If you want to make scoring even more rare and special - just call far few fouls. Why does make goals rarer make the game better? Why was the delay in action to get the Zardes call technically correct for a foul no really saw or would have cared about. My issues isn't with VAR, but instead how VAR is implemented. If the focus was cleaning up all the holding grabbing in the penalty area resulting in a fairer more open game I'd be a proponent.
Yeah, that article gets a number of rules wrong (funny, considering he talks about how helpful it would be for the announcers to learn the rules)
So far, it sucks. Full disclosure, I'm a fan of FC Dallas who is now at -2 goals due to VAR. Saturday night v. Colorado. Colorado has the ball and passes to Hairston (I believe) who has his back to FCD's goal about 20 yards out from goal. Harris pokes the ball away. Ball goes to Colman who races across the centerline to Colorado's 18. Seeing that he's 2 on 5, Colman hesitates, cuts to the center of the field. Passes to late runner Urruti who hits a pretty first time curling shot past Howard for a goal. Celebration, then players line up for kickoff. Uh oh, hold on. VAR. What could they be reviewing? Everyone looked very onside. Didn't see any pushing to get open or on the dribble. Referee reviews Harris' poke back near the other 18 yard line and decides it's a foul. No goal. Direct kick for Colorado 20 yards from FCD's goal. As I interpret the VAR rule, everything was done correctly, assuming "attacking phase" can begin 20 yards in front of your own goal. It didn't take an unreasonable amount of time and a foul should have been called on Harris. That said, is this what we want from VAR? A foul (which the referee had a clear view of in real time) 80 yards and 13 seconds before a goal nullifies a goal? Say what you want about "making sure we get it right," I've never felt so disgusted after a game. We're going to referee the game one way for over 95% of the time, and a different, more scrutinizing way for the parts where goals are scored? Let's limit "attacking phase" to at least the attacking side of the field. As soccer fans we're used to looking for the assistant's flag for offside when a goal is scored. Now we have to mentally review everything since the ball was obtained by the attacking team. That sucks.
Yes.. yes it is. We can't complain about how crappy MLS refs are and then complain about the technology implemented to correct this... Might as well declare open season in the defensive end then... Players will adjust to VAR just like they adjust to a referee's overall style. Saying that VAR will only review plays in the attacking end will just result in defenders taking out attackers with the hope the referee won't call it knowing that it won't impact a potential scoring play.. If the entire sequence is reviewable, hopefully it means players will have it the back of their mind that if they foul a player ot could cost them a goal and will avoid fouling the player..
OK, but... if you're looking at the boxscore only, and you see 2-1, you get a certain impression of the game. If you're actually watching the match, and there were two goals disallowed -- it COULD have been 3-2, but you still got to watch the players, you still saw the balls go in, and you still got the anxious moments of awaiting the result of the review to see if the goal would stand. I value more than simply the boxscore.
The Bundesliga have all their VARs located centrally in Cologne, which seems like an eminently sensible idea.
I bet they all smell good. But maybe they use too much and you can't stand to be around them for more than a minute.
Guardian headlines this evening: European roundup: Juventus beat Cagliari despite intervention from VAR Bayern Munich get help from VAR to see off Leverkusen in Bundesliga opener It seems like VAR is becoming a bigger story than the soccer.
There was a log of VAR going on last night. Was it the Columbus game that had 3 or so reviews? As far as I know this game probably has the most reviews ever so far (I know this is very new). I will say the one that made me the most happy was the PK given in the Portland game after VAR. I really hope VAR results in defenders not doing that crap of pulling down players with their hand that is not visible by the CR. I figured this thread would be booming after last night.
I believe it was actually 4 reviews. 1) the red card on Cole (I really still can not see how that was serious foul play in the eyes of the referee as cole came from the side and made almost no contact with the player) 900517359735255040 is not a valid tweet id 2) the first PK (again, not sure that was in the box as he upheld it) 3) The Pedro offside goal (my problem with this is that while he is clearly in an offside position the call on the field was a goal and there is no replay angle that shows the ball actually touched Pedro and nor was he in the line of sight of the goalie) so I don't see what was used to overturn the initial call unless there is an angle I didn't see that proves Pedro touched it. 4) There was a 4th VAR but I missed it. Others have talked about it. I assume they got it right. I'm 100% for VAR but yesterday was very difficult. I'm certain the Galaxy would have lost regardless (should have been down 3-0 before the red card) but it would have been far more enjoyable to watch and learn from if we weren't down to 10 men the entire match.
I hated the idea of video replay. My reasons were: I didn't want the game constantly stopped - I don't want soccer to become the NFL I thought adding two more ARs near the goals with a mandate to call out defensive fouls and offensive flops was a better approach. (Still think that, by the way.) I was concerned about the spirit of the game, in particular I didn't want to see the bombast and self-importance of other sports creep into our game. I had other objections not worth listing, The whole idea aggravated me beyond belief. So it is shocking to me how quickly I have come to accept it. Look, calls will still be gotten wrong. There are many reasons why, but part of that is the very reasonable clear and obvious standard for overruling a call. That's a good thing. Also a good thing is that the VAR is like any AR and can be over ruled by the center. That preserves the spirit of the game. And for the most part, reviews have been quick. As for some of the complaints about it being the story instead of the game - well of course it is. It's new. That will stop. So I'm shocked to say... I'm mostly ok with it.
