A potentially questionable VAR decision in the Australian A-League final this morning. The second year in a row there has been VAR controversy in the final. https://streamable.com/qpzwk
I think the offside was on the first pass to the guy on the left wing and not the cross that directly led to the goal. So what I describe next only applies to the first pass and not to the cross that directly led to the goal. Since the call on the field was offside, at minimum this is one where the call on the field should stand because the video evidence doesn't clearly show the Sydney player was offside. I thought the Sydney player was just offside by his lead foot being ahead of the Perth line, but it was really close. If you want to debate the original offside call, that's fine. However, I'm good with VAR saying the call on the field stands because it doesn't clearly and obviously show the call should be reversed.
Did you only watch the first ten seconds? The broadcast put up the offside line that shows him to be onside. Afaik, VAR uses their own system to produce the offside line so there is minimal doubt as to the correct decision.
Was the video stopped at the point of first contact? When the video stopped, it actually appeared like the Sydney player hadn't even touched the ball yet. How many frames per second does the VAR video show that would provide conclusive proof that the video was stopped at the right moment? How precise is the offside line? What's the margin for error? This is why I continue to have issues with VAR's assessment of "clear and obvious" errors related to offside. Yes, the AR shouldn't have raised the flag until the play was over. Yes, the referee could have waited until the ball was in the next before blowing the whistle. However, is a play like this really one that constitutes a clear and obvious error based on the evidence shown?
Those offside lines that get drawn aren't foolproof. It still requires some human intervention to pick the right frame and spot to use. Plus, this is a 2D image at some degree of an angle. The line may make comparisons of body parts on the turf easier, though comparing points at different heights off the ground can play some tricks based upon the camera angle as they won't be properly lined up with the line that is drawn I would rather VAR stick to those cases where an AR would be properly roasted on an assessment for a missed offside, something that is clear and obviously wrong, rather than examining something on a frame by frame basis.
Funny incident. https://www.ad.nl/nederlands-voetba...d-van-amateur-var-die-veld-bestormt~ab61fe4f/ Scheidsrechter Remco Schul stuurt Iris Epping, huisfotograaf van Silvolde, achter de afrastering. Epping wilde met haar camera bewijzen dat de bal de lijn gepasseerd was. © Theo Kock Referee Remco Schul sends Iris Epping, house photographer of Silvolde, behind the fence. Epping wanted to prove with her camera that the ball had crossed the line. © Theo Kock Bal over de lijn of niet? Scheids niet gediend van amateur-VAR die veld bestormt Het was geen alledaags beeld. Huisfotograaf Iris Epping van hoofdklasser Silvolde stormde zondag, met camera, het veld op tegen RKZVC om arbiter Remco Schul te wijzen op een in haar ogen foutieve beslissing. Raymond Willemsen 20-05-19, 07:56 Laatste update: 09:08 Ball over the line or not? Scheids not pleased by amateur VAR that storms into the field It was not an everyday image. House photographer Iris Epping of the amateur Top class club Silvolde stormed the field, with camera, against RKZVC on Sunday to point referee Remco Schul of a decision that she thought was wrong.
The moment: wel of geen doelpunt van Silvolde? pic.twitter.com/fuLHzDFXHd— Raymond Willemsen (@willemsenray) May 19, 2019
No good place to put this at the moment in the off-season, but it seems Mike Riley and the PGMOL have relented on their "there will be no OFRs in the EPL" stance. I don't have all the details yet and haven't found solid reporting, but the source that let me know about this change is usually credible. Seems Riley might have addressed this while he was also addressing the PK encroachment issue, which was reported on in the Daily Mail. But because this is more about process and just conceptual at the moment, press didn't seize on it the way they did with the PK encroachment issue in the aftermath of the Scotland-Argentina WWC match. Regardless, if this is true at all, it's a huge change and forum regulars here will understand the implications.
I've been thinking a lot about VAR as it pertains to GK on KFTM. There was one earlier in the WWC where the taker hit the post, but since GK left the line early, it was re-taken. I'm torn, really, I like the use of it, people complaining just don't want rules applied evenly. BUT, I thought perhaps it might be better if it was ITOOTR not an infringement that affected the PK? Like, the missed PK, the GK leaving early had zero influence on the PK, so should it be penalized? I don't know, I'm really fighting with myself over it. Maybe this is all just because I felt like the crew for ARG/SCO was really bad in both the matches I saw them officiate. I dunno....maybe I've not been on the field in far too long.
Well, by 97 that was far more theoretical than real, as GKs were coming well off. The change to being able to move sideways (as with the current change) was a de facto enhanced restriction as the new law was more tightly enforced.
Someone tallied up the VAR times used/wasted/whatever in the Copa America to date across 13 OFR interventions totalling 33 minutes so far. https://i.redd.it/h6fogd9plk531.png
While I think this use of VAR to caution goal keepers for moving is a poor decision, I have a question. Why are they only cautioning those who moved on ward or missed PK’s? If they are reviewing all PK’s shouldn’t keepers that encroach even when the PK is scored still be cautioned? Not suggesting they should, just pointing out one additional problem with using VAR for this.
No because of how the laws are written. It's basically a logic flow chart. If the GK encroaches: And goal was not scored -> Retake and caution GK And goal was scored -> Goal is allowed
For me, one of the draws of soccer is that the laws were never overbearing (maybe not the right words). Watching NFL, they seemed to start splitting hairs over whether something was a catch, or some other thing. The rules were applied to the level of minutia. My problem with VAR and the PK situation is that the rules regarding the keeper is at the level of minutia. They need to find a reasonable middle ground. France/Nigeria was not it.
Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out how silly it is using VAR here. I’ve always thought the law was odd there in that my behavior is only deemed cautionable based not on the behavior, but on result. I guess their point is that if the goal is scored, there is no delay. But how do I cause delay when on a missed PK (vs saved)?
Just because referees didn’t enforce the rule, doesn’t mean IFAB didn’t want it enforced. The VAR in my view, is to take away from the center the ability to just look away. That’s a good thing. The same with Holding. iFAB has PLEADED with referees to enforce holding on corners, to little avail. You can’t have a discussion about the LOTG unless it involves what was written.
13 matches, so...2minutes 32 seconds per match. Pretty good. And if the VAR is again 99.3% accurate, the argument could be made that it is well worth it.
Indeed. And any calculation of time wasting due to VAR should be accompanied by data on time wasting due to gamesmanship.
This isn't a problem with VAR, it's a problem with the laws. The difference should be the same at levels where referees have to make the decision with their eyeballs.
@MassRef, do you think that the EPL relented on OFR because as an IFAB participant, it would have been a little weird that OFR is mentioned in the protocols but then not implemented in a top league?