This game thread is very funny. Game discussion starts at post #6. Post #20 is where second half 8' added time starts, so a whopping 14 posts about the game. Now we are up to post #100.
I've seen some referees whistle for the end of the game and then take off their headset. I totally agree that Conger should not have gone back, even if the VAR is begging him to, and I don't buy the "but in the moment it is a hard decision to make." No, it's not. You sort this out at youth regionals when you are 18 years old. You can't reverse your decision after a restart. It opens the door to all kinds of trouble. If FIFA allows this, then on principle why not go back and annul a goal you really didn't like in the 89th minute? POR/URU penalty? Faghani could say, "Actually, after considering other angles and looking at the text messages Bussacca sent, I've changed my mind, and disallowed the goal." Look, you can sanction misconduct after a restart. But you can't change the direction of a throw-in in, a foul, or for Peete's sake, annul a goal! Finally, the British style of making sure a ball is restarted before ending the game is dumb, and has been causing problems for like 30 years now, and I can't believe they keep doing it. Rather than asking Conger what happened, someone should ask Webb or Oliver or Taylor or Conger who the heck taught them that ridiculous mechanic. Do they have their own 90-year-old national assessor equivalent that is doing that? They have been doing it for decades and it has only caused problems.
I think there is a different between always having the restart (which I agree is unnecessary), and having the KO after the goal--at least there used to be. Setting up and taking the KO after a goal used to have two advantaged. It muted, to some degree, "but then time must have been up before they scored!" And it gave time to make sure that if the ARs had anything to tell the R, or if a problem dawned on the ref, he could go back and change the goal decision before calling for full time, as it used to be that calling for full time meant you couldn't change anything. This was what I was taught by (an admittedly British) retired FIFA 4o something (yikes!) years ago. And I think it had merit, and has marginal merit now--I still do this (usually) in the level of games I do, but only on goals. The real problem here isn't because of the practice. The real problem was having the KO before there was complete clarity that the VAR had nothing--and would have been exactly the same had it happened a minute earlier or in the middle of the half. Not having had the the KO would simply have been a lucky factor to correct an error where the R team was lucky to have had it happen at the very end of the game.
I don’t know anything about what happened yesterday but I can comment on similar incidents in the MLS. A common early problem in VAR history was someone else on the crew asking if they had received a check complete and the referee misinterpreting that they had just been given one. It was enough of a problem that the MLS policy is now that no one other than the VAR can say those two words. You’d commonly hear now “Are we still waiting?” Or “Are we still checking?” I can’t recall a single instance of someone forgetting to wait for CC and it isn’t likely Conger was the first.
I was wondering about the division of labor in the VOR and lines of communication with the center referee.
Couldn't agree more. There is nothing more meaningless. If you're not gonna give them the opportunity to build any kind of attack after the kick-off then just end the half. Also from watching so many referees do this, it actually cause frustration to teams with them saying "why are you wasting our time getting us ready for a kick-off only to blow for full-time a second later." Imagine it's a 100 degree outside and you just conceded your fifth goal of the day. You're losing 5-0 and you want to get out of there. The referee makes you take the kick-off and immediately blows for fulltime after you pass it to a teammate. "Thanks ref." It's so senseless and needless and wastes everyone's time and here it caused Conger to have a major technical screwup. I don't see how this is anything but overturned. If the result actually mattered in terms of group standings they would have to overturn this. It is open and shut.
And this is explicitly not supposed to happen. It's caused issues, including in MLS, which is why there are protocols about getting a final check complete from the VAR before removing your headset. I think you know I respect your opinion quite highly, but I think you're making this way too simple--particularly not allowing for the heat of the moment and the stage. The fact is we don't have VAR at youth regionals. To pretend it hasn't changed things or that it isn't about learning a new way of officiating is folly in my eyes. If you're at a World Cup, with your one match, and you have a(n inexperienced) VAR (who you don't know well) screw up and tell you seconds later that you just awarded an invalid goal that the entire world will be able to see...I just think it's way too easy to say you stand on procedural issues and ignore that. That's with you the rest of your life. And that can't happen at youth regionals. Now, you absolutely might be right here. It is possible that FIFA will tell Conger he did the wrong thing. They might even say so publicly, to placate France. But I think this is a little flare-up over a largely irrelevant thing (really other than Tunisian pride). The question that needs to be asked is how something similar would be handled in a one-goal World Cup Final. Obviously, you hope that never happens there. But as I've said for a long, long, long time... if there is a chance to use VAR against protocol to get the correct result in a World Cup Final KMI, I think every referee in the world will take it. "You restarted play and went back when you shouldn't have" doesn't quite have the sting of "you allowed an offside goal to decide the World Cup!" Back on this particular play, one question that only Conger can answer is... why did he play almost another minute after the OFR when he was willing to only play 2 seconds after the goal? Perhaps it was to sell the idea that he hadn't ended the match previously? Just some fog of war/confusion over what lost time needed to be accounted for? It's almost the least consequential one but it is the one to which I can't really think of a good answer.
