Match 3 - Germany : PR China R: Marie-Soleil BEAUDOIN (CAN) AR1: Princess BROWN (JAM) AR2: Stefanie-Dale YEE SING (JAM) 4O: Lucila VENEGAS (MEX) VAR: Massimiliano IRRATI (ITA) Match 4 - Spain : South Africa R: Maria Belen CARVAJAL (CHI) AR1: Leslie VASQUEZ (CHI) AR2: Loreto TOLOZA (CHI) 4O: Laura FORTUNATO (ARG) VAR: Mauro VIGLIANO (ARG) Match 2 - Norway : Nigeria R: Kate JACEWICZ (AUS) AR1: Kathryn NESBITT (USA) AR2: Chantal BOUDREAU (CAN) 4O: Casey REIBELT (AUS) VAR: Danny MAKKELIE (NED) I wonder if Vigliano is going to be the VAR for every CONMEBOL referee. I guess maybe the Spanish and Portugese ref could get their moment, but so far he's 2 for 2.
Surprised to see this many mixed-country referee teams. And with Match 2, mixed-confederation as well. I don't recall that happening at the MWC... correct me if I'm wrong.
Mixed country, yes. But those are set trios (remember Fletcher was with Geiger, for example; Irmatov had a Kyrgyz AR). The WWC has always been more as hoc. The health issue for Chenard is contributing here immediately—those are her ARs in match 2. Koroleva is only there with one AR (Mariscal) so it will be interesting to see how she gets deployed. Chenard being unavailable frees up Nesbitt, so it is notable that Nesbitt and Boudreau remain in tact as a pair and get the Aussie ref... it’s almost as if Chenard has already tentatively been assigned there.
And here is our first yawner of a VAR delay . . . followed by wiping out a host goal on a very close OS call . . .
I fully get the technology is there with the grid lines to rule on offside. However, I just question whether soccer really wants a play like this to be overruled as an offside. If the player is a half-body length ahead and VAR overturns, fine. I get it. However, this is so miniscule. I don't know if anyone would have really argued if this goal would have stood given that the attackers should receive the benefit of the doubt. Plus, as @socal lurker already mentioned, we had another lengthy delay that disrupted the flow of the game. I realize that this is where we are going. The horses have left the barn. I just don't think it's where many of us really want the game to go.
The announcers were awful on the entire review. Looking at a crap angle, they say “Oh, she’s even” Give the correct angle, she is barely, yet clearly, off and they say “I don’t trust VAR’s grid”. Unbelievable
Amazing, huh? Even Christina Unkel seemed to not be fully prepared. She thought they were “going for an official review” when the referee was conveying the factual decision. She’s used to MLS, obviously, where all decisions currently need an OFR other than mistaken identity—but that’s a league choice. Offside is supposed to be a factual decision without an OFR, like you saw here. Oh, and I obviously agree with the sentiment that this was not what people wanted. But I’ve been saying that for three years. This was just like the England v Netherlands review yesterday. I will never believe that this is the reason people wanted technology.
Anyone else surprised she ended the half on the goal and not after kickoff? I was always taught to have the kickoff as it affirms the goal counted.
I wasn't. I had been told to extend the half a bit so it doesn't look like you extended the game for just the goal. Now, the end is the end. I stop one of my watches when I blow for full time and am more than happy to show people who complain
Who taught you that? There is only one reason to restart. Tradition. There are many reasons not to restart. The risk of injury, of retaliation/misconduct, of an immediate attack that results in a goal or attacking opportunity after you’ve already decided time is up are the top three. Wasting broadcast television time worldwide when you’re already way over into stoppage time could factor in, too.
Less important in the context of VR that evaluates and confirms the goal. In my games (whcih are far, far from the VR world), I'll be sticking with the KO--not only to be sure that I get anything my AR has for me, and it helps dispel any perception that time expired before the goal.
If time has expired after the goal has scored, just end the half/game. It's silly and anticlimactic to force a team that just conceded to kick-off and then blow the whistle a second later. It wastes everyone's time. Also, especially, at the amateur level you get groans from players saying "really? That was pointless." I know when I played and a referee blew for the half immediately after the kick-off I would be frustrated.
Once VAR went down the path of slow mo, freeze frame, offside lines, etc. it was clear and obvious to me it was greatly overreaching from what it it was initially sold as catching the egregious mistakes that would be discussed for days in end.
The laws didn’t intend that attackers closer to the goal then 2LO were penalized for OS? So if you could rewrite them what language would you use? “Too close” is completely ambiguous and defeats the purpose of even having the technology. There isn’t a “too close” in tennis where decisions are consistently by smaller margins so is it really that we dont trust the technology or something different? I can agree the review takes too long but does everyone have a different opinion if that goal knocked the US out of the tournament?
There's really no point in continuing to debate factual offside VAR decisions. If we can tell the player was in OSP then that's the end of the story. We can't start talking about ignoring close decisions because "close" is up for debate and depends on camera angle and technology. But if the evidence is clear they were in an OSP even by 5 mm, then that's the decision. I know people on here talk about frame rate and player speed. I get it. But the best we can do is pick a frame and make a decision as if that frame is the exact moment the ball is kicked.
But can we? It’s a three dimensional issue with moving bodies and only certain parts of the body counting. And you have to time it at the exact moment the ball was played. There are only so many frames per second. You’re sure we can get 100% objective accuracy on offside decisions? This isn’t tennis. It’s a harder thing to pull off technologically. I am far from convinced that we have 100% accuracy.
It would be interesting to know how many OS decisions would be different if a frame one before or one after was chosen as the "right" moment.
Originally? No. They were worried about gaining an advantage. They weren’t concerned with whether player x’s knee is an inch past player y’s foot. I honestly don’t know. Possibly adding the very subjective “and gains an advantage”? Whatever it is, offside was intended to be a subjective decision, not a drawing gridwork objective one.
I believe I learned it at one of our referee trainings in Oregon. But I think there's more than just that one reason you name. Until the play is restarted, that goal call could be reversed. Restarting play, even just to blow full time, guarantees the goal stands. I do hear you, though, that it comes with risks. Edit: And, to @sociallurker's point, it affirms that time didn't expire before the goal.