There is a lot of wisdom in the above post. And I hope FIFA and the IFAB take heed of Italy v Sweden. Because for every match like Northern Ireland v Switzerland where VR might (or might not) correct a mistake, there is a match like Italy v Sweden where the use of VR would make things, much much worse. Mateu Lahoz isn’t getting out of Milan alive if he has to use VR with a “clear and obvious” standard. Because while four penalties were probably committed, only one and maybe two total were certainly clearly and obviously wrong (and both would have gone to Sweden). So you get more controversy. You get less justice. More dissent. And you probably slow the game down if you do any OFRs. VR would have made that game worse and memorable for all the wrong reasons. The Italy v Sweden match, perhaps ironically, is the poster child for either severely limiting the use of VR or eliminating it altogether except for offside, identity and boundary decisions (and even then you’d have to have limitations to those cases).
I don't think anyone's wrong in this discussion, but I still look at Henry's infamous handling and think "in this day and age the game has to be able to catch that". Maybe the solution isn't VAR, maybe its endline assistants, but I can't accept doing nothing to help catch things like that.
You're right, of course. And the Henry handling, probably more so than any incident, helped really hasten the push for VARs. It was clearly cheating and it was only allowed because the referee team couldn't see it. So how do you design a system that sticks to "objective decisions" but then also stretches to include things like the Henry handling? You could say that all goals are reviewed, just as scoring plays in football are automatically reviewed (and just as they are, now, under VR). But then limit VR to only goals. This sounds like a good bet to me, but there are three problems. The first is that now you are only using review to take goals off the board (I suppose people would get over that). The second is that you'd have to define how far back you could go before the goal (which VAR protocols try to do with the APP dictate) and that becomes arbitrary. The third is that, even with this standard, something like deliberate handling that leads to a goal will be subjective. So even by restricting reviews to goal-scoring plays, in the hopes of preventing future Henry hand balls, you still need to set a line on what the standard is for intervening. And that's why IFAB has "clear and obvious" error. Maybe you come up with some sort of hybrid where reviews can only be initiated on goal-scoring plays but, once the review is initiated, the referee is allowed to determine if he would have called anything differently immediately prior to the goal, since the attacking team gained possession. Throw "clear and obvious" out the window and actually expand the referee's ability to overrule himself but severely limit the opportunities when he can do it. So you're opening things up to "re-refereeing" and letting referees make the call they would have made, if they saw things correctly, but you're severely limiting the opportunity for video review. This would, of course, mean no reviews for DOGSO, SFP or VC (unless one of those things happened in the run-up to a goal that is getting annulled). And "clear and obvious" penalties would not be called. So in no way would this make everyone happy or eliminate big controversies. But it would get rid of injustices that lead to goals.
Most in/out decisions, sure, but then you have examples like the missed ball out of play leading directly to an early goal in MLS Cup 2015 which completely changed the complexion of the match.
But the thing is an Henry or Maradona type incident is so rare that the negatives of VR far outweigh the benefits of correcting that incident. At least for me it does. It's simple math. Is it worth having a system that can correct a once every 20 to 30 year incident, but also cause a lot more problems and headaches than it solves? Is the tradeoff of what it will do on a week to week basis worth correcting something that might happen every 20 years? Look at VAR in MLS this year. How many incidents did it really fix or correct where you left yourself saying "wow, that's really bad, they need to get that right?" How many times did you say "thats terrible, they must give that penalty or red card?" For me, not that often and the couple of times it did happen they either reviewed it and didn't correct the mistake or didn't review it at all. Which is why I'm convinced that this system isn't worth having on a week to week basis in your domestic leagues. I do think it can possibly work at a major tournament like the World Cup or a major Final like the CL Final. The tradeoff on those events and games is potentially worth it. At the end of day, those are the games where careers are defined for players and referees. Missing a handling on a goal in July in Dallas is not gonna define or scar a referees career.
But those are so unusual they really don't drive the value of VAR. I can't think of a second example. (If we have VAR it should be part of it, as it is objective and suited to VAR, but I don't think it ads to the argument in favor of having it in the first place.)
