could have been anyone on the headset that told him the foul was outside the PA. Well we're just of differing opinions on that one.
Given that not only is the R near the spot with the ball, but the AR has lined up on the GL at the PA intersection, it definitely seems the initial call was PK and the most likely delay was on PK/DFK from spot of foul. With respect to the protocols, is it possible that the powers that be have said that if the card is being reviewed to wait to show the card until the VAR review is complete? (Though that probably doesn't really work, either, as the foul on the defender can only be a hold, so it is a send off either way.) While the foul may not be blatant here, I agree that there is no way the VAR can reverse that call. And while anyone on the defense is going to think it soft, I don't think it was trifling and I think it absolutely was not simulation. Keep in mind this is a player who has just sprinted from his own half of the field at top speed when his shoulder is pulled. It doesn't take a lot of pressure at full speed to throw someone off balance. And he doesn't go down, he tries to keep going. At the point he loses his feet, simulation makes no sense -- if he keeps his feet, he has a tap-in goal.
Is it possible that he lost track of which defender as he followed the play, so he needed the VAR to confirm which defender committed the foul?
I don't understand. He called a PK. The AR confirmed the decision and took up his spot for a PK. You're suggesting it took 2 minutes for the other AR or the 4th to change a the position of the foul? No. This was a VAR decision to correct a PK decision into a DFK decision. And that part was rightly done. But the CR is obligated to make a full decision on the field, and if he called a PK he should have shown a red card (if he was calling #14) or a yellow card (if he was calling the goalkeeper). He did neither. That concerns me, because I believe you'd be booking a player who just sprinted 80 yards and ran out of gas at the last moment, when he easily could have scored and had no incentive to dive, but I'll leave it alone because it's a judgment call.
I suppose that's possible, but it really didn't need to happen and would be a massive lapse of concentration. As to your question in the above post, the answer is "no" with a caveat. The protocols (#4) say the referee is not permitted to give no decision and refer it to the VAR. He has to make his decision (red/yellow/no card) and then go to the VAR. So either he decided no card (which is just objectively wrong) and got corrected to show the red, he deliberately violated the protocols by punting the entire card decision to the VAR, or, as you suggested, he lost the defender and needed help. The caveat is on the bottom of page 5, starting "On rare occasions..." http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/216/VAR_Protocol Summary_v1.0.pdf If he just lost the defender and always knew he was calling that foul, he's covered. But if he blew the whistle and thought it was a goalkeeper foul, only to be "saved" by the VAR calling the defender for the initial push, then that's a huge problem. Ultimately, the big problem here is lack of transparency/explanation. We really need that as this system evolves.
In regards to the attacker, he takes 8 full strides after the defender lifts his hand off the shoulder, *and* is in control enough to make a touch on the ball past the keeper. I don't think the contact in any way caused him to go down. Subjective of course. I only said the initial foul call was worse than a simulation call would have been.
I just don't get this part. He has to show the card before play is restarted. He did. Without access to the headset audio I just don't see how you conclude that wasn't going to show a card. Then you would be misinterpreting what I wrote.
Don't want to get all lawyerly here, but technically speaking the protocols say that the ref has to make a decision, not that he has to indicate what it was. If he points to the spot, then says to the VAR, "I have a PK and a YC...what do you see?", then he's followed the protocol correctly. Don't get me wrong, showing the card would be far clearer, bit it doesn't seem technically necessary. As to the caveat you mentioned, well, that just opens a whole can of worms.
Putting aside the VAR part, how was this not deliberate play by the US defender? He moves his leg to play the ball, and he had nearly 10 yards between himself and the attacker he played the ball. This was not reflexive. There's no way this was a deflection. Am I missing something?