It wasn't for serious foul play, it was for DOGSO. And while people may say "he didn't make (or barely made) contact" that isn't really a deciding factor there. He makes an attempt to play the ball, doesn't get it, and his actions lead to the denial of a goal scoring opportunity. As such, he gets a red card. The problem with the DOGSO rule is that it has a stipulation that if you do that challenge in the box it is only a yellow but it only seems to apply to inside the box, which is stupid as hell. So, by the rules, that is a perfectly fine red. The issue may be that the rule is stupid.
the reason for that rule change was to remove the double jeopardy. Because if you get DOGSO in the box it used to be a PK + sendoff. With the new rule, it is PK + caution for a more natural foul (attempting to play the ball) in a DOGSO situation. But it is still a PK if the foul is handling, holding, pushing, pulling, not attempting or no possibility to play the ball. Is that a stupid law change? I dunno, but certainly many of the recent law changes are making it much harder to be a referee -- and do a good job.
The foul was both DOGSO and serious foul play. SFP is more "severe" so the proper write-up is SFP while noting the obvious goal scoring opportunity in the report. If you're questioning why it's SFP, consider the lunging nature of the tackle, the fact that both feet are off the ground and that studs are exposed, and the distance from the opponent when the tackle is initiated. Any significant contact with the opponent from a tackle like that is likely to cause a serious injury due to the excessive force involved, and as the Laws say, a tackle from any direction that endangers the safety of the opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
The discussion around this call shows it still is, with or without VAR, in the eyes of the beholder whether it is or isnot a foul and what nature if so.
Interesting discussion. Can't agree with SFP but appreciate the attempted rationale. For the record the write up was for SFP not dogso.
More FC Dallas fun with VAR. In Wednesday's game vs. Houston, Barrios dribbles toward the endline at the side of Houston's penalty area. Barrios gets cut down by the Houston defender. No call from the always brilliant Baldomero Toledo. VAR reviews the play. There was no announcement of this or signal from Toledo, but you could see him holding his earpiece to listen. Even though there was definitely a foul (not just my opinion, but also that of the UniMas guys), the foul was outside the penalty area so VAR can't change the call. Goal kick for Houston. So, in this game we get nothing for a blown call a foot outside the penalty area. While in our game against Colorado a couple weeks ago, we lost a goal due to something that happened 80 yards away from Colorado's penalty area. Yeah, that seems right.
You can't really wire up the referee to broadcast on air because whatever the players say to him would be 'R' rated. I don't think you can show the replay on the big screen either because of the potential crowd reaction. But you can do a better job of signalling that the VAR is reviewing the play and maybe connecting the ref to the broadcasters and showing the result on the big screen.
That's the amazing thing to me. We can argue all day long whether the foul was in the area, whether it was out of the area, whether it started outside of the area, but continued into the area, whatever. One thing is barely disputable, however: It was a foul. It should've been either a penalty or a free kick on the edge of the area. But if you think that, your name is not Baldomero Toledo, who thought it not to be a foul. And since he deemed it not to be a foul, that discussion is closed. This brings me to my beef with VAR. In American football, you'll often hear complaints about the length of time that replay review sometimes takes, but those complaints take a back seat to the overriding desire to "get it right," and one can argue that the occasionally quixotic effort to "get it right" is the primary goal in the use of replay in American football. I would argue that "getting it right" is not the primary goal of VAR. The center ref in soccer is single most powerful official in team sports. He or she is the only one that can call fouls, call penalties, caution players, and send off players. Meanwhile, in other team sports, you have multiple officials with the ability to call infractions and assess penalties, to varying degrees. (In American football, anyone on the on-field crew can call penalties, and the head ref will generally defer to the member of the crew who threw the flag, although he can overrule. Meanwhile, in basketball, any one of the on-court refs have generally equal power to call fouls, even if one of them is "first among equals.) The center ref is the ultimate authority in soccer, and if he or she decides that a foul occurred, it occurred, and if he or she decides that a foul didn't occur, it didn't occur. To me, VAR looks as if its primary goal is to not necessarily to "get it right," but to strengthen the center ref's authority using an appeal to the authority of another ref with a video replay monitor. In the incident at the end of the Dallas-Houston game, "getting it right" would seem to lead one to the conclusion that a foul would be called, either inside or outside of the area. But that's not what happened, since that question can't be determined using VAR. Instead, the question was whether Toledo correctly determined that it was not a penalty, since Barrios was apparently fouled outside the area. And if you game this out, you have to ask this question: If Barrios had been fouled a couple of feet further forward, would Toledo/VAR have determined that it was a foul and therefore, a penalty, but since the incident occurred where it did, it wasn't a foul? Either way, the right call was not made, because Baldomero Toledo had the final say and because VAR, as it's currently implemented, is not able to intervene anyway. So... center refs will still be empowered to ruin games and there'll be some marginal improvement overall.
The right call wasn't made because Toledo blew a call. It happens, and it sucks. VAR couldn't intervene because not calling a penalty kick was not a clear and obvious error as the foul was outside the area. Perhaps we need more opportunities for video review in the latter portion of the game? Expand the ability of the VAR to step in as the game winds down and every call becomes vital. With fatigue a factor for the on-field officials at the end of the game, it makes some sense.
Going to agree to disagree here as methinks you are both dismissing an easy fix and a big opportunity. 1) Pretty sure I hear on 95% of EPL games on NBC, that production's Arlo White have to apologize for the "fruity language" caught on their mics from the stands, or the field mics of the players. And that's on a Saturday morning! It's not an issue? 2) if it WAS to become an issue the league could heavily fine any player obviously and openly cursing at a ref with a fine and or suspension. it'll be pretty easy to spot 3) maybe, just maybe, knowing there is a live mic on the field will assist in how players treat referees and how they talk to them 4) and my favorite - wouldn't it be nice to capture some actual passion of an MLS game? bonus: never suggested you show replays in the stadium.