I see your point. But also there are just some things we don't expect or want ARs to ever flag. I think it goes back to them being linesman to a certain degree and not having any real authority in the past.
I was late into my second 110 degree turf HS dual yesterday. And I totally flamed out on direction of a free kick at the halfway line. Got the call right, the direction wrong. Partner bailed me out.
I don't know what the correct answer is for that play. I don't believe this falls under trifling. It's a clear technical violation. If this is trifling than you can make the case that most back violations will fall under trifling as well. For me the issue is this can only be corrected if a goal is scored on the other end. The point that MassRef is making, I think, is that where do you draw the line for involvement via VAR on technical violations like this? If you can get involved in this, can you get involved on ball moving on quick restarts? What about, as mentioned, can VAR get involved on goal keepers releasing the punt over the 18 yard line and leading to a goal? What about players entering the penalty area early on a penalty kick? It starts to fundamentally change the way the game has been officiated. There was a play earlier this year where a player crossed the half-way line early on a kick-off, intercepted the pass and almost scored a goal from the intercept. There were debate among PRO about whether VAR has the right to intervene on a play like that. It starts a dangerous and slippery slope.
Fair point. But isn’t that a giant step backward and undermining the integral role we’ve built up for ARs? It essentially means we are creating a new class of calls. It’s a call that’s fine if the referee calls and a call that MUST be called via VAR if missed, yet a call we want ARs to ignore. Doesn’t seem right. Puts the AR in the position of ignoring a potential KMI. We’ve spent two decades making sure ARs are making these sort of calls. It’s like we are giving VARs something to do by telling ARs not to do it. Doesn’t seem like progress.
I am not a replay enthusiast in any sport by any means. Therefore, I have not been proactive in reading the in’s and out’s about the implementation of VAR. I pose this question. If there had been ball in or out along goal line or touchline,and a goal for EITHER team occured after the ball was out (VAR review), would the ball be brought back out of the net?
You mean "out" for a goal kick or corner kick? Yes. If VAR confirms the ball was out of play prior to a goal being scored, then the goal would be annulled and play would be restarted accordingly (goal kick or corner kick). Not exactly sure how that relates to this incident, though. Ball out of play can objectively be determined and a ball out of play is never trifling.
Yes, of course. You can't go back 3 minutes to trigger such a review. Or even just prior to the most recent restart.
Yes I would say so. I'm not condoning it or agreeing with why or why not, just hypothesizing as to the how we are where we are. Ultimately, it doesn't apply to 99.9% of us anyway as we aren't using VAR so that's really two different debates on insist/assist. Personally, would you have raised the flag there on say, a DA/PDL/NPSL game knowing full well the referee had turned his back to sprint up field and did not see it at all? If you're CR, would you want your AR to do so for you? I think it's a fun call to debate both with and without VAR because it's so stupid and trifling of a situation, but in reality the GK completely goofed and it's the correct decision. It's not like there was a Tigres player immediately on him. He had time to clear the ball out with his feet. The two goal swing just makes it all the more interesting and dramatic.
This line from the VAR handbook (latest full version I could find on line is V8) has me a bit confused with this whole scenario. According to the handbook there are a few technical violations that are not match changing and if a goal is scored it cannot be reviewed. Sounds like they already have a loophole for the trifling calls.. If anyone has a link to the latest full protocol it would be appreciated. 5.2.1 What phase(s) of play can be reviewed? One of the aims of the experiment will be to establish for how long ‘before’ an incident play can be reviewed i.e. is there a point at which the review period can start? Equally, it will be important to establish how long after an incident a decision can be reviewed. 20/67 The Laws of the Game define the maximum period before and after an incident during which a decision can be changed because the Law 5 states that ‘the referee may not change a decision on realising it is incorrect (…) if play has restarted (…)’. This means that a restart decision cannot be changed once the game has been restarted e.g. if a corner kick is taken even if a goal results and TV replays show that it should have been a goal kick, the original goal kick/corner kick decision cannot be changed. The same is true for all restarts: throwin, free kick etc. If, after a reviewable incident, play stops and is restarted then no review is permitted (except for direct sending off offences). Whilst it might seem ‘unfair’ that a goal results from a wrongly awarded corner kick or attacking throw-in, if the corner kick/throw-in decision could be changed then logically a goal that resulted from an incorrect goal kick or a defensive throw-in would also have to be changed. As it would be wrong to wait for a goal to be scored before checking a throwin or corner kick (because this would lead to a great deal of frustration/anger from the players, team officials, fans etc. of the team that scored the goal) it would be necessary to review every goal kick, corner kick and throw-in decision in case a match-changing situation results. In addition, an incorrectly taken restart (e.g. ball moving at a free kick, foul throw-in etc.) which ultimately leads to a goal or penalty incident cannot be reviewed as this is not a ‘match-changing’ decision and it should be detected by the match officials. Within the limits imposed by the Laws of the Game, this protocol identifies restrictions on the period before/after an incident/decision which can be included in a review. These restrictions may be modified after the early testing phase and The IFAB might give a competition permission to use modified restrictions.