In theory, VAR would only be used/needed for items like the Henry handball, Maradona's Hand of God goal, cases where the referee called handling for a penalty kick but it really hit the player in the side or back, for obvious off the ball violent conduct (i.e. the elbow 20 yards behind the play that no one else saw), and finally for mistaken identity. Unfortunately, we are seeing that the scope of VAR is beyond that. I still think goal line assistants are a better use of an advanced officiating tool than VAR. Goal line assistants should spot the penalty area items I listed above, and six officials should be able to spot off the ball VC and help identify the right person for a card. Major tournaments and leagues (World Cup, Champions League, EPL, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, Ligue 1) can add goal line technology.
I disagree. AAR's have been in use for quite some years now and although the calls that they are completely useless have died down the last few years they haven't had an significant impact on the amount of missed/incorrect/controversial decisions in the penalty area. And they have no effect on offside calls which, among fans at least, is one of the most popular situations to use video reviews on.
It seems like, from what I've seen, Australia has used VR most liberally. This clip is interesting. On the one hand, yes, the "right" call is made here. On the other, this is one of those where, historically, the LOTG-correct call is never made. So the use of VARs is literally game-changing. Will this be a red and a penalty kick in the World Cup Final? If it is, great. If it's not, we've done nothing but add another layer of subjectivity: https://streamable.com/v3wqa
I'll disagree slightly. If this was simply a foul then yes, those are never called when the upended player have already made, and missed, the shot. But I think the red card quality of the challenge changes that slightly. Well tbh, VAR's are meant to look at decisions that are of the subjective kind so no matter how high you set the "clear and obvious" bar it will be an extra layer of subjectivity. It's a part of the premise of VAR's.
Two VAR decisions from the same match in Belgium. Correct decisions arrived at; dissent, um, not quelled: http://www.belgianfootball.be/nl/nieuws/var-speeldag-17-jupiler-pro-league
Haven't we seen at least one high-profile goal miss with the AAR standing right there? I've also never seen an AAR make any difference with respect to PK decisions, but it could be that I just don't see enough games where they are used. The penalty area is still a free for all. It's still the human element involved. And humans make mistakes. And at the highest levels those humans have been filled with all sorts of directives from a higher authority. And they're apparently supposed to be "producing a spectacle" instead of applying rules to a sporting contest. My issue with VAR has been the wild inconsistency from match to match and within matches. It hasn't done much to really improve things. And I agree that they could really do themselves a favor by having some one explain the rationale behind the various decisions and non-decisions since everyone else is totally in the dark. Maybe these sorts of decisions are just impossible to consistently decide. The NHL's laughable replay experience and the various issues the NFL still has with their video reviews that no one agrees with at least half of the time have pointed it out as well...even with things that seem objective.
So, I have some experience with 'replay.' As I've probably mentioned more times than anyone wanted to hear, I also officiate track & field. For the last several years, I've been the head official at the NCAA D1 national championships for long jump/triple jump. I have to judge whether the athlete stepped across the foul line as they took off for their jump. With the speed and power of these athletes, that foot isn't in that position for very long, a small fraction of a second. The NCAA now gives me a technological back up. There is a camera under my chair and a service provider (i.e. non-official) sitting next to me with a laptop. If I choose, I can look at an imagine on his laptop of the foot as it hit the board. Coaches who disagree with my decision can file a protest (for $50 of their school's money), in which case the field events referee looks at the video and makes the decision. In two years of using the technology, I've had two protests (both on the same event, about three jumps apart!) The referee ruled against the protest when he showed the video on a big screen. The second protest was "He looked at the screen!" It wasn't even that my decision was wrong, just that I double checked. The referee said, "That's what he's supposed to do. Protest denied." In that situation, I have the distinct advantage that I can take five seconds and look at the video before I raise either the white flag or the red flag. Nobody has ever complained that it was taking too long before I made my ruling. On the other hand, even though the NFL has the advantage of plays with defined starts and stops, people still complain that video review interrupts the flow of the game and just leaves all but a couple of people in the stadium sitting there, waiting to hear an answer. Replay/VAR will increase the accuracy of our decisions. It will not eliminate inaccurate decisions, however, which most of the arguments for it will not admit. So what percentage increase in accuracy/justice will justify the time required to get that justice? As others have said, even if accuracy improved to 100% with VAR, would the delays still be worth it? For some people, yes. For most people, I think, it depends on the length of the delay. Discussion of what topics can be/should be reviewable really comes down to who's making the final decision. The referee or the VAR? You could definitely improve the speed problem by letting the VAR override the referee! But going down that path will inevitably lead to a situation in which the FIFA Referee Committee collectively is the VAR for the World Cup final. And I don't think anybody wants things to get to that point! As my now deceased pastor said, "God so loved the world that he didn't send a committee to save it." The pressure for VAR, IMHO, comes more from coaches than spectators. Coaches know that their job is on the line, constantly, so they feel that even one bad call can send them to the unemployment line. Just ask your average college coach! But the cost of getting it righter is borne by the spectators, who had to wait and waiting isn't enjoyable, especially when it isn't usually quite long enough for them to go get a beer.
