News: VAR Experiment (video referees 2016-2018)

I disagree to the extent that I think both have been, historically, debatable.

You're right that the German penalty regularly gets awarded when the referee is sure he's seen a hold in real-time. But it also regularly doesn't get awarded. Similarly, in the Italian clip, the player absolutely gets stepped on--it's 100% a foul if seen (similar, in many aspects, to the foul that resulted in a goal being called back in the Dallas MLS game last week). But you're also right that it regularly gets missed or not called because there's doubt. So in one regard, both of these are standard, by-the-book fouls that got missed and then got called when the VAR intervened. Proponents of an expansive VR system would say that's not a problem. But the "clear and obvious" standard is supposed to be much higher than that. As you say, it's not supposed to be re-refereeing the match. VR, for penalties, is supposed to catch the horrendous misses that keep referees up at night and are an affront to the game; not to correct the sort of penalty decisions that, for several decades, "could go either way." I've even been told David Elleray likes to use a 95 out of 100 standard when he instructs on VR/VAR... for VR to reverse a penalty or red card decision, it's got to be the sort of thing that 95 out of 100 neutral observers would say "yeah, he got that totally wrong and the call needs to be changed." It goes to the mantra about "what football expects," which is now written into the preamble to the Laws thanks to Elleray. I don't think either of these incidents reaches such a threshold (and, ironically and sadly, I do think the potential SFP decision in Germany did).

From what we've seen so far, I think you're right here. And it speaks to an interesting evolution that could reach a critical point in Russia next year. From the small bit of evidence we have so far, in Italy the standard for awarding a penalty based on VR seems to be much lower than it is in, say, Germany, where the threshold for "clear and obvious" has appeared to be quite high in their trials, notwithstanding the one clip I posted above. In a way, it will be similar to how we've had different standards for SFP in different top leagues around the world--or how La Liga tends to have a lot more yellows generally than other top leagues. There are differences in officiating around the world but, to FIFA's credit, they've largely been ironed out among the absolute top officials and you have some general consistency in application of the Laws when you get to the FIFA tournaments (there are always decisions that are outliers, but those seem to be more due to mistakes than to stylistic differences).

However, with VAR, everyone is learning in their own way in their own leagues and getting used to a brand new system and set of protocols. There has been and will be instruction at the FIFA-level, but it's going to be interesting to see how and if FIFA is able to get consistency in application of VR standards prior to Russia 2018. From what we saw in Korea and Russia for the two trial runs, they weren't even close and there is maybe one more live trial (CWC), but that would involve very few referees. An inconsistent application of VR in Russia 2018 is probably the one thing that could actually kill the experiment after next summer, so avoiding it is probably the biggest task that FIFA faces.

I think this was less a decision about the on-field practicalities of refereeing and more one about personnel and costs. Serie A now has to have a VAR (and AVAR, if that person is certified for the first division). If you keep AARs, you're now sending eight first-division qualified officials to every Serie A match. You've upped referee fees (on top of the costs of implementing VR in every stadium) and you've taken ~20 more officials away from Serie B per week. The trickle-down effect on referee development here is dangerous.

 

I don't think we are overselling the standard (or at least not overselling questions about what that standard means). I also would take issue with the assertion that there is "no doubt" that the Serie A situation is the type of thing those arguing for VR want fixed. I think some people who want VR want it because they want ever missed foul in the penalty area called a penalty, sure. But that's not the way it's been sold by the IFAB. If it was simply about making sure missed fouls were called in the penalty area, we wouldn't have the "clear and obvious" qualifier in the first place.

Go back to this incident from the U20s: https://streamable.com/20p46

100% a foul, right? In a world where "defensive fouls in the area caught on video will result in penalties" is the standard, then this is a penalty. There was plenty of time for the VAR to check this. He did and nothing was given--not even an OFR. My understanding is that Busacca believes this was the right outcome, consistent with instruction. My question is then, "why?" At the very least, it goes to the "clear and obvious" standard meaning more than "on replay, was this a foul?" The protocols also open by imploring referees and VARs to think "was the decision clearly wrong?" rather than ask "was the decision correct?" Again, that distinction has to mean something. I also know that PRO is stressing the IFAB mantra of "minimum interference - maximum benefit," which also implicitly relates to "clear and obvious." Does all that mean that stray arms in the penalty area, which almost never get called, will still never result in a penalty? Maybe. Or maybe it means the protocols need to evolve and this should be a penalty with the advent of VR. No one here knows the answer because I guarantee there isn't a worldwide answer that the IFAB/FIFA have settled on yet.

