Well, technically, I don't think VAR messed up here, and there wasn't really any human error in terms of strictly applying the Laws of the Game in my opinion. The question is if the refs should have applied some leniency considering how close the Nigerian keeper's leg was to the goal line.
Not to mention the infractions on the other side of the multiple players entering the box prior to the kick.
The press conference from Thomas Dennerby the Nigeria manager was funny/salty and you can't blame him He only did three questions, then when left he threw the headphones for translation on the table, but it went on the floor so he picked it up and threw it again on the table in rage.
On the footballing side, we were poor in the first half and slightly better in the second. No shots on target for Nigeria which is good. Referee was not great at all.
What do they say? ... Give them an inch and they'll take a mile? For professionals, this is the problem area. They'll always push the edge of the envelope. If you make the rule absolute and apply it consistently, then there's much less likelihood of a problem. That's not necessarily the correct approach, but at least the GKs would know how the rule will be applied. It's like in tennis: if the ball is out, it's out, it doesn't matter by how much.
A more apt comparison to tennis would be the ball crossing the goal line. In that case that level of strictness is necessary. Not in this situation. These new rules take away a lot from the spontaneity, fun and enjoyment of football. It is becoming over regulated and frankly not as much fun to watch. Platini, Blatter and the rest of the "dinosaurs" were much wiser than I thought when they fought very hard against bringing technology into the game. It took a while, but I see their point now. Football is becoming unrecognizable as the free flowing, unpredictable game we love.
I blame the Americans and their NFL. LOL! No, but really, technology was always coming. From the day they started streaming live videos of matches in 1080p, and the whole world could see every foul, goal, etc. in HD, the refs were going to have to catch up and appease the TV crowd.
VAR does have it's place, but it is used far too much, and quicker decisions should be made. This is legit. But there also some good parts too, like in the EPL they got the idea for Monday Night Football from the NFL, which makes watching more matches possible. This, though it seems that FIFA wants to try and stay away from controversy, while other sports recognize it is part of the game.
Also, just out of curiosity: I didn't follow at all the men's WC in Russia last year, but I've been said VAR technology was used there also. I have to ask if the level of enforcing things like the punishment of such infractions as the GK moving from the goal-line was the same (and it case it was, if it didn't raise controversy).
Not to mention they were denied two clear penalties in the first game. FIFA may have been or be corrupt in many ways, but match fixing is tin hat stuff.
Not that I remember. There have been other tournaments and competitions with VAR in play, but they have been applying it differently this time (at least it feels that way to me). I don’t mind the goalkeeping call, but think the yellow card is unnecessary. The other call also had players entering the box early, so maybe there is a hierarchy of offenses? IDK I think VAR is fine and probably beneficial in most cases. These are likely just growing pains. Replay works fine in the NFL. They long games times have to do with the ridiculous rules and commercial influence on the game. The replay impact is negligible. The argument that VAR or replay in general removes the charm of human error from the game is a bit of a silly argument. The VAR judgements are still made by people. It doesn’t remove human judgement/error, it just relocates it, hopefully reduces it a little. P.S. France didn’t play well, but they were the better team all night. Nigeria May still make it thru, likely to be housed in the next round. There’s no grave injustice here.
I rather have VAR than not. Just imagine having it in the 1986 WC. We wouldn't have to hear the Hand of God bs from the Brits for decades and into eternity.
Yeah, it seems the level of strictness has increased. Yup, in the NFL it is negligible, and there are means to limit it's use based on how the game is played (with stoppages). But the NBA shows it can be a drag on the game when the refs check everything in the last 2 minute. I'd like to see something similar to the NFL's limits put in place for soccer, but not sure how it would work. I think the real argument is that it stops the flow of the match, which it didn't w/o VAR.
I agree completely with the concern about VAR affecting the flow of matches. That's a serious problem, and it changes the nature of futbol overall. There is a solution to that, which is to have the VAR crew make the decisions without consulting the ref. They simply would tell the ref, "That should be a PK" and there would be a PK. There still might be some minor interruptions to re-set what's happening where the VAR crew overrules what the ref decided, but nothing like the flow interruptions that occur now. But, I don't think people would like it. I might not either. Maybe we should get rid of VAR. Let there be some ref mistakes now and then that affect or even determine game outcomes. It would take nerves of steel on the part of the ref crew, knowing that TV is picking apart important calls.
