Which is why VAR uses the first frame in which contact is made with the foot to determine offside and not the frame in which it left the foot.
Another interesting game from Poland. The big issue with this game I have is that the referee seems to be really not positioning himself well and was just in general lazy. He also had VAR bail him out three times. i wonder if would be doing as poor of a job if he didn't have VAR for that? This is the type of situation we all thought we would get but were hoping we wouldn't. Also curious about your opinions on all 3 counts and whether the referee is somewhat justified in missing them, and the handling - is that deliberate? Explanation? https://streamable.com/3uklv - first is the handling offence. https://streamable.com/lieiy - penalty for a stamp which I think could be easy to miss but yeah, it's a clear and obvious error I think. https://streamable.com/yrzok - this one I am totally baffled as to why not the AR and not the R are even getting a foul on this. No foul called and VAR makes it a red. This looks a really bad miss.
1. AR should be able to help get this 3. AR likely looking at offside line, and it is a bit of an odd collision in a way referees are likely not expecting, but maybe fourth can help
I can't speak for all countries/leagues/VAR services but many modern HD broadcasters use higher frame rates than that. 48 or 60 is common and some go higher with 100 or even 200 in some cases.
So, I had my first in-stadium VAR experience this afternoon. It's frustrating, draining, and nobody has ANY idea what's going on until after the fact. In one case, a goal was scored, ~30s of celebrating and moving back to their own halves, etc. At that point, the referee put his finger to his ear for the VAR review. This, unless you're looking for it, is a non-obvious thing for fans in the stands. The review took another ~60s to determine if a player was offside. At the end of that, the referee ran 40m down the field to the point of the offside, and crossed arms to say "no goal" and put his arm up in the air. Suffice to say, it may have gone smoothly on TV with the replays, but with no replays now being allowed in stadiums with VAR... again, nobody in the stadium had a clue what was going on, and it was not a smooth experience in any way whatsoever. I REALLY hope that the suggested changes for the World Cup help, but I have far less faith in the process than I did previously.
Last night at Minnesota United a similar delay occurred. Minnesota scored a go ahead goal and the teams lined up for the kick off. Unkel stood next to the center circle with the dreaded finger to the earpiece for an extended period of time. Eventually he gave the video review signal and trotted over to the sideline. It wasn’t clear at all what the issue was. Possible interference with a defender after the shot? A foul in the lead up? I don’t think routine offside was in play, but sitting in the stands there is no way to know. As Unkel peered at the screen several players lurked at the periphery trying to figure out was was going on. AR2 (Klinger, I think) came over and he and Unkel talked briefly and looked at the screen together. Finally Unkel pointed at the circle and the game went on. That turned out to be the winning goal so the local fans were happy.
Sounds like it was a potential offside for interfering with an opponent. Since that's not a purely factual decision, the referee is required to go to the monitor and is recommended to bring an AR along. That said, if he didn't overturn the call the VAR probably should not have recommended a review.
From Qatar, a new entry in the contest for "how clearly not wrong can a clearly wrong decision be?" Start at 6:09 and watch for a bit. Stay to the end if you want additional fun.
Exactly. What would possess a VAR to send that down and then, once sent down, what would possibly justify a CR giving that penalty? I know everyone is getting extensive training and everyone will have done at least one tournament with VARs (so, to be clear, that means a single match for most referees). But when you look at the roster of 36 referees for Russia, only five of them will have had regular week-to-week experience with VARs (and that's if you presume Marrufo is working on-field). Geiger, Marrufo, Rocchi, Marciniak and Brych. That's it. Kuipers and Turpin have had decent experience because some of their domestic cup matches have used VAR. A few of the CONMEBOL guys will have had a couple extra matches due to the continental competitions experimenting with VAR. But there will be only five (and maybe just four) CRs who have worked with this long enough to plausibly claim true familiarity and comfort. Think about some of the kinks we see in situations where this is first in use. Hell, despite it going "well" in MLS, we still see issues on a week-to-week basis. The theoretical just don't translate to the practical. You're throwing 31-32 referees into the biggest games of their lives and telling them to use a system they haven't used on truly competitive matches more than 1-3 times each.
