News: VAR Experiment (video referees 2016-2018)

Ooo-er, after scoffing at this particular response, I was going "Pfft", however, I find myself somewhat in agreement.

 

Evolution of the use of VAR in a friendly, by former FIFA referee, Hector Baldassi :

 

How to find if match is fifa-sanctioned? I inquire as the field is wholly natural according to requirement of law 1, a situation that is most prevalent in football playing countries.

 

At least he carded the guy that was complaining.

 

This looks as though it was just a demonstration with rehearsed actions, maybe for training and educational purposes,not a real situation.
Amusing, nonetheless!

PH

 

It really was a match between friends meant for charity organized by Paulo Dybala, where Baldassi made a mock of the use of VAR, with the cell phone of one of the guys in the stands.

 

since it's being streamed via the league's YouTube channel I presume it should be available for later viewing

 

I watched most of it, and there weren't really any surprises, other than how old Webb looks with a rapidly graying beard.
My big problem with the system hasn't changed...why does the CR ever need to review a call, since only clear and obvious errors can, theoretically, be overturned?
Either trust the VARs, or don't bother with the system.

 

I think the problem is that the referee needs to be the final say. At the state, national, and pro level, doesn't matter, we've all been in a room and all watched the same clip and been confidently 50/50 on a call. Some of these will be clear cut: "You carded #2. #2 was 40 yards away at the time. Wrong person." But for subjective situations, and for the symbol that the referee is still the authority, they need to review it sometimes.

 

But the whole point is that if it's a subjective situation, it shouldn't be overturned. Clear and obvious shouldn't be subjective, it should be objective, or as close to 99.9% objective as it can be.

 

Yup, just like an AR flag. The R never takes the AR's advice unless he gets to see what the AR saw first. Er, oh, wait a minute . . . The R always has the final say whether he sees what the VAR sees or not.

 

In the end, the CR should trust his assistants, and if the VAR says there was a clear and obvious mistake, he should accept it.

My issue is that there should never be a point where a VAR says, "I'm not sure about this call, you should take a look." It should only come into play when the VAR looks and sees that the CR is clearly and obviously wrong, and the CR needs to trust the VAR in those circumstances.

 

But that's when the CR thinks he had a better angle/look than the AR.
The VAR gets far more information than the CR or the AR could have.

 

Here's a direct link to the video

 

at 30:40 in the MLS VAR video they talk about the taking of penalty kicks.

The way Howard Webb talks is as if encroachment on a PK will only be called if it has a direct impact on the play after the kick. I don't mean a millisecond after the ball leaves the kickers foot. I mean if the ball doesn't go in by a save or it hits the post/bar and is still in play.

To me, that sounds like players can encroach all they want. If they end up impacting the play after then it will be called. But if a goal is scored, and an attacker encroached, then the goal stands. If a defender encroaches and the keeper saves it out of bounds then its a corner, not a retake. If the defender encroaches and the attacker missed the goal completely, tough?

That's the impression I get from Howard Webb.

What are your impressions on that segment? Am I misreading his interpretation of that phase of play?

That seems like a big change how PK encroachment has traditionally be called.

 

Im pretty sure we left that premise behind a long, long time ago.

 

[QUOTE="asoc, post: 35688939, member: 114710"

That seems like a big change how PK encroachment has traditionally be called.[/QUOTE]

At what level? How often have you seen encroachment called at a high level when the after-play wasn't affected?

I'm of two minds on this one:

If there is no after play, it really is trifling, having no effect on anything.

But if it isn't called on the static cases, it continues and gets more extreme. Then when is called because it matters, people are outraged because no one ever calls it.

I think the reality is this swings on a pendulum -- we go through cycles where trifling wins out and cycles where it is slightly more strictly enforced.

 

Essentially the worst case scenario.