I still don't understand why we're talking past each other here. Per the LOTG, you're right. But this isn't a question about the LOTG. It's a question about the VAR protocols. With VAR in place, the referee is obligated to take his decision before referring anything to the VAR. He can't say, for example, "I called a foul Mr. VAR, now please tell me if it's inside or outside and what color card to give." He has to make the determination on the foul and the card and then refer it to the VAR to check and see if there is a clear and obvious error. This protocol prevents the VAR from becoming a crutch where major decisions get made and limits the VAR to someone who prevents the CR from making major mistakes. It's a safeguard against some of the slippery slope concerns VAR skeptics have. In this situation, the CR calls the foul and indicates the restart (PK), but fails to sanction anyone for the obvious misconduct, relying completely on the VAR to get that part. That's either a deliberate violation or due to what would be an unacceptable lapse of concentration. You've got to help me with what I'm misinterpreting. You said you'd rather have a simulation card on the attacker than a DOGSO call on the defender, right? I'm of the mind that a simulation card is the least defensible decision (after calling the goalkeeper for a foul, of course). Whether or not you think he was off-balance due to the push, to me, is irrelevant. I just think he shows no tell-tale signs of simulation. There was no incentive. He didn't immediately look for the foul. He shows no dramatics. The sprint that attacker made, from his own penalty area, can take a lot out of a player. Sometimes players just fall down.
If we get that lawyerly, why does he even need to point to the spot to begin with?! As I think you're conceding, the spirit of the protocols here is obvious. The IFAB doesn't want VARs making decisions. They want them correcting obvious errors and alerting CRs to obvious and major omissions.
Putting aside not showing the card, a possible sequence that could explain what happened as consistent with the protocol's for fouls. He had a foul on the defender outside the area for which he was waiting to see if there was an advantage and a second foul on the GK. That would explain the apparent PK and going back to the DFK without any violation of the protocols for the foul itself. The VAR presumably would have told him no foul on the GK, so it would revert to the DFK/DOGSO for the defender.
Yup. But we've also hoped that one positive outcome of this will be less dissent. So when the ref here has the opportunity to ward off initial dissent by not showing a card, that might not be a bad thing. I'd have no problem with the protocols indicating that a primary decision has to be clearly shown, but a secondary decision, which is tied to the primary, can be held off until the review. Either way, in this case, VAR worked, albeit still too slowly. I don't agree with the decision (I would think no call) but it was too much of a judgement call to be reversed. The obvious error, where the 'foul' was, was correctly fixed.
It's a shot. It doesn't matter whether you want to consider it a save or a deflection, as neither one resets OS.
One question: The were a key decision in extra time, where an Italian player (who coincidentally scored the winning goal later on) deliberately stamped on a Zambian player after initially fouling him. The referee called the foul, but missed the stamp. Should the VAR have informed the referee about this, because it would have certainly ended with a red card? Or is this not something the VAR is supposed to report on?
Have you ever seen a foul and while waiting a couple seconds before blowing the whistle to see if advantage applies had someone yell "that's a foul!" or something similar, then blow the whistle? It can appear in cases like this that your opinion was influenced by someone who's advice you should have ignored. I think it's possible something similar happened in the incident we are discussing. It's my biggest problem with VAR in general and I think it's something you have mentioned before. It can give the appearance that it's being used as a crutch even if it isn't. If I'm the ref in this match and I decide this is a foul and also decide in real time that it occurred inside the PA, I signal PK. If I then hear over the headset from an AR or 4O that I should have the VAR take a look at where the contact happened, that's what I would be concerned with at that point. I wouldn't want to issue the card immediately at that point because I'm listening for information from the rest of the crew, and I don't want to have two discussions at once because I know the send off is going to be met with protest. Once I get the DFK/PK sorted out I can issue the card. Have I violated some procedural rule at this point? Correct. It is my opinion that the initial foul call is a very poor one, and that is the point I was trying to make. I wouldn't call that at U12. It is also my opinion that a simulation call would be justifiable. Perhaps introducing a "which call is worse" red herring into the discussion was a bad idea. I respect your (and SoCal's) opinions on why you think a simulation call is worse, I just don't agree. EDIT: I said misinterpretation because I was not saying a simulation call is obviously correct. Just better.
About the procedure for the red card was correct, according to FIFA guidelines. First it confirms if there really was the fault and only then show the disciplinary punishment. To prevent it from displaying a red card, and then have to void it. This should always be done in case the referee has the doubt. So it was not necessarily the VAR that instructed him to show the red card, he himself may have decided it, he was just waiting for a decision on the legitimacy of the foul.
I think you need to show us the video, because this is a loaded question without it. The VAR informs the CR about any potential missed violent conduct. Either the VAR didn't share your opinion that this was "certainly" a red card or he didn't notice it. Would need to see the video to be sure.
