2021-2022 UEFA Referee Discussion [R]

Should be in this refereeing HL clip -
https://fromsmash.com/211009-WCQ-Scotland-Israel-Szymon-Marciniak-Tomasz-Kwiatkowski

 

I think this is a perfect example of why CR's need to have the ability to communicate via the stadium audio system, so that they can explain calls to both the fans in the stadium as well as TV viewers. This is routinely done in the NFL, so the technology exists.

I can't think of any other major sports where everyone is left in the dark about controversial decisions as much as in soccer.

 

I am really trying hard not to overreact here, or go on yet another "rant", but have we learned nothing from the Euros?

In the European Qualifiers over the past several days we have had at least half a dozen VAR interruptions that have taken in excess of two minutes, on a couple of occasions as much as four minutes.

Now, I am all in favour of getting as many decisions correct as possible, but what part of "clear and obvious" are we not getting here? Regardless of what the decision is - penalty-kick/no penalty-kick, goal/no goal etc - if you are having to look at multiple replays, from multiple angles, at multiple speeds, it is not a clear and obvious error, so surely the decision on the field must stand?

After a Euros tournament where most people tend to agree VAR was used to great effect, we seem to have slipped backwards in these qualifiers, though clearly partly due to the quantity of games that are being covered.

I hate to suggest it, but if we can't manage this simple concept, maybe we need to think about putting a time limit on a review. Taking 2-4 minutes to agree that there was no "clear and obvious error" is clearly and obviously not what the game needs right now!

 

For clarity, and in the interest of full (OK, not quite full) disclosure, I will say that I am perhaps more familiar with this than most, from a UEFA standpoint, so I do get all the issues that we have discussed in this forum before, and again now, and the last two contributors have made good points, as they usually do.

But, I do think that we (in UEFA) really need to just get back to basics. I might send the guys at Nyon a bunch of posters to hang up in every VAR room/van/centre simply repeating the "Clear and Obvious Error" mantra.

As has been said (quite correctly), MLS does VAR very well, possibly as good as anyone, but they do so because that message was always hammered home.

In UEFA, right now, we seem to have a bunch of guys who think the purpose is to get every decision perfectly correct. And that is never going to work.

 

Hmm . . . do we get to say that CONCACAF is making better use of VAR than UEFA by not using it?. . . .

 

Rosetti wants to change the interpretation.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/uefa-na...nations-league-final-could-lead-to-law-change

 

Hmm. For years, USSF taught that a play required the defender to "possess and control" the ball. Under that standard, a kick/header had to go in a direction intended in order to "reset" OS. Seems that IFAB explicitly rejected that standard in establishing the considered action plus contact = play.

(I don't think Rossetti was using "advantage" in the technical sense of Law 11, but in the common sense meaning that he was able to score b/c he was in an OS position.")

 

Just curious to add to the discussion - would you consider a "shank" as a deliberate play? I remember a game where my son was playing and the other team's defender shanked a ball with no one near him. My son ran onto the ball from an offside position and scored the winning goal in the last minute. Needless to say, the other team's coaches and parents were going nuts, so I had a discussion with the coach after the game (I was not refereeing the game - just a parent trying to help a coach understand the law better) to explain why the no offside call was right.

I can live with a play like the Garcia play still being ruled as offside, but I'd have a harder time with a shanked kick not caused by an attacker anywhere near the play being ruled as an offside.

 

Under it's "possess and control" standard, USSF explicitly excluded miskicks and misdirected kicks, so if the shank was the first touch, it would not re-set OS under that standard, but if there was a trap and then a shank there would be a re-set based on the trap, not the shanked kick.

 

A shanked kick absolutely IS a deliberate play that resets offside.

a deliberate play need not be a beautiful play.

 

It clearly and absolutely is under the current standard; it explicitly was not under the old "possess and control" standard.

Whether it should be is a matter of opinion. (And finding a clear line between the current line and the "possess and control" standard may be challenging.)

 

Personally, I'd rather have "posses and control" than what we have now.

At the same time, I like what we have now far better than what we had way back when I started reffing and we used the "seeks to gain an advantage" that meant if the ball was sent in the general direction of an OSP player we had an offense unless that player was clearly indicating he would not pursue the ball.

I don't have any clear ideas on how to draw a line somewhere between what we have now and "possess and control."

 

Liverpool/Athletico, Griezmann with a RC for a high kick going straight in with his spikes to the side of Firmino's head, and the color commentator thinks it shouldn't be a red because it wasn't on purpose.
Sigh.