News: VAR Experiment (video referees 2016-2018)

This is worth the read and the view of the video:

https://www.dutchreferee.com/papadopoulos-gets-yellow-dive-var/

A few thoughts here.

1) As noted, simulation is not reviewable on its own. You can end up with a simulation card if a penalty award is reviewed and determined to be a dive (conversely, however, you can't just assign a simulation card if the VAR checks a penalty appeal and concludes it was a dive). The same could be done if a reviewed VC or SFP was determined to be a dive. So, if the only decision here is simulation, this would seem to be an incorrect use of VR.

2) However, if the referee had made the decision that he was showing a red for VC and the VAR was checking to make sure that wasn't a clear and obvious error, all misconduct around the incident is in play (think about the Kaka incident, when 2 yellows and a red were given) so the VAR could tell the CR that VC would be a clear and obvious error and that he should book the player for simulation instead. Of course, for the viewing public there's no way to determine if this happened or not, which is another reason why always showing the card initially--even if it could be reversed--might be a good idea, though Howard Webb has suggested otherwise.

3) I hate to say this, but the attacker did throw his arm/first into the defender's chest. The reaction looks over-the-top, of course. But the player carrying the ball (#15 red/white) did go out of his way to deliberately strike his opponent during a stoppage when the referee wasn't looking. Of course I wouldn't advocate a red card for VC if I had been looking right at it, but certainly would consider a caution. In fact, #15 strikes two different players deliberately in the span of a second, the only reason the play can be legally reviewed (if it was legal) is because of his actions, yet the only misconduct awarded is for simulation. Doesn't feel right at all.

 

I don't think many would disagree with you, but the problem is the VAR experiment isn't even designed to get rid of this tip of play-acting. This incident shows that despite the protocols attempting to be narrowly focused, however, you can drive a truck through them that will lead to huge inconsistencies. This simulation can be carded because it (presumably) involves a decision by a referee to give a red card. But the vast majority of simulation cannot be addressed via VR.

Imagine a tournament setting--let's call it the World Cup--where one team gets a player sent off with a 2CT for this type of behavior, but the other team wins the match on a DFK from 20 yards out, awarded due to a clear dive that can't be reviewed.

 

Just to show I'm not completely doom and gloom, you'd be had-pressed to find a better and more efficient use of VAR than this, in Portugal.

https://streamable.com/5pcgy

 

It's almost as if the whole world is slowly realizing that penalty and red card decisions are subjective, despite being told they are objective. Never saw this coming.

 

Having the player potentially in an OSP that close to you can be disorientating, particularly when the ball is also coming from the touch line you are on. In a lot of those situations, partly because a portion of the attacker's body is shielding the entire rest of the defense and partly because you have to physically move your head more, he can look offside even when he's not. I actually thought the second was "easier" (relatively speaking of course) because the penalty area boundary could help out. Either way, the VAR made sure both calls were correctly made and in a remarkably efficient fashion.

 

Not to pile on and undermine my position in another thread, but I'm sure PRO is asking the question of whether or not having a trial AR who recently moved from another country contributed to the failed communication here.

 

Good example of VAR help in HSV - Leipzig game just now. CR (Deniz Aytekin) called a PK, but took it back after VAR showed the Hamburg defender kicked the ball, which went over the Endline, and then stepped on the Red Bull attacker's foot which caused him to trip. Restart changed to Corner kick. All done with verbal communication - no CR reviewing the clip.
Sorry, no clip.

 

Here's a new result from the use of VAR:



Initially, this foul was whistled and a penalty was awarded. No card was issued per the new LOTG game clause that says stopping a promising attack in the penalty area is not cautionable if the foul was a result of an attempt on the ball.

VAR indicates the awarding of the penalty was a clear and obvious error. Referee does the OFR, agrees, and changes the decision to a DFK. But, because he has changed the decision to a DFK, the misconduct for stopping a promising attack is back in play and since the player in question was previously booked, he now gets the 2CT red card.

So 2CTs cannot be reviewed or issued, except when they can! I totally get and most here will obviously understand why the 2CT could (and needed to be) issued in this particularly case. But it's a nuance that will be lost on the vast majority of non-referee participants. The announcers and players understand it in this case, but will they understand it when an otherwise obvious 2CT cannot be given?

 

I'm going to choose to believe this is pro forma for legal reasons and that FIFA already knows full-well that it is using the same technology in Russia that its referees have used and trained on for over a year and used in live trials in at the U20s and Confed already. Because the alternative--that new technology will be introduced in December for trials (where there will only be 6 or 7 on-field referees and a similar number of VARs)--is cartoonish.