I thought so, based on the protocols as written. But apparently @Fanison says otherwise. Which, if he's right, renders some of my criticism moot (I'd still say this took too long and I would definitely argue the referee could have managed the Italians players better by explaining his initial decision while he waited for the VAR). So are the FIFA guidelines being instructed to VARs at the tournament in addition to the written IFAB protocols? Are these not, at least in a situation like this, pretty close to being in direct conflict? Don't get me wrong, your logic and that from @akindc and in the last post by @threeputzzz makes sense. But it doesn't appear to be in line with what the IFAB has written out.
I don't think anyone who watched the game disagrees with my opinion on how dirty the stamp was. I can't find a replay of the event, so you'll have to trust me on this. The commentators said it should have been red. Comments after the match said the same. But lets say in theory I'm right: the VAR should have reported the SFP, so it was was a mistake on his behalf? Pretty surprising as cameras picked up the replay of the stamp and showed it immediately. If the VAR didn't notice it then why is his feed worse than the live tv feed?
Just like the rules, there are complementary guidelines that are passed to referees, who do not contradict the rules. It is only a matter of waiting to make the disciplinary decision, only after deciding the technical question.
I think a little is probably lost in translation here. If the VAR saw that there clearly was no foul and nothing that could justify the foul call, then he can overturn the initial decision (or suggest the CR look himself to be sure). I believe that's what @Fanison means. But as we've talked about, it has to be clear and obvious that no foul was committed. Anything in the subjective realm that might be a "soft foul" would still remain a foul. Not to beat a dead horse, but if the referee had called the goalkeeper for a foul here, that would have been overturned, as it clearly didn't happen.
That's fine. But a few sites I follow, one of which focuses on refereeing decisions and has analyzed this match, with video clips, has said nothing about this incident so far. So I'm not going to trust you and throw a referee under the bus on something I can't see. Well, first, it would be VC not SFP. But again, this is why I'd want to see the video. If the contact is as obvious as you say, then the VAR probably didn't miss it. Which means he judged it not to be VC, thereby undermining your assertion that anyone who watched the game doesn't disagree with your opinion. The only other thing you could possibly be suggesting is that a VAR saw VC and simply chose to ignore it. That would be a pretty serious charge and would make very little sense, since the VAR is there trying to get things right.
I'l do my best to find the situation in question and post it. It wasn't as low key. There were 2-3 replays of the situation on the live feed.
That's what I always feel VAR was really meant for and it is what FIFA had in mind when they bring it in. They want to prevent injustices/travesties against the game like Henry, Maradona, De Jong, and goals like the goal you mentioned being allowed. The problem is you can't just have a protocol say "only use when it will eliminate a team from a tournament and the call will be discussed 30 years from now." I don't know how anybody who watches the clip in the Italy vs. Zambia game can't say that the VAR protocols were violated. They clearly were. He is using the VAR to make the call for him. Referees will inevitably use it as a crutch to not make decisions. We've seen this happen in college and NFL football. They don't trust their judgment anymore on clear non-fumbles. Everything is a fumble now, no matter how, obviously, down the ball carrier was or how, obviously, incomplete the pass was and they just wait for replay to bail them out. Also, I think we do have to remember that FIFA is also making this up as they go. I don't think they are yet clear on what they want from the system and how they want it to work. Everybody is new at this and nobody is quite 100% sure as to what exactly they want from this system.
Well, you are right @zahzah: I said above that VAR has been working pretty well since the first few days of the tournament. But this is a huge indictment of it, right up there with the Kuipers red becoming a yellow in that friendly last year. This is VC. This should be a red card. Only one of two things could have happened here: 1) The VAR decided, himself, that this was not VC and didn't intervene. 2) The VAR suggested to the CR that it was VC but the CR decided he saw it clearly himself and opted not to take action--either by issuing a red card or by consulting the monitor to determine himself. Either way, this is a huge error. If a FIFA-trained VAR can't correctly determine this is a red card, then the system isn't working the way it needs to be. And if the protocols allow the CR to reject VAR intervention here, that is a huge issue that will lead to so much inconsistency--how can you have the VC elbow given as a red on the first weekend of the tournament but not have this be a red in the knockout stages?
I've had the unique experience of working a VAR game and the instructions to me were to make my decision as AR and for the center to delay whistling if possible. In this way, we have an on field decision while preserving an out if it turned out I was wrong and the goal should stand. Not possible in all situations but at least in my case...the feedback was not to keep flag down and let VAR fix it.
I would however add that even if the VAR or ref messed up on this call, I still think its better than no VAR. With VAR this would have never been picked up, with VAR at least there is a huge chance of it being picked up and then the debate is how the hell the call was missed. All in all big mistakes are probably cut down by 90%, which makes this change very welcome.
Actually, the 4th should have had this easily. Maybe AR1, too. I take the opposite approach in that there is no reason to even need VAR in this particular incident. The referee team should have this. That just makes the VAR miss all the more baffling. My fear is that with the advent of VAR, on-field officials are going to allow more doubts to creep in because they "know" VARs can fix it. But if the VAR also fails, for whatever reason, we're left with situations like this.