Nice. I especially love the "lets run after the player waving the yellow and red cards in the air" touch at the end. So he gave a PK and sent off not one but two players for something he looked at in review, something that wasn't even a foul. The WC is going to be a shambolic mess, isn't it?
That's all part of the same incident! Look at the time stamps. He gives the penalty after VAR referral around 95:00. He then cards Xavi for coming on the field as a substitute. He then goes back to send him off with a 2CT in the 100' and the penalty still hasn't been taken yet. One can only imagine what was happening in the intervening four minutes. It's a disaster even when you ignore the VAR issues. But the presence of VAR is what makes this all possible.
FIFA should just hope that it's VAR disaster (if it's only one) occurs in a meaningless group stage match.
At my house, we had cut the cord a while ago on DirecTV and the various sports packages - just not watching enough to make the $$ worth it - and I usually go to my local soccer bar when I need to catch a televised match of interest (Everton, of course). That being said, this WC will probably be worth buying a livestream package, just to see how VAR works......and when the Russians go out in the group stage as a result of a VAR review, that will be even more entertaining.
Not to hijack the thread, but I cut DTV a couple years ago and have been very happy with PS Vue ever since. I'm able to record and watch more soccer now that I ever could with DTV. Give PS Vue and try and see how you like it. The good thing is that it's month-to-month so you're able to try it out without a huge commitment.
Between VAR and the current political situation involving Russia, among many other things, part of me is actually glad the U.S. didn't qualify. I can sit back and watch the unfolding disaster with no vested rooting interest in any one team.
Back in Poland, VAR saves the referee (Pawel Gil, who just got named to be a World Cup VAR himself) from awarding a pretty terrible penalty, but not for the reason you'd expect: https://streamable.com/o4itk On the one hand, that's exactly why the VAR is there. On the other, if this ball hadn't crossed the goal line first, the penalty would have stood despite how poor of a decision it was. And that's the part of VAR that WC fans are not going to understand and not accept. I honestly think the debacle in Russia isn't going to be because of the VAR intervening to give a non-existent penalty like in the Qatar example. I think it's going to be a situation where the VAR doesn't prompt the reversal of a penalty or a red card that "everyone knows" is wrong. Or, it might be a combination of one match getting such a reversal and then the next match not getting one. Consistency of application is going to be the biggest test for FIFA. And I think there's very little chance it gets passed.
Polish Cup Final today, VAR red for a really brutal foul. The video should work, it's the first video on the website http://www.polsatsport.pl/wiadomosc...-arki-szymanski-moze-mowic-o-szczesciu-wideo/ While obviously no questions about the decision and all that, but I am wondering about something. Does going to VAR in this case mean that the referee wasn't going to go with a red? Could it have also meant that he thought it was a red but wanted to be sure? That wouldn't be with the protocol, but is it possible that it's just happening like this? It looks really bad, but I guess he could have also been far away from it so not seeing it and would have gone with a yellow?
I thought protocols were consistent that the R is supposed to make the call on the field before going to VAR. So I think the answer is clearly that he was not going red from what he could see on the field--indeed, if he was there was no reason to look, as the VAR would certainly not have been telling him it was an error to give send off the player on that play. So I *think* he was giving nothing. Because I *think* if he was giving a caution he should have done that before going to the video. But perhaps I'm wrong that showing the card on the field is the proper protocol everywhere. (The perp looks like he was expecting the red.)
There's a couple possibilities. At the 47 second mark of the video, it looks like he could be signalling "throw in" right before it cuts to a replay. If that's the case, he may have completely missed the severity of the contact and thought it occurred after the ball had gone out of play and his on field decision was throw-in and no card. [Of course a yellow/red card is always available even with the throw-in restart] The other option is he knew it was a possible red card and told the VAR his opinion and was looking for confirmation. It wouldn't be the first time that a referee has at least appeared to wait for VAR to give him the information before showing any card. I don't see how this matches the protocol and it opens up the crew to a few problems. Imagine if this was not the 100% red card that it was, but was more in the orange or light red card area. If the ref still goes red after looking at the video and not originally showing a yellow card, it opens up the accusation that the referee used video to make his original decision and not that the referee used VAR to overturn a clear and obvious error (which would have been "no card").