I don't pretend to know exactly what "clear and obvious" means precisely because I don't think it's even close to fully established yet. There will be growing pains. And it's apparent right now that different standards are being applied in different leagues and for different types of offences (as I pointed out in my initial posts on the German match, for me it defies logic that the awarded penalty was a clear and obvious miss but the highlighted challenge wasn't clearly and obviously an SFP red card). In a few years, maybe it will be absolutely commonplace for these type of decisions to result in penalties (it will then be interesting for a soccer historian/statistician to examine how many more goals are being scored and how high ratio of penalties/goals has gone--VR might not just change the way we officiate, it might change the very nature of the game). But I think that is the sort of thing that gets ironed out over time and it's wrong to believe after a couple weeks in a few major domestic leagues we are already there.

Which incident are you talking about here?

Regardless, it is interesting you bring up slow-motion in this discussion, because the protocols explicitly say that slow-motion can be viewed by the referee, but should only be used for "point of contact" of fouls and handballs--normal speed is to be used for determining the intensity of a challenge and the deliberate nature of a handball.

 

Not totally correct. If a goal appears imminent, referees are being instructed to hold the whistle when the flag goes up so that the play can be reviewed if and once the goal is scored.

It is true that MLS ARs are being told to do nothing different on offside, however. And there is a practical reason for this: if an AR keeps the flag down in a situation that he believes is offside, and a goal is not scored, but a corner kick results, the play is not reviewable. So Webb and PRO are of the opinion that the proper call for offside needs to be made at all times because, ultimately, goals are reviewable but offside decisions are not.

Note that what Webb and PRO are instructing is different than what was instructed at Confed Cup, where FIFA told ARs to hold the flag if the next touch from a player deemed to be slightly in an OSP is going to be a shot on goal. That instruction in Russia appears to be a half-measure between what PRO is instructing and what Rizzoli is saying. Again, this is another example of the experiment needing time to figure out what works best and ultimately make things uniform.

 

We're trying to keep the MLS stuff in the MLS forum, but wanted to post this here to further illustrate what I'm getting at above...

Take a look at the incident which starts at 5:51 here: https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017...huge-hit-orlando-instant-replay?autoplay=true

The Chicago player carelessly (some might even say recklessly) tackles the Toronto attacker in the penalty area after the ball is gone once the attacker gets his shot off. Anywhere else on the field, this is a foul. In any classroom instruction we get, this would be a foul. But, traditionally, for better or worse, penalties aren't typically awarded for these sort of challenges. Now, with VR, we're at a fork in the road. We already have two schools of thought developing:

1) It's clearly and obviously a foul based on the LOTG, full stop. Therefore the VAR should intervene and upon the use of VR, a penalty should be awarded. (this seems to jive with the emerging Italian standard)

2) In using the "what football expects" standard that Elleray pushes and the "minimum interference - maximum benefit" that is the overarching mantra of the VAR protocols, you arrive at the conclusion that no one (save Toronto partisans and Simon Borg) really expects this to be a PK because traditionally incidents like this aren't sanctioned and VR isn't meant to completely change the way the Laws are applied. Therefore, the VAR should not intervene because this is not a clear and obvious error. (this is definitely the standard Webb and PRO are pushing)

This is the crux of the issue on penalty decisions. These are two very different interpretations of what "clear and obvious" means and that has huge practical implications. This needs to be ironed out well before Russia and it is one of the biggest challenges FIFA will face.

