I was wondering the same thing. Everything that we've gotten from FIFA/USSF says this is a good goal. Is there something going around UEFA or the Italian FA? But a UEFA Elite referee and his VAR thought this was interfering with an opponent. I just wish we knew why they thought that.
I was watching the Iowa Referee Academy video on YouTube where a former Fifa referee was explaining what it meant to interfere with the goalkeeper. She was explaining a similar play where the keeper was possibly delayed maybe a fraction of a second by the presence of an offside attacker. (Around 35:45) This is probably the concept the referee crew was going with. This is a few years old however but I think mostly current.
The keeper didn't save it because it was a perfectly placed header that went in off the post. The position of the other two attackers had no impact on the keeper from what we can tell in the video. From the angle the ball came in it doesn't even appear that the keeper knew they were there.
I agree and I think the goal should have stood. BUT I also think that this isn't such a clear "it could never be offside" call as most people seem to think, IMO it is a really close call and I can understand if some referees/leagues think it should be called as offside. Had the PIOP(s) been a few yards shorter into the PA or a few yards wider (away from the ball) then it would have been clear that them being there wouldn't have affected the keeper and thus clear that it wasn't an offence. And had they been a little bit closer to the keeper or more in the path of the ball then I think it would have been a clear violation. But as it was they where just in that almost area where it is debatable, even with the last few years changes, and even though I ultimately come down on "goal" I can understand why the CR and VAR didn't.
It's important to note that the VAR and CR didn't just come down on no goal. They came down on "the awarding of this goal is a clear and obvious error".
In the clip Keri Seitz used, he attacker was closer to the ball at the moment the GK had an opportunity to make the play. I don't disagree that was the concept that the R used, but I think the differences in that pay and the Seitz clip call for different results. Another tidbit: The AR on the play raised the flag. Someone questioned that. Keri said raising the flag was proper. That suggests abandoning the G to P that interference by someone other than the scorer should not be flagged. It would be great if USSF would publish an updated G to P that eliminated everything that they no longer agree with. I guess their view is that the G to P is outdated and folks should just look at the back of the laws.
I mentioned that earlier (though, possibly in another thread). The instruction that we're starting to get here in Canada coming down is that the AR is expected to take ownership of offside calls in situations like this by raising the flag. When it is not an offside situation, but there's another possible issue, the practice is still to "statue" with the flag at the side, and not give the signal for a goal.
No need here coy word, 'former referee' - Kari Seitz now Senior Manager Referee Department at HQ. Also someone correct spelling name please, it is not Keri. We meet her once.
If this play is offside, how is every goal off of a free kick like this not offside? In order for the goal to stand, all three attackers would literally have to be even with each other to make sure one wasn't ahead of the one getting the header and the other two interfering with the GK. In this case, all three could have legally played the ball until the one furthest back did, making the others involved by interfering in play for the fraction of a second it took the ball to whiz past them.
This, from Portugal, is spectacular: https://streamable.com/phm4x Goal scored from a header after a corner kick. VAR checks to see if it was offside or not. Unfortunately, a supporter's flag obstructs the view of the relevant camera and there is no video that shows the position of the goal-scorer at the moment the relevant touch on the ball comes from his teammate. So, even though it appears highly likely that this goal was offside, the decision to award the goal stands because VAR didn't have the requisite information to determine it a clear and obvious error.
Wonder how long it was going to take you to get this here! Wonder how that supporter feels about that one...
This is the BEST response to that incident (note: a little NSFW): olha porra, @boavistaoficial pic.twitter.com/W1qwBZxMrh— Insónias em Carvão (@insoniascarvao) February 7, 2018
Could not find a better video, but here is the situation in question from today's Serie A match: What is the point of VAR if we are still getting the wrong decisions!?3 minutes to make the wrong cal. That was a legitimate penalty. Period. #FiorentinaJuvepic.twitter.com/VUePmsMQHU— Kush (@footballkush) February 9, 2018 And here is what happened. A penalty kick was awarded, but over the course of 3 minutes, after VAR deliberations, the referee gave the VAR signal and... gave an offside. I would love to find a full video of this and if I do, I will find this, but this is really... a big mess.
Just from the video above, it looks like the correct decision to me. #9 for Fiorentina touches the ball and #24 is in an offside position. I don't see how you can say the Juventus defender deliberately played the ball after it was touched by an opponent at his feet. I believe this to be a technically offside. Now for it taking four minutes and saying this is a clear and obvious error... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Welcome to VAR! We're saying that very close offside decisions can be clear and obvious because we can freeze frame and draw pretty straight lines on the screen. Between Liverpool/Spurs and this, it's a reminder that deliberate play vs deflection is not so black and white.
My concern here is whether this is a stretch that VAR allows to go? So since we can decide whether goals were scored correctly in terms of build up to the goal, is the same true for deciding a penalty, i.e. how far back do we go to decide whether this penalty should be awarded? Another thing... I'm more inclined to say that the player is fouled and there should be a DFK for the defending team. Am I wrong on this?
