No. If that were the case, why would they have even tried this to begin with? I have no idea what happened and to the extent it has happened, but I suspect Riley and the PGMOL realized it wasn't going to make a lot of sense to have them completely on an island. People are now used to referees going to the monitor to review things themselves. Abandoning that part of the process would make it look like the EPL was using an entirely different system of officiating. You can be quirky--to an extent. And England loves to be quirky simply to remind everyone else they are different. But my best is someone realized this was too much, given the world has seen something else now. If England had started VAR at the same time as Italy, Germany, France, etc., and opted to go its own route, that might have been more tenable. But this is all just a guess from me.
I think that they like the idea of the referee being the final judge, the authority in charge...and if it takes OFR to make that point, then so be it. Even though it's only happened once (I think) thus far in the WWC, it was a defining moment for the referee to stick with her initial decision.(SWE vs USA)
It's happened a lot in MLS and other domestic leagues, though. FIFA has been an entirely different animal (though, at the FIFA level, a lot of referees have given yellow after doing an OFR for a red card). Remember England's initial move was to do this so there wouldn't be excessive delays. So not sure if the "referee needs to be final judge" trumped the concern about delays from a public-facing standpoint. Who knows? Maybe Oliver and Taylor just told Riley it was stupid. Maybe Elleray chimed in. Until we get good reporting on it (which we may never get, since a change like this, prior to actual implementation, likely seems subtle to the masses), it's all a guessing game.
Having visited England quite often and consumed all forms of their media, I am continually amazed at how lackluster their sports coverage is. Yes, the tabloids splash “stories” constantly, but the lack of access to players, coaches and management outside of the formal news conference is quite a difference from what we experience on a daily basis in this country.
There was an article about that recently: https://www.theringer.com/sports/20...g-embargo-access-champions-league-independent
I am definitely going to have to throw in my 2 cents on this. I deal with it every week...at least once. Everything that article said for sports reporting in the UK, is exactly the way it is in the U.S. for entertainment reporting. The article mentioned it briefly in one paragraph but didn't draw the connection. As sport becomes more "entertainment", for the sake of entertainment, the show, the event, then the same thing will happen. Why? Because the entertainers are making their access, their closed circle, hard to break into. If you are "lucky" enough (from the entertainers perspective) to get a credential to cover an "event" then you have to play by rules of embargo or controlled release, or you won't be let into their inner circle. You are starting to see with U.S. sport, that credentials are getting harder to get. It's only a matter of time. How many bad articles of the Masters Golf have you ever seen? Disclosure: I have been there 20 times and ALWAYS abide by their ...ahem...(unwritten) rules. As hypocritical as that is...it's the way of the "entertainment" world. Edit: Just realized that this is waaayyyy of topic. Sorry mods.
Seeing that it only (currently) applies to the WWC... it was posted in there. It's not a "FIFA Rule Update" either, it's a special dispensation from IFAB (with the likelihood that it'll get a blanket change post-WWC I suspect).
After the Cameroon - England fiasco, it struck me that VAR is encouraging conspiracy theories, thinking that the games are fixed, etc. Imagine what the reaction would be if this had happened in a men's World Cup game, or the France game earlier where things went the home country's way and so on. There wouldn't be enough ink in England to print all of the tabloids' coverage and commentary! World Cup coverage would have to go around the clock for all of the talking heads to get their opinions and 'what if's' heard. Yes, VAR, by its nature, is going to change some decisions that are close. Very close. You don't need VAR for the obvious ones. And then the video is shown only to the referee and no one else, from a location that no one in the stadium can even see, potentially not even in the same city. "Don't look behind that curtain! I am the great and powerful VAR! It doesn't matter what happened on the field. I know best." Maybe controversy draws attention and, therefore, viewers. But, in the end, it brings the game into disrepute. Two possible modifications that, I think, might help acceptance of VAR decisions: 1. instead of a booth somewhere out of sight, maybe a Plexiglas booth at the halfway line on the opposite side from the benches. 2. release the videos, maybe even show them on the big screen in the stadium. Yes, there's always going to be judgment by the referee, but 'This is what we saw.' Now that's entertainment!
From beIN's article about the Collina presser: And the 59-year-old also warned the Professional Game Match Officials Limited that all Premier League matches will have to use VAR to check goalkeeper encroachment from the start of next season. He added: "The laws are the same all over the world. What is written in the laws of the game has to be enforced in every one of the countries that belong to FIFA and in every one of the competitions arranged by the member associations of FIFA."
I watched that part of Collina's statement and I did not think he implied that VAR has to review the goalkeeper coming off the line. The rule being the same in England does not imply that the VAR enforcement of the rule will be the same. AFAIK there is no official "VAR must review all these things all the time or be subject to FIFA sanction" list. Or is there?
I was having a VAR discussion and a question came up. Obviously a referee can do the OFR and decide to stick with their original decision. However is a referee allowed to reject doing an OFR at all if the VAR recommends one? If someone could link an official source as well that would be great!
This is from the VAR Protocol in the Procedure section from the IFAB LotG • The VAR describes to the referee what can be seen on the TV replay(s) but not the decision to be taken, and the referee then: • makes a final decision based on the referee’s own perception and the information from the VAR, and, where appropriate, input from other match officials – VAR-only review or • goes to the referee review area to view replay footage – ‘on-field review’ (OFR) – before making a final decision. The other match officials will not review the footage unless, in exceptional circumstances, asked to do so by the referee I read this as the CR still has the final decision on whether to have an OFR regardless on the information presented by VAR. I’d guess this would be in the cases of offenses, as being described to the CR, as one he felt had a clear view of, like handling, and doesn’t feel warrants another look. VAR is only describing what they are seeing, not recommending a course of action, but, a description of “the video shows a defender clip the heels of an attacker immediately before a shot on goal in the penalty area” begs the question.
Having wended our way through a few tournaments with VAR now, and with more leagues implementing, I start to wonder what the next step is--what will be the first thing to be added to the current set of things as VAR reviewable? I'm guessing either a clearly erroneous 2CT (permitting VAR to recommend review to erase but not impose a 2CT) or GK vs CK.
The three big and somewhat common things that can happen today but are not subject to VAR are: Wrong 2CT Wrong corner kick leading directly to goal Wrong DFK leading directly to goal Those are the areas where the slippery slope will head. The 2CT is the cleanest one to implement (though logically inconsistent since you couldn’t give one or overturn a “first” yellow). It’s harder to devise protocols for overturning DFKs and CKs because the issue is what happens after the fact, not the decision itself. Regardless, it will take a big moment at EURO or UCL knockout to get a change. Otherwise I think we are where we are until at least 2023.
Changing the restart after the ball has been put into play and then left again would be such a fundamental change to the laws. Also, it would by its nature be something that can only take away goals.
I think going back to change after a restart is such a fundamental change, which is why I don’t think it will be post goal review. CK v GK is a pretty simple and quick check—I think it will come for all GK/CK. 90+% are clear anyway. The shooting range DFK is interesting. I can’t imagine it coming for non-calls, as that opens up so, so much. But interesting if it opened up for 30 yards in or some such.