We just had a WC with what I thought was an acceptable level of involvement by VAR but this and the HOU-PHI game has me thinking we have too many chefs in the kitchen and I don't like what they are serving.
Absolutely fascinating clip/incident. Couple of things that clip highlights about VAR. 1) It really shows you just how lucky FIFA really got at the World Cup with VAR, especially in the knockout stages. As much as they basically didn't use VAR in the knockout stages there weren't that many incidents that occurred that actually put VAR in a bind and the use of it was almost mandated. Would a World Cup goal keeper do something like this? Probably not, but you have to think VAR intervenes if this play had at the World Cup. It's a clear double touch by the keeper as you are ever going to see. I think there might have been two or three goals the entire World Cup that would have qualified for reversal via APP. I don't think there were any in the knockout stages. It's not that referees got every foul call correct, it's more to due with the finishing. We've seen so many bizarre and unusual incidents with VAR in other leagues the past two years, that its really down to almost luck and a relative small sample size of 64 games that something unusal like this double touch didn't occur in the World Cup. 2) This shows you just how arbitrary the VAR protocols really are. If a goal isn't scored on the other end, VAR can not get involved here even though it's a pretty big miss and presents the opposing team with a great goal scoring opportunity. It's like missed second cautions. VAR can not intervene on plays where a referee misses a clear second cautionable except it can in certain cases. Only way is if a referee doesn't call a foul on a clear reckless or tactical foul and then a goal is scored the other way. Then VAR can intervene and referee can administer appropriate sanctions. Same thing with cautions for simulation. VAR can only administer cautions for simulation if a referee awards a penalty kick. If he doesn't or if the play occurred outside the penalty area, then VAR can not get involved. 3) Until this clip, goal keeper violations never really crossed my mind as review-able via VAR. They really are only in the event a goal is scored on the other end. So I guess my question would be where does VAR get involved when it comes to goalkeepers releasing the ball for a punt on the edge of the penalty area? Obviously, VAR only get involved if a goal is scored on the other end directly. It's rare, but it can happen. Every goal keeper in every game is practically straddling the line when they release a ball to punt it. If you look close enough most probably are handling the ball outside when they release it but no one ever calls it. It's the type of play that is really a factual decision. It's either over the line or not, so would VAR get involved in MLS is the question? Same thing with backpass violations. VAR can only get involved if keeper picks up a backpass and a goal is scored on the other end directly. So my question I guess would be what is the bar for clear and obvious for a backpass? Most of the time it is a judgement call so I think unless it is a blatant backpass where the goal keeper just forgets the rule, that VAR will side with the referee's decision when it comes to it meeting a backpass violation. 3) Can't wait when a goal keeper holds the ball too long and a goal is scored and then they annul it due to a 6 second violation!
Agreed. I think there were three non-foul calls in the APP that I believed could/should have ticked the clearly wrong box and led to goals being annulled at the WC. But they were consistently called and there were only three. Nothing bizarre or out extraordinary like this, though. Agreed and this is an excellent point. VAR didn't just annul the goal. It punished a technical infraction that got missed, which led to a goal at the other end. But if no goal had been scored, there would have been nothing to annul and no IFK would have been awarded. This will be a rare situation, but it is a real situation that highlights the arbitrary nature of VAR. Not to mention that if possession had been lost for even a split second, this wouldn't been reviewable despite the fact that the infraction would have had the same tangible impact on the goal in question. I think the bigger over-arching question is if whether PRO or IFAB believes there is room for "trifling" to apply here. I think my biggest problem watching this is that for the WC, we saw some pretty clear fouls (Belgium v Brazil comes to mind) not result in penalties because VARs exercised their discretion that a foul, to use that example, occurred when the player wasn't going to get the ball. Or APP fouls like in Brazil v Switzerland were deemed trifling. But this can't, because it's technical? So a technical violation that has no real impact on the goal being scored (save for the fact that an IFK could have been awarded if seen) results in a reversal. But some clear contact that helps goals get scored or result in borderline penalties don't. That's not something that people are going to like when it happens in a real game. So will be interesting to see how the powers that be view this. Is there a room, with VAR, for "technically right but practically wrong?" Or is the whole point of VAR to get everything technically right when it falls in the four buckets? That's a question that needs an answer.
I watched it live. It's also worth mentioning he made an announcement of the call that was supposed to be heard over the PA like officials after review in other sports.
Apparently MLS was trialling an NFL Style referee microphone to announce a VAR decision to the audience, but it had some technical difficulties.
