My apologies in advance if I'm misinterpreting your reply, but I think @Rocinante's post is relevant within the LOTG... (also thinking of newer referees reading this forum for guidance.) The "he was kicking at the ball" does not absolve a player who "kicks or attempts to kick, trips or attempts to trip, strikes or attempts to strike", etc. an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force. "Attempting to ____" also has a broader meaning. It can certainly include near misses during careless/reckless acts including unsuccessful efforts to play the ball... Even when a player does "get a foot on the ball", it does not absolve true fouls/misconduct committed while doing so (contrary to what some players/fans believe...). Perhaps the point (as tomek75 also indicated) was whether it was "PK worthy" or not at a particular level. If so, the game in question and VAR intervention limits are above my experience, thus I'll just sit that one out.
If someone acted recklessly, I could certainly see calling it. You could also have endangering an opponent. Very hard to call a legitimate attempted play on the ball "excessive force" without contact (maybe in a very rare instance). But careless is very difficult. If the ball wasn't there, and he just attempted to kick the player, yes you could call it. But if the ball was present and despite missing the ball, the kicker is actually showing care by not making contact. Hard to call this careless.
Like many key terms in the LOTG, "attempt" is not defined. The general English definition is along the lines of "make an effort to achieve or complete" or "to try to do something, especially something difficult." That is easy to see where there is intention--I try to kick the opponent and miss, I swing my elbow viciously but the opponent ducks, or I make a lunge to trip the opponent running past me and he jumps over the effort. But what the heck does it mean when you glue careless and attempt together? I don't think it really means anything--hence PIADM exists where the careless play that doesn't result in contact becomes an IFK but would have been striking or kicking if contact was made. I'm inclined to think that to go with "attempt," the referee must have some indication that the player was trying to do the kick/strike/trip. But there is another potential foul that can come into play. A careless tackle or challenge is a foul in and of itself. And there is no requirement of contact, just a tackle or challenge that is careless. So it may be that analytically the best way to get to a foul where there is an effort that unfairly causes the opponent to avoid contact and the opponent successfully does so is to simply conclude that it was a careless challenge. (Side query: if that is correct, might careless challenge subsume many cases of PIADM and turn them into DFKs? Nothing perfect here.)
We're off the VAR reservation,but... I've always wondered what a "careless attempts" foul would be. To start, I don't think you can equate it with PIADM. PIADM requires (the verbiage in the LOTG has "and includes") preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury. That is very specific. Honestly, I think the "attempts to" language is in there mostly (and perhaps entirely?) to cover premeditated misconduct that doesn't make contact. If one player attempts to punch another and misses, it's VC. Making sure "attempts to" is written down means it's also a DFK/pen, rather than an IFK. The only scenario I see where "attempts to" comes into play for a careless trip or whatnot is when a player blocks another's path by stretching for the ball, misses the ball and opponent, but causes his opponent to hurdle him/stumble and consequently lose possession of the ball. Theoretically, that's a foul. But without physical contact, has the player technically "tripped" his opponent? That's up to a semantic debate, but the "attempts to" clause gives the referee cover. That's really the only narrow instance where I think "attempts to" comes into play as a non-misconduct offence. Remember, though, that the "attempts to" language in Law 12 predates the inclusion of "challenge" and "tackle" as penal fouls by more than two decades. So while this is a good answer now, it doesn't get the root mystery of why "attempts to" was included and what it was supposed to mean--if anything--for careless fouls. Back to the initial point in the Real Madrid foul, there's just no way the game at-large accepts that a non-contact foul should result in a penalty here, particularly given the jump/exaggeration of the attacker. I don't know if there were other angles for the VAR or not, but no matter what this is a tough one. I suspect the VAR concluded there was some contact (or, perhaps, that proving "no contact" was impossible) and, as such, it was not clearly wrong to call a penalty. But fans won't like that and they particularly don't like that when it benefits a big team. VAR has completely changed the game, yet it hasn't changed anything in a lot of ways.
I agree with your analysis of what VAR probably concluded. I also agree about the change--more than changing things, it highlights some of what has always lurked. (It reminds me a bit about timing--when we started announcing additional time, we moved from the referee's dirty little secret to something out there more visibly, and I think in many ways exacerbated debate about how referees keep time.)
This does not seem like the sort of the potential SFP incident that is clearly wrong to not give a red on, but what I do know anymore? To be clear, I think a red is okay and definitely supportable if given in real-time. But I think a yellow would be perfectly reasonable, too. It's a straight leg and it catches the opponent high, but it's also clearly just a tiny bit late by the tackler and there doesn't truly appear to be much force in the contact as there is zero follow-through. We've seen much, much worse get ignored in other competitions. I feel like if a foul and yellow had been given here, the VAR never would have intervened. But again, on a competition-to-competition basis, I'm just throwing darts now.
In my totally unscientific anectodal observation, it seems to me like point of contact and leg position (straight v. Bent) are really driving modern SFP decisions. Less important seem to be if the tackle was “barely” late or “very” late, or force of the contact. Maybe a 75/25 split between the two “categories” I’ve roughly defined. In this case, I think if the referee had showed a yellow in real time, there wouldn’t be evidence to overturn the decision. Since his on field decision was “no foul, play on” the VAR had ammo.
I agree that VR here seems to be more "re-refereeing" than correcting a clear and obvious error. But once sent down, the R is in a tough spot. The clear and obvious error was not giving a foul and at least a caution--but that isn't reviewable. I can see how (in terms of how people function) the fact there was a clear and obvious error would make it more likely that it gets sent down--and once sent down, harder for the ref to say no to the send off on a play like this.Had he given the caution, I think it would be easier to say there was no clear and obvious error, I'm sticking with the caution. All that said, the standard shouldn't be different depending on whether it was seen on the field. Alas, human nature has an effect.