 

@feyenoordsoccerfan , do you know if the below penalty (and resulting 2CT) was reviewed by VAR? The reason I ask is that it appears the guilty defender fully let go of the attacker by the time the ball was struck, so a penalty would be technically the wrong restart (we can debate separately whether a 2CT could and would then stand). I say it looks that way, but we don't have all the angles a VAR would have, so just wondering if they reviewed and allowed the penalty to stand or if they did not review--because this is an interesting scenario for VR that I hadn't thought of before.

 

So maybe something more like this?

Agreed wholeheartedly on the first part of your statement. The only problem with the second part of your statement is where we draw the line in the age of VR. "You can carelessly foul your opponent after they shoot but not foul them recklessly" isn't exactly a standard that we can start teaching referees--at least I don't think it is--even if it is the standard that might have the widest acceptance from all the stakeholders.

 

Ah, my fault. Given the introduction in Germany and Italy, I thought the Netherlands expanded VAR into the league. My mistake.

 

That's a very good and thorough response. I think you've got a lot of stuff right here. I do quibble with the idea that something can be a foul in an instructional setting but not traditionally a foul on the field when it's in the penalty area, however. Regardless, we will have to see where this goes. Penalties and SFP are going to be where this lives or dies (especially penalties).

 

This might be my favorite one, yet, because it combines the issues of possible simulation with the in/out penalty area decision. From Poland:

https://streamable.com/qibrl

Foul called just outside the area for a DFK. Yellow card issued for the challenge. Wall set for restart. Referee (Marciniak, who as an aside is is one of the absolute best in the world right now) gets pinged by the VAR to take another look--that ping has to be due to location of the foul and not simulation, since simulation outside the penalty area is not reviewable. Upon review, the DFK is changed to a PK. Subsequent protests result in another yellow for dissent.

Now, when you watch the replay it's very clear that the attacker does not get touched on his right leg. If there is any contact, it had to be on the left leg (which, to be fair, is the leg he grabs). But I don't think any of the replays confirm contact. The replays collectively do, however, show that any contact with that leg would have been in the penalty area, so if a foul did occur, a penalty was the proper call. So gaming this out, per the protocols I believe Marciniak had a few choices:

1) He could do what he did, which is assert that the replays did not show the awarding of a foul to be a clear and obvious error (which would make sense if he was sure he saw contact from his angle), use the collective replays to determine that contact was in the area, and award a PK.

2a) He could conclude that the replays show no contact and that the attacker simulated. Because the act of simulation was inside the penalty area, making this a penalty decision, he could then rescind the yellow card, give an IFK to the defense, and caution the attacker.

2b) He could conclude that the replays show no contact but that because he called the foul outside the area and did not award a penalty, his hands are tired. If this was his conclusion, the yellow card stays and the attacking team gets its DFK, despite VR showing simulation in the referee's opinion.

In this particular instance, given Marciniak's certainty and the relative lack of protest at the moment the foul occurred, I'll accept #1 being the best option. However, if this isn't actually simulation it is very close to being so and it's not hard to imagine the exact same scenario with no contact being confirmed (or a referee who is less sure using the video to change his mind). When that play happens, I don't think there's an answer between 2a and 2b--we're just rolling the dice at this point.

I've harped on the "clear and obvious" standard for penalties being the biggest practical issue with VAR for the public and I still think it is. But the technical stuff around DFKs right outside the penalty area and what can and can't be reviewed (or what can and cannot be changed once a review happens) has the potential to be a nightmare. Because the way the system is right now, a foul 18.1 yards away from goal could get reviewed, confirmed outside the area but shown to be total simulation, and the attacking team would keep its DFK. When that happens and a team scores on a big stage, watch out.

 

Comments like this from world-class stars are going to matter, particularly at the World Cup: http://www.espnfc.us/juventus/story...igi-buffon-var-turns-football-into-water-polo

 

Did a card come with the second penalty?

What do you think of the Polish incident, @RedStar91?

 

This penalty award was deemed clearly and obviously wrong on review.



I get the instruction that if the ball bounces off another part of the body and the player has no time to react, you have a clue that it's not deliberate. But there is the counter-argument that going to ground like that with your arm in that position is taking a risk and you are responsible for the consequences. Seems debatable to me.