I guess the result is correct. DOGSO yellow changed to DOGSO red in Brazil Paraguay. The review was for the location of the foul, but the card change was the side effect. I don’t think either team expected this result when it went to VAR.
I didn't see the yellow given in the first place. If it had, should this have been a factual review with no trip to the monitor? Assuming of course that the foul did indeed occur outside of the penalty area. We never got to see the conclusive evidence. Ball was placed inches off of the line.
Good points. I made an assumption on yellow but I think you’re right. It’s an interesting question. In theory you’re right. But in practice that’s a tough sell for the referee. Also, has CONMEBOL been doing OFRs for penalty area in/out? Despite what the handbook says, more and more competitions seem to be having referees take a look on that question.
I'm not actually sure if they have been doing OFRs for in/out of the penalty area. I don't remember seeing such a review in the handful of games I've watched. In this case, if the yellow wasn't given, I think an OFR is required regardless. Another hypothetical situation: referee gives penalty and DOGSO yellow, VAR sees the foul is outside and also decides that DOGSO is a clear and obvious error. In that case the OFR would certainly be required.
No caution was shown originally -- just the penalty kick awarded. Second VAR was interesting -- brought it back for a Paraguay free kick after play had continued for almost 45s.
Remember, VAR isn’t technically charged with saying “that’s not DOGSO.” That, specifically, is not reviewable. The question is “was is clearly wrong to give or not give a straight red card?” DOGSO red is reviewable. But since we have DOGSO yellow now...
Well, you cannot give a yellow for DOGSO outside of the penalty area so at minimum you'd have to make it SPA instead, which would most likely be a reasonable decision.
I guess once you go to the monitor all misconduct is on the table. But if you’re working a competition that doesn’t want OFRs for objective decisions, you’d never go to the monitor. That would be where it gets interesting. My main point here would be you can’t only be called to the monitor for “hey that wasn’t DOGSO.” There has to be some other component to get your there.
I would say it would become reviewable by the same logic that a foul given outside the area becomes reviewable should the VAR determine that it was inside but also determines that the foul itself was clearly wrong and thus the "penalty" is overturned. In this case, once the VAR overturns the penalty because the foul was outside, a yellow that had been given for UB-DOGSO is, by Law, incorrect and must be changed to red, which then can be reviewed if DOGSO is clearly wrong. It makes sense to me, at least.
The only issue would be, again, a competition that doesn’t do OFRs for objective penalty area location decisions. If the VAR says “move it outside,” that’s really it. Or it’s supposed to be. It would be really weird for a referee to rescind a yellow card for a foul he never gets to see and still ends up punishing. I obviously agree that, in Law, it would be correct. But I think the protocols allow for a small black hole here. A yellow itself is not reviewable. We’ve seen yellows related to penalties rescinded (particularly simulation cards) once a review occurs. But without a review? That would be a new step. Your argument immediately above makes total logical sense. I think your argument that, in practice, it could just be reported as SPA is probably the more practical out.
It seems that there is a directive to remind the goalkeepers to stay on the line for every kick from the penalty mark. Give the ball to the kicker, supervise the placement, remind the keeper about the line, walk back, blow the whistle. It seems a little ridiculous after a while.
Nothing to see here. Move along; move along. On the final kick, is that a stop-restart on the runup, or just a harmless reset. The ref has his attention fixated on the keeper. If it is a fake, imagine trying to VAR that! Relevent video starts at 6:50
I didn't think it was a particularly simple one. The contact was knee to knee and it was very close to the box. I took me about 10 watches to truly believe it happened outside the box.
Or on that disallowed goal, rather. That was messy. Is CONMEBOL using the same tech as FIFA? Regardless, the mechanics of the AR, where he didn’t even go to the goal line on a goal/no-goal decision, were less than ideal.
I’ll take lessons from him in how to deal with dissent and weightlifting. Probably not on hairstyles, though (but imagine how even more menacing Pitana would look if he went full Collina ).