There was confusion on this last year but the IFAB has been quite clear (and PRO has recently been very clear with its referees): the decision on misconduct, including the showing of the card, has to be made on the field first. The VAR can only correct a clearly wrong decision, therefore a decision has to be made. In this video, based upon what we see, the referee's decision was "no card." Now, I would imagine he would have had a very different decision if he didn't have the crutch of VAR to rely upon, so this illustrates one of the dangers of the system. If the referee goes "no card" in a situation similar to this in order to buy himself options but the VAR doesn't see a clear red card, you're left with nothing. And that's exactly why the IFAB, FIFA and everyone else is insisting that referees make a decision and communicate that decision on-field before VAR gets involved. The referee gets lucky here because the SFP is so obvious. That still doesn't mean he did things right, because he didn't. Also, the fourth should have intervened and been able to give this information in the first place. If the fourth insists on the red card, none of this happens.
I do wonder if the protocol wasn't being followed here. Like you said, PRO has been absolutely clear in the instructions that the VAR must not be involved prior to the initial decision being made on the field. We the observers should typically assume that all actions that would have been taken have been by the time the referee does the finger to the ear signal.
http://www.espn.com/soccer/australi...roversy-down-to-technical-failure-ffa?src=com This is a danger in relying too heavily on technology to "fix" errors. No reason this should have been missed in real time.
Look at the top of the image. There is another purple defender behind the line (I’m assuming you have the right frame here). The line is drawn incorrectly if you ask me. The issue of the VAR’s technical fallibility is another issue however. We’ve found that VAR is fallible even WHEN the tech is working correctly. Imagine if something like this happens in Russia! Maybe that’s why all the VARs will be in one central location.
At this point it’s going to be dumb luck if Russia goes off without a hitch. There are so many pitfalls. Technical. Protocol-based. Subjective. Match-to-match consistency. The World Cup is an officiating minefield in a good cycle and the hype around VAR vs the reality of its implementation is a disaster that almost certainly cannot be avoided.
My mistake. Combination of a LONG day and not the clearest image. I guess I was looking for a way to defend the decision.
It’s difficult with that look. And actually useless without video. I only assumed he was an attacker based off the story. Video is worth it. Turns out not only is he an attacker, but he is the one who wins the aerial challenge and is guilty of being offside. Wonderful red card at the end of the video, though.
This one just might be my favorite yet: French Cup Final. PSG scores. VAR suggests an OFR for deliberate handling in the run-up to the goal. CR checks the video, annuls the goal, awards Les Herbiers a DFK coming out. But if you watch the video, the attacker has had his left arm grabbed with two hands by his opponent and held back, to the point that the attacker's body essentially turns 90 degrees. The hold is deliberate. The hold is obvious. The hold is done with cynical intent. This was not a case where both players are holding each other, either--this was one-way in nature. The hold also most certainly prevents the attacker from getting to the ball. The hold is released just prior to the arrival of the ball and, once the arm is released, the momentum takes the attacker into the ball where he strikes it with his shoulder. If you want to argue that, at the last moment, the attacker realizes the ball is out of his reach and he deliberately handles, then fine--I won't argue back. But that doesn't change the fact that he was deliberately and cynically fouled immediately prior to that act. I can see using VR to decide the goal was scored from a pass that was handling, therefore you have to award the penalty. I could also argue this is a wash and the goal stands. I cannot fathom looking at this video and saying the totality of actions means PSG should lose a goal and Les Herbiers should get the ball. It's incomprehensible to me and a clear case of missing the forest for the trees. This was a Cup Final where the refereeing team used technology to turn a good result into a bad decision on something close to a technicality they felt compelled to to call. The Australian incident above was a Cup Final where technology failed and VAR couldn't save the officials on a call that--without technology--they might have had the guts to make in real-time. Two cup finals within a week (out of about 8, I believe, that will have VAR in the first half of 2018) with baffling or outright incorrect decisions due to VR.
Are we sure it is even handling? I have watched it several times and it looks like top of shoulder or near where arm and shoulder meet. I also loved the blatant elbow missed in the Australia Cup Final.
I have some doubts, too, but am willing to concede that--under normal circumstances--that area of the shoulder/arm deliberately striking the ball in such an overt fashion, particularly that close to goal, is going to get called handling. Whether that's right or wrong is a bigger question. I just can't get over a VAR and CR watching that video and not feeling a compulsion to call the blatant holding. It could not be more cynical or have a bigger effect on the attacker's ability to meet the cross. It's a penalty, it's right there on video, we have the ability to correct it, and... we don't. Not only that, we give the defense a free kick coming out.