Yes, and this is the main area of concern (or should be) for VAR going forward. This view supports my earlier comments of VAR "inserting" themselves into the match. It's an apt parallel to IFAB justifying their existence. (see separate thread).
I think this is dependent on the AR. If he has a spine, he's the boss and the VAR's is his little helper.
The process sure transparent. I wonder if anyone is analyzing fan and commentator chatter to see if this (re-refereeing) is what the fans really want. These days you could do near-real-time twitter analytics....
Meanwhile in Australia (1:40 of video) ... The first one I think would even check the UEFA or World Cup box for clearly wrong non-SFP. The second one? Um, not so much.
What fans etc. wanted was a mechanism that eliminated clear mistakes by refs like for everybody visible off side of a player. What no one wanted was what we see now that images are screened to the inch whether it was or not off side. That wasnot the intention of VAR. Those are cases that you should respect the decision of the AR, which most of the times were in favour for the attacker as it should be. Given the VAR actions recently I more and more am feeling positive about Raphael van der Vaart's suggestion we should limit the VAR to let's say three interventions on appeal for each team during a match.
I think this idea might have some merit, but I'd do something like "@ appeals per match, any successful appeal doesn't count". If the refs screw up then it shouldn't cost the team to have the refs fix it. But if the teams appeal and its right then they are docked an appeal. They get one mistake without losing their ability to appeal but after a second mistake they're done.
The seemingly pervasive instinct to ruin the world's most popular sport never ceases to amaze me. From simply an optics perspective, no. Don't make the game like American football. Don't further insert managers into the match. Don't invite more gamesmanship. Don't increase delays. Don't take the spotlight off the field and put it on the technical ares. Just, no. Don't do it. From a technical standpoint, given the way VAR is used, the idea is pointless anyway. A review can only occur if a clearly wrong decision is identified by the VAR (not withstanding the "missed serious incident" clause, which while different, still amounts to a VAR identifying something that could be clearly wrong). Why start handing managers a series of challenges--so they can challenge something that a VAR already determined isn't clearly wrong? Also, what happens when a manager runs out of appeals but some massively obvious mistake then occurs? Somewhere, someday, someone has to sit in a room and say to other people who matter "we are never going to get close to 100% accuracy on controversial decisions and that's okay." Seeking to minimize grave errors and injustices is noble for all parties involved (referees, fans, players, managers, etc.) and to the extent VAR was implemented to do so with minimum interference into the game, great. Time will cause its implementation to evolve and we can only hope it evolves in a positive manner. But the instinct to change the sport wholesale in an impossible effort to eliminate all major mistakes is flabbergasting to me; it feels like it comes from people who don't actually take joy in the sport itself.
First of all, the number of VAR interventions in one game hasnot afaik exceeded 3 times so far. It's not likely all interventions were used up and then another serious one comes up. Second, given the VAR interventions experiences, the coach must have used it on useless reviews, so it's his fault if he's out of interventions. Third, this vdVaart idea scraps interventions by the VAR. The VAR becomes an aid to establish if the requesting coach was right or wrong. Third, when a coach experiences punishment for unjustified requests by having none when it matters is a disciplining factor. The problem now emerging is that the VAR is taking over in a way the game, by checking every goal with the slightest suspicion of off side. The moment you have to use the zoom in feature is the moment to say the AR is correct in his decision. People clamouring for that should abandon watching real life matches and instead play PIPA playstation matches.
Maybe because the neutral officials control when reviews occur and not partisan coaches? Also, plenty of matches have exceeded six VAR checks, which is the standard officials use to determine if a review is necessary. The challenge/appeal proposal eliminates that first threshold. So when a World Cup Final is wrongly decided by a 119' minute that can't be reviewed because a manager used his challenges, the 2 billion people watching and the history books will say "oh well, it was the manager's fault!" Sure. And that's a dumb idea that changes the sport. You have correctly identified a problem. Your desired solution wouldn't come close to solving the problem.
This is exactly why I made the suggestion Id id. I don't love the idea of giving he mangers control, but I love the idea of putting the whole game in a position where enough screw-ups mean no more screw-ups can be fixed even less.
GLT, rather than VAR, but seemed as good a place as any . . . Video arguing that GLT had three flaws that incorrectly awarded Ronaldo's second goal. Seems to me there are flaws, but thought some might be interested. https://www.marca.com/en/football/spanish-football/2019/03/14/5c8a90f9ca47414c7a8b4603.html
Fascinating. I try not to get sucked into amateur theories so I'm curious if there's an expert rebuttal, but this seems plausible.
The camera used on the goalline wasn't exactly lined up which made the cross bar appear slightly behind the goal line. So it appears that part of the ball is on the line, but that's only the projection of the crossbar. All the conspiracies are coming from the TV camera not being perfectly in line.
I have mentioned/discussed/argued the "margin of error" of the VAR and GLT systems on this board a few times before. I'm not an "expert", but I have been involved with Hawkeye (one of the developers of GLT) many times over the years, since it's introduction in Tennis. It is flawed in the sense that with each call, there should be a + or - margin of error, but the public in general can't handle that sort of science or math, and it was determined that the outcome of any call had to be definitive. That in itself is a flawed approach. And note that GLT is many times more accurate than "systems" in place for VAR offside calls.
Very nice example of when VAR is used correctly and, more importantly, the power of good, clear communication to everyone. https://www.foxsports.com.au/video/football/a-league/refs-view-with-var!722281 Well done to the crew involved.