You know this isnot a correct statement. You claim by this quote no VAR intervention sofar was correct. Well, it's pretty obvious that that presumption was idiotic in the first place and doesnot need confirmation by such an event anyway.
I don’t really care what the players think I care about what they do. We all see too much dissent in the game and it needs to get cracked down on hard. All players now just make the VAR sign when referees are supposed to be carding for it.
I'm pretty sure that's intentional. They really don't want refs carding for it, but it's there if they really need to do it.
I think the referee made a very strange decision to get so close to the ball right there when it seemed pretty likely the attacker would cross the ball.
Shameful by the PLAYER. I should hope he regrets 1) doing that in the first place 2) not admitting to it immediately unfortunate for the referees ...
Yes...very much agreed. He should be shamed...then he might: a) regret it b) not do it again Or is shaming politically incorrect?
Ajax won't take legal action despite UEFA 'admissions' over ... www.mirror.co.uk › ... › Champions League - Vertaal deze pagina 6 feb. 2020 - Edwin van der Sar says it is "hopeless and pointless" for Ajax to take legal action against UEFA over the refereeing in their draw with Chelsea ...
A bit of an unusual VAR intervention in Chile... https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=282670342701853 I'm personally still struggling with this one a little bit... I can see the logic in the decision, but I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with that being a good intervention.
It's Monday morning, so maybe I'm still missing something. But I don't see the logic. Player goes off field of play through normal playing movement. He slips as he does so, so he can't return immediately. Yes, he then lingers a little before he comes back on the field (pretty clearly in an attempt to set this trap), but he's still moving toward the field and has stepped back on well before the goalkeeper releases the ball. What's the call here? The LOTG say "a player who crosses a boundary line as part of a playing movement does not commit an offence." Unless the referee team is arguing that he needed the referee's permission to re-enter, there's no violation unless we're going with some unwritten standard for how quick and direct your return must be. And the idea that permission to re-enter here is sort of a nonstarter. At the very least, there's nothing clearly wrong about this, which should mean no intervention. The fact that everyone on the field saw what happened (referee team included) and allowed it to stand is another signal in that direction--what exactly did the referee see in an OFR that he didn't see in real-time?
I think that this is the logic. The player had opportunity to re-enter the field of play, but then walked along the goal line to "hide" behind the goal post and delay his re-entry... And as such, it moves from a playing move to staying off the field of play to deceive. But again, that's the logic that my mind kinda went to as to why this particular call was made. Do I agree with it? That's where I'm really uncomfortable.
Fair enough. I guess the easy, obvious point for me is that if we are uncomfortable with it, it's not clearly wrong. For the referee... he needed to bring the fourth official over and have a discussion about it, with both watching. If you're having an academic discussion over this and you can't determine that it's an obvious, objective violation of an LOTG provision, then it's not clearly wrong.
What a mess. When people keep piling on the EPL VAR system saying "VAR works well in other competitions, it's just that the EPL referees are idiots" this should be example number 5138 that it's not working well in other competitions. May not be as a disastrous as in the EPL, but you're stilling getting all these WTF moments. Talk about missing the forest from the trees. Took away a great moment of trickery and cleverness. VAR is making the game unwatchable.
On the Chile thing... I'll go with this... It's a stretch to say that the keeper was 'in the process of releasing it', but he was. He released the ball from hands with an intent to release it further by kicking it down field. No one would have a problem disallowing the goal if the keeper attempted to punt the ball or even if the player came from behind and stole the ball just after a keeper rolled it to a team mate. But, the keeper also wouldn't have released the ball the way he did if he knew that the player was there. I don't want that to be a legal play. It would be dangerous for a player to hang out obscured by the net and come from behind the keeper to steal a ball like that. But, disallowing the goal for that is definitely a unique interpretation of the law. I wonder what IFAB/FIFA think.
That’s just... not a very solid argument. He released it. The ball is on the ground. It is not in his hands. I think he might have even dribbled it once. He could have dribbled it around for the next 5 minutes had the attacker not taken the ball. Who knows what he was thinking, all we can know is he released the ball from his hands. He is now a normal field player with no special protections.
