No it does not. For reference, there were 36 penalties given after video review in 2019 and 11 rescinded for a net change of +25. Some of those surely did not result in goals, but I don't have those particular numbers.
Classified more as a "non-VAR in Review," but worth watching. 6:56 on the video below: Makkelie was the VAR. There was no intervention; the yellow card stood without an OFR. The hesitation to pull SFP red cards combined with the general reluctance to say the lack of an SFP card is "clearly wrong" is going to be a lethal combination. The ball is 5 yards away from the player when he's tackled and moving at some pace as it has been passed already. The fouled player is facing his own goal, within his own half, in the center circle. He gets scissored from behind with no opportunity to brace for contact. And it's done with significant force. Everything about this screams red card. This is the the tackle that we had come pretty close to eliminating from the game. It's back. And it boggles the mind that we have an insurance policy (VAR) for dealing with it, yet we refuse to do so. This is going to get worse before it gets better. All we're doing now is waiting for a Mbappe or De Bruyne or Felix or Sancho or another star 20-something to get his career ruined by one of these. Because on the course we're on, it's going to happen.
Holy &%&@#! I think this should have been caught without VAR, but OK, sometimes we don't see everything as well as we should have. But if VAR isn't going to intervene, well, just, well . . . (Is it just my monitor or is the GK shirt the exact color of the R's shirt?)
Yup, I think it was this one I referred to as the KNVB calling it a mistake by ref and VAR when it was about the post match comments. Everybody, including the fouling Feyenoord player, was of the opinion it was a red.
AFC is working on VAR in the Arabian Gulf Cup. Same game. Red card via VAR: https://streamable.com/7df4l No intervention or OFR: https://streamable.com/eyv9k
First off, ow. Second, there is much more force in the second challenge. Yes, studs to the side of the head is not going to feel good, no matter how little force. But I think that especially if you give the first red card, you have to give the second (and even without the first challenge.
Very rare review for a DOGSO that was given yellow originally and upgraded to red in the Lazio vs Juve match (2:50 mark). I'm all for more reviews that upgrade yellows to reds especially for SFP, but I don't know how can say the decision to give yellow is clearly wrong. There is definitely some doubt to the obviousness of the goal scoring opportunity.
I don’t see any doubt there. In a professional game, that has to be DOGSO. Every element is clearly there.
Well, that was a funny VAR day with Vitesse-Feyenoord. VAR tells the ref he missed a penalty foul by the Feyenoord goalie in the first couple of minutes of the match, then he denies the Feyenoord keeper's save of it because of the infamous line infringement, to be corrected by the VAR again as a legal save.
Remind me again how VAR has made officiating less controversial. https://www.espn.com/soccer/barcelo...to-spanish-fa-after-being-denied-late-penalty
If Pique was also grabbing from the front, which it looks like he might have been, then I get it. But my point still stands. How do you tell the world the VAR will help call one clear hold but not another. Particularly when the latter situation appeared a much better scoring opportunity. Clearly wrong is in the eye of the beholder. Moving that eye to a television monitor helps sometimes, but hurts at other junctures.
I saw the BuLi match of Schalke vs Eintracht. One can have a VAR, but if you put idiots in front of the screen you might as well have no VAR. Bas Dost was stopped in mid air going for the ball by pulling his shirt. It was so blatently visible that the people in front of those screens should be relegated to the amateur sections.
VAR certainly has some inherent problems, and some leagues like the EPL have managed to muck up it even more. However, the biggest issue with VAR is not inherently a VAR problem. The biggest issue with VAR, and the elephant in the room, is that VAR puts a giant magnifying glass on the highly subjective nature of the LOTG (or at least law 12). Before VAR we could just say "well the ref blew the call". Now with VAR were thinking "WTF, how does that call not get overturned after X amount of referees review it." We are left confused and frustrated on how to reconcile the call with what we understand the "Laws" to be. Let's be honest, there is no mechanism for preciseness or consistency in the LOTG. In fact, its just the opposite. For example, ref's often justify calls, or non-calls, under the concept of "game management". A foul or card in the 1st half may not be a foul or a card in the second. Clattenburg said it himself: The best referees, he believes, make their decisions based on context and balance. This explains why there can never be "consistency" in the way football is refereed. It is the courage to apply the laws with empathy, says Clattenburg, that distinguishes top officials from those on the next rung on the ladder.
Here's one from Australia yesterday... Play on field is a 3v1, ball with the outside right attacker. He enters the penalty area and crosses the ball on the ground towards the two teammates to his left. Defender slides, arm above shoulder, blocks ball. Referee awards penalty kick, cautions defender (almost certainly for SPA). VAR calls down, good penalty, but recommends sending off (DOGSO). https://streamable.com/a4o82
What happened to the rule that says you cannot be penalized if ball touches arm supporting your fall?
Watch the clip. That arm is NOT supporting his fall, it's above and beyond his shoulder, so falls into the "making yourself bigger" part instead.
That sentence has this part though "but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body". And the arm here was both so PK is correct but I'm not sure about the DOGSO though.
To give a red there IMO you need to be convinced that one of those two attackers on the left are going to get to the ball off of the attempted pass (and also that they're in an onside position, which they are just) because the player who had the ball is almost certainly not going to be regaining possession of the ball and still have an OGSO. So... at the time of the foul, did the ball have enough velocity to reach a teammate without being cut off?
Are we even sure the pass was on target? Seems like there’s a chance it was close to square and would have caused the attackers to pause and halt their runs. At that point, while it’s still a good goal scoring chance, the likelihood they could get challenged from a tracking defender is decent. Genuinely shocked this was changed due to being clearly wrong. It’s a “maybe wrong” to me but takes a lot of work to tell for sure... and that’s not supposed to be what VAR does. It also isn’t an expected intervention, which (other than off-the-ball violence) is a good barometer for whether or not VAR is working well.