I tend to agree. Was the referee clearly and obviously wrong to NOT call this handling? I don't think so. I think the clearer error is not calling the penalty (Which to be honest, I don't consider a clear/obvious error either). While watching, it took me a while to even figure out WHO had handled the ball. Seems harsh to me. No one would be griping if this didn't get called back. My mind wanders to a different, and I think equally important point. Imagine the psychological effect of the referee when the VAR gets in his ear. Essentially, he is being told "I think you've made a clear and obvious error." If I am being told that by a referee colleague, I'm sure I'll be inclined to believe him. When I go review my decision (I'm no psychologist, but this seems like a logical progression of events), I'll be looking for evidence to OVERTURN it, not to defend it. The impact will be to condition referees to always overturn their decision. Unless there's a strong/honest/open relationship between VAR and CR, I can see some real issues in that dynamic. Maybe I'm too cynical, but can't anyone else see this situation happening? In Russia, when VAR's and CR's will have little time to work together, I think this impact will be amplified. Imagine the following: CR (internal monologue): "The VAR sent this down to me. That means he thinks I'm clearly wrong. I better look close for any way to fix that error!" Another possible situation: VAR (internal monologue): "Since last time the ref didn't take my advice, I'm going to be super wary about sending him anything else!" Neither of the above situations is ideal! To me, this effect demonstrates how important it is that VARs are paired with referees and can develop a thorough working relationship.
My doubts were expressed for years before the experiment started. At this point I just try to stick to analyzing what's actually happening. We've seen some very clear good examples of how VARs and VR can help. When it's implemented efficiently and in the very narrow circumstances where it can be close to objective, it's a big help to referees and does a service to the game. Right now, I think the opportunities for application are too wide because too much subjectivity is involved, yet the push is going to be to expand them because some examples (like the corner kick decision in the Europa League) will lead to a conclusion that they are too narrow. That's a more long-term discussion. In the short-term, I also just think the application is nowhere close to uniform or consistent and that's going to cause a mess in Russia. We have a heightened sense of awareness here both because we watch more MLS and we talk more about refereeing matters. But we're walking into a World Cup that billions of people watch every four years, yet a tiny, tiny percentage of that group will have real familiarity with a concept that is fundamentally changing the game. And that idea extends to the players, team personnel, media and referees, too.
Remember the protocols. Is it a clear and obvious error to not call a handball here? Set aside your opinion for now and understand that the VAR felt so. So... Now that the review has started, everything is up for review, not just the item that triggered the review. In other words, while not calling the penalty may not be a C&OE, it is allowed to be part of what gets reviewed. And at this point, it's not a decision of whether it's clearly and obviously wrong - the Referee acts on what he sees in the video. In a way, we've gone from a "100% or not?" decision to a "51%" decision - i.e., "What is the call I would make on the field now that I've seen this?" The threshold for triggering the review is high, but once that has been met, the video is wide open for decisions. I think the crew got too narrowly focused on the handling aspect of this, to be honest. While the handling triggered the review, there is a lot to determine here - a potential pulling foul by the defender, a possible ball over the goal line, and what has been deemed to be a handball. To not look at all of these is a mistake for me.
Greg Vanney (Toronto FC manager) had more VAR complaints last night on Seattle's second goal. Here's the video: https://streamable.com/a33ej Here's the (section of the) frame as the pass is about to come through: This is (from what I recall) the fourth or fifth game that Vanney has had a complaint about the use of VAR in Toronto FC matches this season. Against Chicago a few weeks ago, a goal was called back for TFC on a rather similar play, and one was allowed for Chicago when a player in offside position appeared to interfere with an opponent (both of those examples were brought up in his post-game conference last night)
I would hope that between two national broadcasters that VAR had access to a better angle. From this one, I would lean towards offside, but I'm probably not overturning it if I'm the VAR. EDIT: After further review and realizing that his trail foot is exactly in line (from the perspective of the camera) with his leading plant foot, I'm actually leaning towards onside. But I still hope there was a better angle.
Agree this angle is very hard to judge - and looking at the AR he never hesitates so it would seem he believes it is onside all the way.
I'm still going onside with that image. Certainly not a clear and obvious error. You can see the grass line and the defenders foot is about four inches closer to the goal line. I don't see clear evidence that the shoulder is offside.
Despite what Howard Webb told us (and what the media has been parroting), "clear and obvious" is not the criteria. Clear error yes. And having said that, on yes/no errors (ie, was it in/out of the PA, was it offside position or not), those are "if it is, then it is", and these are the ones that require no OFR.
Lurk here often for info, and I thought based on a discussion here a while back that I understood the current offside rule when it comes to a defender playing a ball that ends up on the foot of an attacker who was in an offside position. But maybe I'm still confused...... Can someone explain whether the ref got it right in disallowing Martinez's goal? Thanks.
Here's my guess with the grass line. Could it be off a bit? Yes, but it's my best guess. Also, this image is a frame too late. If anything, the attacker was "more" onside the previous frame. I'm continuing to swing more and more towards onside.
Well...that's a tough question. We are currently discussing it in the MLS Ref forum. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/2018-mls-week-11-referee-discussion.2083317/