That's true but IMO that is partly, if not mainly, down to the VAR procedure. For some decisions, like the second one in that match, where play continues and VAR brings it back to a missed incident/decision then you have to expect that it will take some time and be some confusion and I think most, even the players, accept that. But for some decisions, like the first one in the match, where play is stopped for a decision I think referees and VAR's will have to adjust and give it a few seconds before giving the decision. It might look a bit messy but the current way of making and changing the decision is a lot messier, especially as those directly affected, the players, doesn't get the additional information the VAR uses. I can understand, even if I don't like it, that the players try to add their "input" into the proceedings.
I meant GLT with AARs is superior to VAR. I stand by that statement as well as yours stating that VAR is inconsistent.
I'm also with you. Given what we have seen with VAR, I don't think we'll ever really see a clear line drawn where we will be able to address "clear and obvious" missed calls. Another exhibit of this was with the MLS Cup final yesterday. There just wasn't a camera angle that clearly and obviously showed Altidore was offside, even though I personally thought he was slightly offside. Even with Hawk-eye technology, would we really have been able to identify if Altidore was truly offside? I'd rather have a goal-line assistant that can help with plays like what we saw in Liverpool-Everton today (although with the angle of that play, an AAR might not have provided a lot of help) and should be able to identify major issues like the Henry handling goal, the Maradona Hand of God goal, and (with GLT's help) goals like the England-Germany 2010 World Cup goal.
Lot of news or incidents related to VAR over the past few days, so here's a news dump: 1) England has said they will trial VARs from the 3rd round of the FA Cup onward. VAR will also be used in the League Cup semis and finals. This follows an earlier announcement that the 2018-2019 season is the target date for introduction to the EPL. 2) France will use VARs in Ligue 1 next season. With France and England moving toward using VARs in their top domestic leagues, you'd think that's further evidence that VARs are here to stay. Well, at the same time... 3) http://www.insideworldfootball.com/...y-takes-another-hit-trust-video-refs-waivers/ 4) The above article is one of the only ones I've found in English, but if you search news for "IFAB" and "VAR" and use the translate function, it becomes clear the IFAB recently had a workshop and with participants from countries involved in the experiment and that it has its doubts. There is some confusing reporting, however. I've read that the IFAB wants "clear mistake" changed to "clear and obvious mistake," but that doesn't seem like a change based on what we've already been told in the US. Also read that the IFAB wants incidents shown on the big screen for transparency, but they cite the US and Australia as good examples. Germany, in particular, has apparently been singled out for over-reliance on VARs. The bottom line seems to be that the IFAB has some of the same reservations everyone else seems to have. I still think there's no way the IFAB stops FIFA from using VARs at the World Cup, but it does sound like there is at least some doubt now. That has to be one of the top reasons that FIFA didn't name VAR specialists for the World Cup, yet.