I don't think that is feasible. Based on the time it take to notify the ref, to check the camera angles, and make the decision, it is possible for the opposing team to get to the other end and score a goal or another play which results in a red card or some injury occured, all of which would not have happened with the delay. I think VAR has a place, but should be less intrusive than it is now.
There have been referee convictions in the German, Italian, French, and English leagues for match fixing. Its not a big leap to extend this to fifa. I could name a couple instances of World Cup matches that involved suspicion of match fixing. It’s one of the reason there was a policy of matches between confederations being arbitrated by referees from a neutral confederation. That policy has been relaxed with the advent of HD TV. It’s a lot harder to bend the rules one way.
Everyone who knows me is aware that I don't like to randomly throw the sexist argument, but, if it's true that the level of strictness for this kind of infractions has increased with this WWC, this could be yet another case of FIFA saying: "Well, let's experiment this with women, just to see how it feels. And should it end crippling the whole tournament, hey, who cares? It's just WWC". Like when they decided to have a World Cup on turf in Canada.
the difference is the keeper has an impact players on both teams entering the box early doesn't. I just wish the grant wahl's of the world would decide when its ok to follow the rules and when its ok to look the other way. its very transparent when people are using their feelings to pick their spots. People think just because nigeria played hard they deserve some special treatment. I wonder if Spain plays real hard in the first knockout round against the us...its late and its 0-0 and the us takes a shot and the spain keeper drops it and it crosses the line by three inches and they go to VAR its a clear goal and the ref turns and says 'spain has played so hard I can't let them lose on a mistake like that sorry us team'....would that be ok? what is the line? also the entering the box isn't reviewable only the keepers positioning is.
One thing to consider is what referees called before VAR. it wasn’t that they missed that a keeper stepped off the line. If you actually talk to referees and even look in the archives of the referee forum on BS, they allowed one step off the line. All you have to do is look at Brianna Scurry’s save against China in the shootout to see that was so. I can point to dozens of other cases. Or watch the USA-Japan 2011 shootout. Both keepers took a step off the line virtually every shot. Keepers knew they were allowed the step and took advantage.
Referees are human and might naturally have implicit biases towards players they are more familiar with. There is also a perception of bias concern. Either of these are reasons to assign officials from different confederations. The idea that FIFA is strategically manipulating winners of matches to get the match-ups they want is just a construct fans create to deal with things not going their way. Same complaints have been a facet of NBA conversations for years (frozen envelopes and other nonsense). Just because something is plausible, doesn’t make it probable.
I suggest you read this. https://www.si.com/soccer/planet-futbol/2014/07/11/argentina-germany-world-cup-final-referee-codesal It involves the legendary Klinsmann flop against Argentina that is mired in referee controversy and includes this statement by a high official in the Mexico federation concerning the appointment of Cordesal , the Uruguayan referee. It was the first straight red ever awarded in a cup. That includes several cases where legs were broken. “ The case, actually, was far from closed. Soon after that interview, Humberto Rojano, the former president of the Mexican Referees’ Commission, went public on how Codesal had been appointed. He spoke of a meeting he had with Javier Arriaga, former head of the Mexican FA’s Referees’ Commission and a key figure in FIFA’s Referees’ Commission in 1990. Arriaga also happened to be Codesal’s father-in-law. Rojano told Mexican paper La Jornada that “the authorities,” a phrase that is deliberately vague, had told Arriaga that “Argentina didn’t have to win.” It was Codesal’s last match, he retired to allegedly halt an investigation. and it was also during the period when Mexico was Barred from the WC for playing overage players in the u20’s and “financial irregularities” AKA bribery corruption. Codesal also made three other controversial calls, awarding a auestionable call,against the USA in the Germany match and turning a blind eye to two fouls in the box in a matche between England and Ghana, which England eventually won 3-2.
Um, okay? A vague reference to “authorities” and an equally vague comment that Argentina didn’t have to win. This is all pretty thin and just as likely implicates organized crime or any other criminal element that might be looking to make money off the game. Every match fixing scandal I’m familiar with is driven by gambling. Again, not saying it’s not possible, but probability and cynicism are not evidence.