So that's what makes soccer "clever"? Rather than "trickery and cleverness", I call it trickery and deception. Metaphorically speaking, that's just not cricket. Or to use a more modern term, it's not what football expects. If I had seen it (at any level) , it would be a straightforward USB for showing a lack of respect for the game. I would expect then, that if the referee(s) had seen it, but not called it, it would have been an exceedingly obvious error on the referees part and that is what VAR is for. If was not seen at all (unlikely), then it would be a "missed" call, and also what VAR is for. (like VC off the ball) Anyone who thinks this should be part of football probably thinks that standing on a ball is legit for an IFK. (before they changed it) or flicking a ball up with their feet to head it back to the keeper is "clever". This move is no different than a dive. The fact that it wasn't called was an "obvious error". I'm glad the VAR brought that to the referees attention.
Probably nothing. It might not have been what he saw in the OFR, but the discussion going on between the referee and the VAR. Seeing something and hearing an interpretation of the LOTG for cheating are two different things.
What you can see on the video that I think no one would process in real time is how long it took him to reenter the field of play. He was back at the end line ready to walk back on when the video cut away to the coaches. When it comes back to live play he still hasn't come back on and hes moved down the line to the goal post. By my rough count that was 5-6 seconds. He did that intentionally. I cannot imagine a referee catching this live. That's not where your focus should be. Is it a clearly wrong error in that sense? No. Is it a goal that VAR should take back or an error it should catch given the playback ability of VAR? Or more importantly if you saw it and could process it would you let it go? The player knew what he was doing. If he has stepped on the field immediately and walked to the post to hide it would be a different story. But he didn't.
Okay. So what Law did he violate? Apologies for being trite, but, so what? There has to be a clear error identified for the VAR to recommend a review. The fact that I don't believe we can even say what Law is violated shows there's nothing clear about it. This isn't a classroom (or message board) where a bunch of referees sit around and debate LOTG theory and there ends up being a decent divide in conclusions. I can see someone coming to the conclusion that this goes too far and is a UB offence, but there is a very amorphous, unwritten standard that we are trying to apply. You can't do that with VAR. At least, you're not supposed to do so.
Except in this case we are talking about an ‘attacking team offense in the build up to or scoring of the goal.’ That is reviewable by VAR. My perspective is that I don’t want that to be a goal. I think that isn’t something I want players to do, and not handled but the laws. There is a somewhat amorphous standards that can be applied to a situation without clear law. But the main point is that the referee isn’t powerless in this situation.
Right. I'm aware of how VAR works. There's no "except..." here. It has to be clearly wrong not to call an attacking team offence in order for VAR to get involved. The standard doesn't magically drop to "okay, let me look at this again and see if I can find an offence." So again, what was the offence--which was clearly wrong not to call--in the build up to the scoring of the goal? Did the attacker re-enter without permission when permission was clearly required? Because "he delayed some and took a little too long so I'm going to call this unsporting behavior now that I've seen it again" doesn't cut it. Or again, it's not supposed to.
I'm not going to quibble with a R who calls this USB and cautions. And I don't think VAR should intervene if the R does so. But I agree with MR that this is not a clear error to not call this so VAR has no business getting involved. This isn't an "everyone agrees" play--this is a play on which many Rs are going to look for USB or some such and many Rs are going to say "too bad, so sad." That's just not what VAR is for.
You think he did something nefarious and beyond the spirit of the Law and that's fine. I personally think he was within the realms of "being clever," but not crossing any "unwritten rule" about the sport. Reasonable arguments can be made both ways. But you're essentially advocating for the VAR to look at this again because "something just doesn't seem right or that isn't fair." Look at the 2:13 minute mark. So you think that goal should be disallowed? It's one of the all time classic bloopers and nobody is blaming the attacker or referee. They are all saying "what an idiot keeper?" If you want to go that route fine, but then you pretty have much to start reviewing every single action in the game. Should we start reviewing every single quick free kick that leads to a goal or penalty kick for the ball not being stationary or lack of the ball "clearly moving?"