I more or less associate myself with these remarks and anyone who has seen me ref or heard me preach on this knows I think the idea you can't stop at restarts or after goals is ridiculous. I try to stop at non-major restarts if I can. I do think there's some virtue in restarting after a goal in a drawn or 1-goal match, though. I could write a ton of words explaining why I feel that way, but I think it's probably obvious. Whether or not that feeling is valid is totally up to personal opinion, but I just think that in a lot of cases, demonstrating to the scored on team that you didn't just extend time to let their opponents score can be useful. Also, getting players back to their sides of the field, separated and accounted for, can be hugely important if the goal or match has been contentious. At the same time, there are obviously situations where playing more would not be useful. So I think it's a judgment call for individual scenarios.
To be fair his tournament was over before the match even started. This situation is between a rock and a hard place. I think he has to eat this. He has an out in that his VAR screwed up and he heard "check complete" and he has the laws to back him up with the fact that he restarted. The fairest thing is to disallow the goal, but the Laws sometimes have to trump everything even if the result isn't fair and palatable. I think this is one of those.
Look, that's a reasonable position. But this is also one of those cases where two wrongs (offside goal, restarting too quickly) doesn't make a right--it's just made things extra wrong. VAR is supposed to fix clear mistakes and take away human error and, in this case, human error is just compounding human error. And none of it really falls on the referee. It's very hard to reason, philosophically, that a referee should eat that. I guess we'll find out what FIFA says.
I agree with you, but I guess I'm also looking at it from a protest stand point as well. If this isn't a situation where a protest is upheld at the World Cup then when can you have one? I know we talk about bending the laws, etc. and I agree with that, but sometimes the Laws need to matter too no matter how unpalatable the result is. I will admit that my judgement is clouded as I philosophically believe Griezman's goal is a good goal and should be a good goal. I genuinely think it was incorrect to disallow the goal in the first place so I think the protest is not only valid from a technical/legal standpoint but also from a spirit standpoint. France had a good goal disallowed. I'll concede that this is offside by the new interpretations. The bad clearance didn't come as a result of Griezman being in an offside position, etc. But whatever that's not the point of this discussion here. If it was truly something blatantly wrong (i.e. Tevez versus Mexico in 2010), then maybe my position on the protest and the procedure would be different and I would say "forget the laws here, do what's right."
I'm finding myself in the camp that Conger himself made a serious error by allowing the review after the kick-off occurred. I get that it's a hard position to be in -- but I think it's ultimately his responsibility to say no, the window for review has passed. There's protestable errors, and non-protestable errors. A missed offside call is a non-protestable error. Conger committed a protestable error to correct a non-protestable error. Remember when Irmatov allowed a goal to stand in the confederations cup that went in a moment after he blew the whistle on a defensive handball? This forum, appropriately, considered that a very serious error. Many, including myself, thought it should disqualify him from the world cup. Mistakes are forgiveable -- but willfully subverting the rules to try to fix a mistake is cowardly and wrong. I'm just not sure that philosophically, what Conger did was all that different than what Irmatov did. Less cowardly, yes--he wasn't doing it to bail out his own mistake--but technically just as wrong.
I wonder if this situation will lead to VAR teaching that a very clear CHECK COMPLETE must be received and then acknowledged by the referee before any restart is to occur. I would assume this had already been if the training but apparently probably not
Irmatov blew the whistle and people stopped. He affected play and then counted the goal. Clear as day. Conger used video technology to correct an error 4 seconds after he technically prevented himself from doing so. I totally get the argument that they are both technically wrong. I don't agree with he argument that they are philosophically in the same ballpark. Unless all conscious violations of the LOTG are the same and need to be treated as such.
What if--hear me out for a second--the VAR did explicitly say "check complete" and it was acknowledged?
No, but you're also not going to get Al Marri as VAR at this tournament again, either. If Faghani isn't jettisoned (and I am of the opinion he can't be, yet) it will be very interesting to see who pairs up with him. Evans is natural but not sure FIFA trusts him. Fischer would present an attractive option.