There was an audible cheer from the crowd at the end so I do wonder if it was heard in the stadium, at least.
What your thoughts on this one from Brazil? Just from the LOTG, I've never found a good answer on if a careless charge within playing distance on the ball can be considered an attempt to play the ball? Or is something else at play here? After watching the video a bunch, I did notice at around 55 seconds on the video, you can see the defenders knee go into the attackers leg just before the upper body challenge. Is this enough to go yellow? https://globoesporte.globo.com/fute...s-e-anula-expulsao-em-bahia-x-palmeiras.ghtml
That’s interesting because you can see what they are showing the ref and it looks like they had to work to convince him to rescind the red. I personally don’t see any attempt to play the ball. I did think that was one of the most nonchalant administrations of a red card I’ve ever seen. No one on the field seemed to be calling for it and the way he gave it shocked the defense.
Nope. Producers didn't barely know how to operate it and never explained to the referee how to use it very well. The long delay was primarily due to Vokkero radios between referee crew and VAR booth not working. Back up handheld radio had to be used and using that delays communication further.
In my opinion, that call in the Homegrown Game was insane. I kept reading "APP" in this thread, and thankfully some poster expanded it: Attacking Phase of Play. How does that keeper distribution fall into that category?
The GK's distribution began the attack. The opponents never took possession of the ball from the time the GK gained possession until the time the ball was in the goal.
Couple of things here on this.....I don’t think that is trifling. At lower levels, yes, but at this level, the ‘keeper must know that once dropped he’s got to boot it away. The announce team says the opposing bench was looking for the call to be given. I know its not all about that, but if it’s that obvious, it’s no longer trifling in my book. Talking about the protocol here, what happens if the referee said to them, “I saw it, it was trifling, play on” ? Is that a problem? And lastly, what was going on with his positioning on the IFK?
Are you hypothesizing a different scenario? The referee in this situation had turned his back to sprint up-field anticipating a long goalkeeper distribution and counter attack. He did not see the goalkeeper infraction at all, contrary to what the announcers say about him waving playing on. He did no such thing. But yes, the entire Tigres bench was up and giving the 4th an earful.
??? Why? Are you referring to the 6 seconds rule? That rule is about keeping it in your hands for more than 6 seconds. Afaik, the goalie can drop the ball and start walking=dribbling for as long as he wishes with the bal on his foot, as long as he doesnot pick it up again. If the opponent doesnot attack him he can walk all the way to the opposite box or wander around in his own box.
Whether or not Rivas saw it in real-time, his AR saw it and deemed it trifling (or, alternatively, botched an obvious call). And, if Rivas conducted an OFR (you would know this, obviously; I can't tell from the highlights package) he would still have the opportunity at that point to say "thanks, but that's trifling to me." So to @Rufusabc 's question, in the match itself, other than Tigres continuing to go ballistic and the whole host of problems associated with that growing, nothing would happen. The CR would be within his rights to say "thanks, but no thanks." However, that's the rub. The VAR is only sending it down if he thinks the referee is clearly wrong or missed a major incident. So now you have two qualified officials saying two completely opposite things and PRO would, post-game, decide who was right. Being a CR who rejected a correct intervention is a lot worse than being a VAR who made an ill-advised intervention. So such a move from the referee is very risky. But as we've seen both in MLS and the World Cup, it's allowed.
What? No, I’m not referring to th six second rule. I’m saying that if he drops the ball, he can no longer pick it back up.
As far as the AR, I think that falls under the no way in hell am I ever putting my flag up for that category rather than trifling Think back to USA v Jamaica in the Gold Cup. Correct decision? Sure. Fair and within the spirit? Hell no.
Man, that is a tough one. Would love to know if any of the on field referees (especially the fourth with all the yelling being in his direction) said anything that could have triggered VAR to keep looking? If the opposing bench wants the call, how much does it actually influence the ref team to move away from the trifling aspect?
Right, I agree. Which highlights the whole crux of why this is uncomfortable for some: the introduction of VAR will change the way the game is officiated. If PRO likes the outcome here, the AR's disposition has to go from "no way in hell I'm calling that" to "well, I'm going to look like an absolute idiot if VAR has to intervene here, so I guess I'm calling that." Then again, given the arbitrary nature of when VAR could intervene on a play like this (only when a goal is directly scored), maybe it doesn't change the AR's disposition. Of course, that then further highlights the arbitrary nature of VAR!
Nothing new here — sounds like at least once per game in my high school duals. And no snappy comebacks on the "qualified" part of that, please.