And there have been some good incidents to show the confusion and lack of consistency with VR. First, Irmatov did not deem this clear and obvious SFP, despite his VAR thinking so: https://streamable.com/fjqf2 Second, in Australia, two SFP cards were given in this match, starting at 1:42: Now, you can defend either approach. The Australian approach seems to be "in a classroom, that's a 100% red, so even though it's defensible that I missed it in real-time, that's a red card." The Irmatov approach, I surmise, is "it's defensible that I missed this and it's not at the level of force where the whole world instantly thought it was a red card, so I'm only going yellow." You can defend either approach. But you can't defend both. And that's the problem. Because how do you ensure you have only one uniform approach in a competition or league? For a bonus, the overturning of this penalty decision in Poland took forever: https://streamable.com/jpvhe
This video shows the full review of the first red card in Australia. Watching with volume is interesting. The commentators rightly point out that the opposing team didn't even want the red card:
Looking at that and listening to the commentators taking about it, it seems as if the referee is looking at the incident in slow motion. If so, that would seem to go against the intent of the IFAB protocol which says that, "in general, slow motion replays should only be used for “point of contact” for physical offences and handball; normal speed should be used for the “intensity” of an offence ..." Although not stated as such in the protocol, I think we all know that this is because, as the commentators point out, things always look worse in slow motion.
Another good clip from Australia. Yellow card for UB upgraded to red for VC, via VAR. A couple things are interesting here. First, in Australia they seem to be sticking to the letter of the protocol where a decision needs to be made on-field first regarding misconduct, including the showing of the card (yellow, in this case) before the VAR steps in. You'll note, particularly listening to the commentators, that in this instance, that is messy. As the commentators note, play is stopped for the conference so why can't the VAR just say "it's a red" since he's already looking at the replay and knows it should be red? The answer, of course, is that the VAR can only intervene on a clear and obvious error and if the referee hasn't made a decision on misconduct, he hasn't yet made an error. Good idea in principle, but it does lead to messy situations like this. I believe in some other competitions, the referee avoids showing the card initially and says something to the VAR like "I'm going with a yellow (or red), is that a clear and obvious error?" That might be cleaner, but it would reduce the transparency in the decision-making process. The second interesting thing is that I believe (though expect to be corrected as I'm probably just remembering incorrectly), Australia is the first place where a VC red card has been given solely on the input from the VAR and not by the referee doing an OFR. So that part of this process was actually more efficient:
This is the one part of VAR that has been troublesome for me. Similar to the NFL. NFL is already consulting HQ for the correct call. Why can we not speed up the process by having HQ radio in while he's on the field and say "hey, this is the call". As with VAR, why is the VR not making the call and radioing to the CR to speed up the entire process? Maybe the answer is obvious. I just am not sure what it is.
Well, right now the answer is because VARs can only intervene if an apparent clear and obvious error has occurred. If the referee has not yet rendered a decision, the VAR cannot intervene because no error has yet occurred. Honestly, what you see in the above video is about as fast a VC card can be issued via VR, given the established protocols. The minute the yellow is pulled, the referee is getting input and then he shows red to the same player, without ever going to consult the monitor (which is required in most competitions, it seems, right now). If we reach the point where the referee is just consulting the VAR and saying "something happened, tell me what the decision is or walk me through what occurred" (or something similar to that) then we've reached the rugby TMO standard. And then we've fundamentally changed the game. Right now, the VAR just helps correct errors--he does not actively referee the game.
- I thought the referee's signal for using VAR was going to be a hand signal indicating a box (TV). Instead it seems to be a lull in play (Why is everyone just standing around?) followed by the referee sticking his finger in his ear. - The review of "play leading to a goal" is vague and sometimes ridiculous - goal disallowed due to an incident 80 yards from the goal (MLS); goal disallowed due to a shoulder charge (looked legal to many on replay), leading to a ball won, leading to a cross, leading to a goal (Bundesliga). - Soccer fans are used to looking at the AR to see if his flag is up on goals where offside looks possible. Now fans have to look around to see if the referee has his finger in his ear, then wait for goal to be signaled. This sucks fun out of the game for the fan. - Hypothetical question: Home team crosses the ball. Home team attacker shoves away team defender causing him to head the ball across the end line. Home team scores off ensuing corner kick. According to MLS and Bundesliga VAR procedures, can the shove before the corner kick be reviewed to disallow the goal?