UEFA 2016-2017 Referee Assignments & Discussions [Rs]

Is the opposite fair, though?

He calls something, goes to the VAR, sees his call wasn't accurate, but still sees a foul that should have been a penalty. The alternative you imply is to not award the penalty, right? How is that fair?

And I didn't say anything about "looking for another reason to stay with the original call." In this case, he really wouldn't have to look too hard, because the trip is there. A main purpose of VAR is to get calls correct, no? I don't understand (other than just simple disgust for Suarez's antics) how someone can look at that replay as a whole and not conclude that, at the very least, a penalty for tripping is completely defensible--if not absolutely mandatory.

 

I liked everything in your post except this. Seems all reports on this are based on this article: http://www.marca.com/en/football/barcelona/2017/03/09/58c19a0de2704eed198b456a.html

Typical tabloid stuff to get clicks. While it's likely both true that Aytekin won't referee in the UCL again this year and won't get as marquee matches, that was always likely to be true. He was never getting a UCL semifinal or the Final, so really it was a question of the QF stage, where two German teams have already made it and Brych will need a match. And how do you get a match as marquee as Barca-PSG outside the UCL?

I expect you'll see Aytekin in the EL once or twice, as you always would have. But now that this article is written the way it is, when he does appear in the EL, it will be a "demotion." Note, however, that none of Marca's sources or "understanding" actually says that UEFA was unhappy with Aytekin. The article uses the word "could" liberally and points out, factually, that Collina does have to make "cuts" (otherwise known as "decisions" or "appointments").

 

Rocchi and Orsato are both pre-selected for WC18. Only one is going to go. I think most observers would have assumed Rocchi was Rizzoli's heir, given the past 2-3 years. Orsato is challenging that assumption. This week seems to be like a head-to-head battle between the two.

 

I believe PH's argument is going to be that both committed VC, so both should have seen straight red. It's intellectually consistent on his part, as he's argued in the past that any unnecessary physical contact off-the-ball automatically is VC if it's more than trifling, but I just don't think it's how Elite referees in UEFA are being instructed right now. These were two "game disrepute" cautions and Nasri's happened to be his second, like you said. More force and you have two VC red cards, sure, but there just wasn't enough there in my opinion (or Orsato's) to warrant such a decision here.

Two cautions for Vardy in this single incident would never fly.

 

I don't disagree with much here, from a factual basis. Agree Vardy was the instigator in this particular incident and that, in most matches below the professional level and the highest amateur levels, two reds for VC is probably the safest solution. I'd only make two points about overall justice and the argument two reds would have been accepted:

1) From a global perspective, I think justice was served. Nasri committed borderline VC on his first yellow card caution and then committed to an actual head butt, even if force was negligible. He committed two infractions in this match that were red on their own in many matches. Vardy, meanwhile, gave a somewhat light instigating push away from the ball, which might normally be overlooked (or just dealt with via a talking-to) if not for Nasri's reaction, then squared up without headbutting Nasri and then exaggerated the severity of contact by Nasri. For me, Vardy commits 3 actions all within the span of 5 seconds that could be cautionable, but aren't always so. Sometimes we look for justice to punish the instigator because we don't want to excuse his behavior, but sometimes there's just not enough there to justify the same result (two send offs). In this case, for me, justice is the same sanction (two cautions) and Nasri is just both unlucky and stupid to have it be his second.

2) I would disagree that everyone would "accept" the Vardy VC send off here. From an LOTG perspective, you could justify it, but I believe it would be deemed overly harsh by most observers and have had big ramifications, with Vardy then banned for both legs of the QFs. I don't think Leicester fans, neutral UCL fans, or Collina and his colleagues at UEFA would have accepted that result.

 

Probably.

But why?

Every player has a personal responsibility to behave in a way that doesn't get them sent off. I agree with you, to the extent that a player attempting to bait another player into a red card should be handled appropriately, but that means disciplining that instigator due to the nature of their offence and consistent with how the game has been called and managed. Just because the opponent is on a yellow card doesn't make the nature of the instigation any worse from a misconduct standpoint. That's punishing player A because his opponent, player B, misbehaved earlier in the match. Doesn't make sense to me. A caution is remedial and is telling a player to be on his best behavior and that includes not getting sucked into incidents that will obviously get them sent off, as this one did. We're referees, not babysitters.

Just to reiterate, I disagree with this. If Vardy's initial action isn't enough to warrant sanction in a different circumstance, then I can't see any justice in punishing him with a caution just to prevent the retaliation. We can only take preventative refereeing so far. Calling a few extra borderline fouls in midfield to keep the temperature of the match is one thing. Inventing cautions so that a misbehaving opponent stays on the field is something entirely different. Look at Nasri's reaction--both to Vardy and then after the send off--and ask yourself this: should a referee really be going out of his way to help a player like that and keep him on the field?

That's all fair enough. I would just caution strongly against bending the Laws too much to combat such instigators simply due to that passionate hate.

 

Video of the incident is available here:

https://vimeo.com/album/4475457/video/208413005

Replay at 74:01 (on game clock) is interesting. Vardy does push first, but there's nowhere near anything for misconduct and I'd even question if he was trying to bait Nasri at this point. Nasri comes back toward him to square up. I know where aren't supposed to read minds, but I think this is when Vardy realizes he has him on the hook and gives him a somewhat more forceful push. Nasri then reacts immediately, squares up again, leans his head in and Vardy exaggerates the contact. Doesn't change my opinion of the correct misconduct at all, but it is interesting to have the video and be able to watch it from multiple angles.

A second point that came into my mind: what was the restart? Watch Orsato and try to pinpoint when he whistles. It's definitely before the ball goes out of play but also after the initial coming together. He also looks like he points for a DFK to Leicester, which would undermine the argument that he got Vardy for instigating. I'd be very interested to learn both the restart (it's unclear from video) and how the Vardy caution was written up. If he got Vardy for simulation, then Orsato is in the clear (though it means he ignored the instigation entirely). If he got Vardy for anything else, I don't know how you avoid giving Sevilla the DFK.