I dunno what you mean by this post. The KNVB evaluates every referee in every eredivisie match that takes place. That of course includes adressing faulty decisions. The fact we now have VAR doesnot mean there are no mistakes taking place anymore. Otherwise we wouldnot have in one of our soccershows the popular item "VAR of the Week". Afaik also the "culprits" aknowledged they were wrong with their verdict. I'm a Feyenoord fan, so to me it was luck he was still on the pitch playing and the next match scored an important goal. But if I was the referee at that moment without hesitation it would be red.
My point is you shouldn't just say "The KNVB" it should be a named person who has credentials that can be checked. Otherwise nobodies name is on it, there's no way to check it, and it's just "Sources say." I don't care what the opinion of a faceless organization is, I want someone to stand behind their work like the referees are forced to out on the field and then get their noses rubbed in it by nobody brave the following week.
I donot get your aggressive tone in your response. I clearly stated the KNVB evaluates every match (which should be obvious to you, because how would they be able to make decisions about appointing refs for certain matches or for FIFA lists). I hope you understand that in an organisation like the KNVB there's a section dedicated to the managing of the referees, which includes evaluating/assesment of them. Does it have to be spelled out for you that it's that part of the KNVB that comments on the refs or do you think they let someone from the accounting department screen them? But as you seem to be in dire need of names, it was the boss of the referee section Dick van Egmond, who told it. Gsus.
Especially considering it is normal that it is a "body" who decides things. IN pretty much every league. Sometimes it is "Mike Riley" who decides but more often it is "PGMOL issues a statement," "PRO ruled that this decision was correct" etc. So I do not think this necessarily applies here.
Why is it a strange desire to want names of people and their resumes to back up their decisions? Just because they're part of an organization doesn't mean they're infallible. They are definitely fallible as we have found with PRO almost weekly. If I get told by a doctor that he is sending my diagnoses to a board to double check, I want to know a little something about that board because this is specifically my health we're talking about. If you don't want to answer, that's fine. It's a question not a demand.
In EPL and NFL they have made a mistake reviewing contact plays such as pass interference and GK interference. If every contact is called retrospectively then the game is a shambles. The ref allows a game to flow and seeks to consistently call the game with an equal level of physicality. If he/she allows a level of contact all game and then due to a goal, or in NFL a challenge, that play is reviewed in isolation and what was allowed by the ref as being consistent is now “a foul”. Clear and obvious is not a sufficient standard and is becoming the problem, not the solution.
Utrecht vs PSV; Makkelie gives a YC for a bad tackle and gets word from the VAR booth to take a look at it. He takes one look and comes back to send Viergever of with a straight RC. That's the way it should be done!!! Other leagues should follow (but probably won't). EDIT: on the resulting free kick, Makkelie makes the right call on a hand ball for a second free kick closer in. Well done. EDIT #2: and now another VAR review of a bad challenge and another YC changed to RC.
This... this is definitely what people wanted when they demanded VAR: 1187804632833245185 is not a valid tweet id It is a perfect storm of relatively new law changes combined with VAR being used for objective decisions. It’s absolutely laughable that any human in the stadium was looking for a penalty here. It’s also laughable that a penalty is the punishment for this act. Yet, here we are.
Another example of the law of unintended consequences and IFAB moving from concepts to lots of rules . . . the DFK/PK was put in to address a problem (the cynical sub running onto the field to deliberately stop a goal) that almost never happens--can anyone point to a time that it was actually used for that problem in an actual game?
The "off side decision" that nullified the Ajax goal. Left image shows most likely on side when the ball is played. Right image is the one used by UEFA to defend the decision. Links: het moment dat de bal de voet lijkt te verlaten. Rechts: het door de UEFA gebruikte moment. © Screenshots Het laatste is nog niet gezegd over de afgekeurde goal van Promes Het afgekeurde doelpunt van Quincy Promes gisteravond bij Ajax - Chelsea galmde nog lang na. Gebruikte de UEFA wel het juiste moment om het eventuele buitenspel aan te tonen? David Hessing 24-10-19, 18:07 Laatste update: 18:11
Another VAR RC issued against PSV this morning. Nasty stomp by Thomas got a YC by CR van Boekel. VAR suggested taking a look and van Boekel came back with Red. Two last week and now this one. All were really nasty fouls.
Great scenes from Bundesliga 2. Not sure I’ve ever seen a sub warming up give away a penalty. pic.twitter.com/QKhachtkcq— GoalScorer Challenge ⚽️ (@GoalscorerC) October 27, 2019 VAR and the new Laws making the game so great!
And then we have an 8-minute(!) delay in Game 6 for review of dithering over a judgment call that by rule is not subject to review.
A new one from Germany, which I'm actually wondering whether or not was valid under the VAR protocols: https://streamable.com/p7kz3 VAR tells referee that the ball hit him and a team started a promising attack. Therefore, the goal scored is invalid and the restart must be a drop ball. Three thoughts: 1) Does a referee really need video to tell him he got hit by the ball? 2) Did this really start a promising attack? It was an attack. A deflection led to the ball hitting the referee. And then the attack continued. The lack of definition over "start" is problematic for instances like this. 3) I was going to say that this whole thing was invalid because this is not "an offence" in the APP by the goal-scoring team. But the protocols require the VAR determine the ball was not "out of play" and, guess what? Even though there's a level of subjectivity, the ball hitting the referee falls under "ball out of play" in Law 9. So, notwithstanding the two issues above, this does seem to be a valid intervention.
I predicted that something like this would happen about three months ago and here we are. As Taylor Twellman famously said "what are we doing!?!?" VAR is simply anti-football there to take away goals. This is a disaster all around. The Law change (make no mistake this is a correct application of the Law as the blue team had the last "touch"), VAR being used to disallow a great goal. Who wants this? Just awful.
Would it not be for a change in possession (ball deflected off blue, then the ref, and then went to the red player who scored)? But I am in agreement that no one really expects or wants a VAR intervention here, even though it is probably correct by the letter of the law.
When did the blue team possess the ball? The only justification here is that a promising attack started after the ball hit the referee. And the lack of a definition for “start” is a big omission from IFAB. Forget the VAR aspects of this. I’m not sure what the right call is, period. Referees have seemed to err on the side of caution at the professional level from what we’ve seen so far and simply give the drop if it hits the referee. But is this really what the law change was intended to address?
This is the core problem, and the core problem of the hitting the ref rule. It’s something that sounds good sitting around a table, and works just great 90% of the time. But 10% of the time it’s not clear whether play should stop. we have the holes and nuances that create more controversy than it was intended to solve. There would have been zero controversy over this goal last year. Now it’s a big deal.
The VAR review had to be to let the ref know that the ball touched blue before it hit him. You can't say that blue had possession, but at that point, neither did red. Technically I guess that means red gained possession after the ball hitting the ref, but that can't be what IFAB intended. Even if the goal had not been disallowed, think about how much the game atmosphere changed by having the review. Red tied the game with 4ish minutes left and carried the ball back to the center spot quickly. They totally had emotion and excitement on their side, and we've all seen this lead to additional goals late in the game. The review killed all of that and the restart, at best, would have been with pretty calm and collected teams. The game was impacted regardless of the decision.
Relevant to the discussion, as an example I can tell you that the net change to goals scored after video review in the 2019 MLS season was -16. 11 given, 27 disallowed.