I got no issues with that tbh. Offside calls are hard to make because the information can be hard to come by, not because the actual decision is hard if you have all the necessary information (usually that is, some times it can be a judgement call). And IMO that makes offside calls a great fit for VAR reviews as that provides a chance to gain the missing information (ironic that offside cannot be reviewed on its own ). This is a fairly easy answer though, the protocols spell it out. Agreed, if you can go back to that incident, which I think you can, and call offside then I'd say calling it as a foul should have been an easier decision.
I agree with both of you that a DFK for a foul is the preferred call on this play. However, the use of VAR in Italy thus far has shown a very high bar for calling fouls to negate goals in situations like this. The question is whether or not that no-call is clearly and obviously wrong. The way the FIGC has been instructing referees up to now, it’s not; it’s a judgment call that shouldn’t be re-litigated even if the foul call might be preferred. In MLS, things likely would be different. We saw fouls like that negate goals last season. And, yet again, we have different standards of application for a system that is supposed to make objective corrections.
But the thing is in Italy, that DFK, if it happened in the penalty area to an attacker, might have been called a PK by VAR. We've seen borderline almost trifling fouls awarded PKs via VAR in Italy. It's almost the exact opposite of MLS. In MLS, I'm pretty confident that if it led to a goal or PK that it might have been ruled out by VAR. But there is no way that if it happened to an attacker in the penalty area that a PK would have been called via VAR. What a mess.
While I hate to defend VAR in any way as I’d like to see it go away, I don’t think it is fair, at this stage, to say that’s different applications in differnet countries make it a mess. It’s a trial. Any trials are going to haven differnces in how things are interpreted and applied—that’s good, not bad,as it allows for discovery. Of which way of doing things works better. Alas, for VAR, IMHO the problem is that they answer is that none of them really work all that well—other than the times when they truly reverse an egregious miss in live action.
I see your contrived tease and raise you a bus - What's that I hear in the background? Oh yeah. It's all in the timing, just like one of the better comedians.
Does this decision violate the protocols? Or is the attacking phase of play defined differently in different countries using VAR? while APP can have issues, Seems like this decision would let you go minutes back for a foul if there were no intervening restart https://www.vsports.pt/vod/41925/m/361956/vsports/541df74a0f2ea5fb61c07c0ed1e41abb
If they are calling the first alleged foul, meaning the one the broadcast shows the close-up replay of at the end of the clip, then they are definitely violating the principles/protocols. CD Feirense clearly gains possession of the ball from 17:43 to 17:47, so you can't go back to a foul that occurred at 17:37. To give the officiating team the benefit of the doubt on whether or not they made a technical mistake, I suppose there's a chance that they called a foul for when CD Feirense was dispossessed at 17:47--it appears a tackle is made and the player gets no ball. That being said, such an alleged foul would be incredibly soft and does not look like the type of incident that ever gets called in a professional match. So you and the broadcast are probably right that they called the foul at 17:37. Either way, this isn't what VR and VARs are supposed to do. On the first incident, quite frankly it looks like embellishment. Plus the referee is looking right at the incident with a better view than we get on replay. There's nothing that's clear and obvious about that foul. So ignoring the technical mistake of going back to that incident, it also practically was a wrong use. If it's the second alleged foul at 17:47, again, it's cleaner on the technical side of things, but unless there was some sort of clear and significant contact that doesn't appear to exist on the live view, that's also a soft foul that is not clear and obvious. I thought MLS was lax in negating goals for fouls. This is crazy. Imagine either of those incidents being given as a clear and obvious penalty?!
To reinforce the point about inconsistency, this incident (same league, so same training and allegedly same application) wasn't given as a penalty and the VAR didn't even insist the CR should have a look: https://www.vsports.pt/vod/41847/m/361959/zero/6bca053d3917241ce63171623874ccdf What are we doing?
I, respectfully, disagree here. I don't see how such chasms in application in leagues around the world are anything, but a mess. The whole point of the system is to protect referees, get more decisions "right" and have the post match conversation be about the actual sport not the referees. We are more than year in and I don't think you can say with a straight face that the system is accomplishing anything that it has set out to do. The incident in Portugal is really unbelievable! How can you disallow a perfectly good goal like that!? Crazy! No one would have said anything about that goal other than it was poor defending. Instead everyone is doing Zapruder style analysis looking for a foul! I'm a believer that that system, maybe, and I say that hesitantly has a place at a major tournament like the World Cup or Euros or maybe even major finals like the Champions League/Europa League, etc. I think having the safety net of VAR to prevent a truly catastrophic and career staining incident that will blight a referee's career and stain the event is worth having. But, how can anyone say with a straight face that the it is good to have the system on a week to week basis. It's disallowing perfectly good goals. I'll concede, I'm against the system from the start, but over a year in, I really don't see any positive value that the system has added. Maybe, there is an unquantifiable improvement in referees having more confidence in making proactive decisions knowing that replay can bail them out. Maybe, there is an subconscious boost for the referees and thus improving their on-field decision making. I know Howard Webb and PRO and IFAB love to bring that factor up. "We are seeing an improvement in confidence from our referees as a result."