VAR in Review

This could be some sort of confirmation bias since we only see the bad moments from England, Germany, Portugal, etc., but VAR in MLS seems to be running noticeably smoother. Maybe this is just an illusion, but I think a lot of credit has to go to Howard Webb for getting this thing going and working out many of the kinks.

 

It was 104 players.

I saw that statistic and I was a bit surprised by the margin. I think it speaks to how relatively limited the use has been in MLS so far and possibly how little players notice when valid incidents fail to get reviewed in matches they are not participating in.

Still, given what seems to be unpopularity in the European domestic leagues that use it, it's a good number if you're Howard Webb and PRO.

 

I'll give FIFA credit for going all in for the World Cup. 4 VARs per match with extra camera angles for offside. Plus a liaison to communicate with broadcasters and graphics for in stadium. I'm sure we will still have moments that make an absolute mockery of the system, but A for effort.

 

The liaison is an interesting touch and obviously stems from the complaints many have lodged about lack of transparency and communication.

The fourth VAR is very interesting. If FIFA is essentially saying it needs four referees to properly run a VR system, what is that saying about the domestic competitions that have one or two VARs? Also, assigning of these VARs is going to be fascinating to watch. FIFA deliberately went to fixed trios in WC 2006 precisely to ensure smooth communication. The pairing of VARs with on-field referees and the partnering among the four in-booth VARs have huge implications on communication, particularly with a system that people are still learning and experimenting with. Four VARs might be about providing a fail-safe, but it also could be a situation where there end up being too many cooks in the kitchen.

 

So, apparently, in international matches with Elite referees, stepping on the foot of an opponent who is already going down and has given up possession of the ball is going to be enough to constitute a "clear and obvious" error. Except, of course, when it's not.

2:07 of the video below. Imagine this being given as a penalty at the World Cup:



And, look, I understand by the letter of the law a foul call is justified or defensible here. No arguments from me and I wouldn't advocate a VAR overturning the call if a foul was given. But if that was given on the field, everyone would say it's soft and some might even argue the attacker was already trying to buy the penalty before he got touched (it's close). No one--except for the most partisan Italian fans--would be arguing for this to be called if it didn't get called.

The point here is that this seems impossible to justify as a clear and obvious error. Yet we're under 100 days until the World Cup and this is what we're getting in one of the few remaining trial matches that is under the auspices of FIFA, rather than a domestic FA. We're turning minor talking points into massive controversies.

 

I'd love to be in the room at the London Hilton where IFAB is doing it's VAR workshop including having the match referees from yesterdays match.

http://www.theifab.com/news/var-workshop-london-27-29-march-2018

Maybe I'm missing something, but FIFA/IFAB seemed to have dropped the "clear and obvious" standard and replaced it with "was decision clearly wrong?".

I can't find "clear and obvious" in any of the IFAB documents.

 

I think the Italy penalty is an example. Is it clearly a foul? Yeah it meets the definition of a careless foul. If you don't ask if it was an obvious foul, then it seems to lower the standard closer to what we've seen in these games.

 

I disagree with this interpretation. Not because your post isn't logical, but if this is what the IFAB wanted, it would mean they want all clear fouls that occur in the penalty area to be called. And the mantra around VR has been "minimum interference, maximum benefit."

My hunch is that the "is the decision clearly wrong" question has been formulated as a shorthand for referees to ask themselves. Taking the Italy penalty, that might be a clear foul on replay, but is the decision to not award a penalty clearly wrong? That's a different question if you accept the fact that not every foul gets called in our sport. And I could--and would--argue pretty forcefully that in our sport a decision not to award penalty for that incident is not clearly wrong. Of course, if you believe the point of VR and the VAR system is to get every major foul call correct, then the question's meaning is more like what you're asserting.

And round in circles we go.

Now that I type all that, I went back and found the protocols. And, guess what? This isn't a change at all. The first page said the referee should always ask himself "was the decision clearly wrong?"

http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/216/VAR_Protocol Summary_v1.0.pdf

I believe "clear and obvious" has been used in other documents or at media briefings. But from the first draft of the actual IFAB protocols, the actual question has been--and remains--"was the decision clearly wrong?"

 

<Insert mind control voice here>
According to the LOTG, all decisions by the referee are final and therefore correct. Any decision perceived to be incorrect where VAR got involved was only a test by the center referee to see if the VAR was paying attention. VAR is great. VAR is life. Bow before VAR.
</mind control voice>

 

China has recently integrated the VAR system. Lot going on in this match:

https://streamable.com/yesoj

VAR confirms the first penalty is not a clear and obvious error. Referee then--on his own and quite correctly--rules out a rebound based on encroachment.

VAR notifies the referee that the missed handling might be a clear and obvious error. Referee agrees, resulting in red card and penalty. This one is iffy for me based on the replay we see, but I trust they had another angle to be sure they got it right.

Third penalty is called by the referee and doesn't really need confirmation. This time, however, the rebound is ruled out for encroachment by the VAR, which can happen because it's an infraction that leads to a goal. This one is blatant and correct, so great job. But I wonder how literal the application is going to be on these sort of plays as VAR becomes more universal. Is one early foot in the penalty area going to be enough to negate a goal? Or is it going to have to be more "clear and obvious?" It's a question of whether or not encroachment is going to be subjective, as it really always has been in our game or whether it now becomes objective because we have the tool to make it so.

 

The encroachment is reviewable because it’s an infraction that occurs prior to a goal. Not because it’s a penalty decision. So, you’re right; this will negate goals without manufacturing more.

 

League Cup Final in France, two interesting situations with VAR.

This offside decision turned into a penalty. Correct decision and I like how Turpin used the Monaco captain to explain it, but it did take the VAR awhile: https://streamable.com/qt9br

The decision to disallow this goal for offside seems less like a clear and obvious error. Unless the VAR has a better camera angle and/or is using Hawkeye lines, I'm not sure how he arrived at this decision: https://streamable.com/a6dl7

 

I'm going to make the assumption that the foot of the goal scorer is the closest thing to the goal line, although it's not impossible that the head is millimeters closer, but it seems unlikely with his body position.

Since the ball is off the ground and it's difficult to draw the correct position of the offside line, I drew the red line level to the goal scorers foot. This means the ball needs to be to the right of the red line for the player to be offside. Since the red line goes through the plant foot of the attacker kicking the ball, and his other leg is certainly closer to the goal line than the plant foot, I don't see how this can be offside.

 

Better video of the penalty decision in France. Interesting that initially Turpin called the penalty, immediately changed his decision to offside based on the AR's flag, and then changed the decision back to penalty after prompting by the VAR:

https://streamable.com/78yu6

As for the disallowed goal, there's some suspicion or argument that it was disallowed for handling rather than offside, but Turpin did make the IFK signal, so that seems wrong, even though replays do show the ball hits the attacker's outstretched hand at one point after he heads it:

https://streamable.com/71ry5