Honestly, if I saw that as the AR and then saw the Tigres' reaction, I'd feel compelled to say over the radio that the GK briefly dropped the ball but it was nothing. I think I would have actively encouraged my CR to play on there. And I would have felt absolutely fine about that because there was no threat for Tigres to pressure the GK--it was just a stupid flub that didn't affect anything. Tigres saw it, from 20+ yards away for the nearest player, and tried to buy the call. "Keep going, don't worry about it," seems like the right assistance from the AR and the right outcome to me. The problem, now, is that when such an incident leads to a goal in a VAR match, there's video proof that a technical infraction really happened and no one can use the trifling argument (unless, of course, we're told we can). So, as alluded to earlier, the aggrieved team can buy the call... but only when they concede a goal immediately. So should ARs be changing the way they call the game for the sake of consistency? Should they continue to ignore some trifling technical offences and just gamble that VAR doesn't need to be used? Or should "trifling" be a regular part of a VAR's calculus? Last season I got scoffed at for pointing out there were extra players on the field as a German team scored at the conclusion of a cup competition because the bench started celebrating way too early... not advocating such a scenario should result in a goal being called back, but where does the line get drawn on which clear LOTG violations can be written off as trifling by the VAR when a goal gets scored and which must be punished? Agree, 100%.
Remember that this wasn't a restart. VAR can't intervene for a foul throw, moving ball on a FK, or a player in the opposing half during a kickoff, but this was (in the opinion of the VAR) and clear and obvious error that occurred at the start of the APP which led to a goal. The VAR did not break any protocol here and was fully in his right to suggest an on field review.
Wait...did he decide that it is not even a foul after review? Also, shouldn't Cakir be in China by now?
This reminded me that during the WC I started wondering about the proper pronunciation of Çakır in Turkish, so I googled it and it turns out it's "shocker."
No, Cakir has unique body language and mannerisms, as we know. He's giving a "no, you're safe, it's only a yellow." signal. I thought so. Apparently he didn't pull the trigger yet.
Sure. And what if the attacker who "scored," instead of shooting, passed back to a midfielder and the ball circulated around for another 20 touches before finally going in the goal? What I'm saying is that the "attacking" phase of play does not begin with the toss to the center back, and its' a crummy definition of APP that would nullify this goal. Two things about this, though: First, these guys have RefTalk. The CR can miss this, because he's turning upfield, but if this second touch is going to be called, the AR should be involved in making the decision. He doesn't have to wiggle his flag, since these guys can discuss decisions. The other one is this: if the keeper were bouncing the ball, and it hit a divot and bounced twice, could he still pick it up? Does a bobbled ball count as "released"?
Maybe it's just a selection bias, but it seems like there is an increasing unwillingness to give a red 30+ yards from goal even when it meets the DOGSO criteria. And it doesn't seem to be a change in guidance either. The latest RAP/FUTURO videos all have similar plays as reds. In fact that have a much much lower bar for SPA and DOGSO than is actually applied in games.
So that mean's we'll see Cakir in the CL at least until December if he's not going to China yet. Or that Turkish Super Cup (I'm assuming that's what that match was) is kind of his going away present from Turkey. If he is to stay the entire 2018-2019 European season, will be interesting as to what kind of assignments UEFA give him. You have to think he's one of the contenders for the Europa League Final if he's here to stay for the entire season.
I think it just seems to be an increased unwillingness to give red cards for anything at the highest levels. Probably selection bias from watching the World Cup, but it seems that there seems to be trend at all levels of the professional game to give less cards. Which kind of makes sense if you look a the Laws themselves. Pretty much every change now is removing cautions for something. Whether it be making the VAR symbol, or the general trend of cautions disappearing for fouls in the penalty area unless it's DOGSO.