2021-2022 UEFA Referee Discussion [R]

So wait... Jug called the PK, Valeri asked for the OFR, and Jug rejected to stick with the PK? Or was the PK called via the OFR?

I'm just trying to get a handle on when this Ronaldo action happened. Was it before or after the OFR? And, of course, was there any misconduct for this?

 

This is why I asked. Because this is what it looks like.

And if Jug is at the monitor for a long amount of time, you would think the Ronaldo incident would be looked at as a "missed serious incident." Like, you're already at the monitor and everyone would have known that something had happened, given the Irish reaction. Not that Ronaldo needed to be sent off, but it's pretty easy to get the necessary yellow card for each player there. If, of course, everyone was comfortable and efficient at VAR.

 

Exactly. I mean, someone saw something. And the AVAR should have seen it, too, while the VAR was talking to the CR.

The only way Ronaldo gets away without sanction here is if Jug never asks for information (which he should) and the VAR hews to a strict interpretation of "missed serious incident" where he must have a clear red card to even suggest the CR take a look. This is one of those no-man's land type of situations with VAR where you have misconduct that can be addressed, even though it's likely yellow cards, but someone has to take the initiative. The VAR system loses credibility at-large when we don't address things like this.

 

https://streamja.com/AKAam

Italy's future #1? Probably not.

 

The French just had a player sent off via VAR--upgraded yellow. Interested to see what happened here.

 

Wow.

I don't hate that red card. In fact, I like it.

But I'm trying to reconcile how that is a clear and obvious red card but some others are not. Or how we spent almost a decade (if not longer) moving away from red cards for stuff like this, only to be seeing them now given more frequently (yet, perharps perversely, also more inconsistently?). And while it feels the pendulum is swinging back toward tougher punishment in UEFA, it's swinging in the opposite direction in England.

Of all my concerns and complaints about VAR in the run-up to its implementation, the idea that it would lead to more inconsistency worldwide was actually pretty low. But I think that's where we're at right now. I'm glad this is a red card. But I have no idea which competitions where this is a red card and where it's not. Or where the lack of a red card here needs an intervention and where it doesn't.

 

My fear is that it's more of a "qualifying" or "group stage" intervention but not a "semifinal" or "final" intervention, which sort of defeats the entire purpose of VAR being used to correct clear errors.

Could you imagine that being given as a clear error in a WC Final?

If you can't, then it shouldn't be given here. And I hate writing that.

 

And Pairetto did the EURO 96 final while Collina was warming up at the Olympics. And we both know Braschi got lost in there, too.

There could be a lull. But a lull was expected when there was the mini-crisis around 2006 and Rosetti got promoted early. We will see what happens but the next obvious step isn’t there. It wasn’t for Germany until recently, but they seem to have found their footing with Siebert.

 

This penalty stood today with no VAR intervention. Fritz was VAR, so it's not like it was someone inexperienced in the VOR:

https://streamable.com/sjjt4x

I was going to type this post and concede I was ready to be told I'm crazy. But the more I watch it, the more certain I am. This is 100% a sophisticated dive. He's cheating. He drags his right toe far before contact is event possible. He starts falling before the tackle actually makes contact. And he kicks his left leg outward in an unnatural manner to ensure contact with the opponent's hamstring area. I am certain this is simulation. It's tough to process, because the tackle was kind of foolish to begin with; but there are three tell-tale signs of a dive all wrapped into the same incident here.

So, my questions are: is my certainty shared at all? And, if it is, do we think this isn't overturned because the VAR missed all these clues or because the mere presence of contact makes it impossible to be called a clear and obvious error? In other words, does this call standing come down to a VAR making a bad decision or a VAR being handcuffed by the narrow definition of his parameters for interventions?

 

Having seen this now, I don't know. I think that definitely gets overturned in MLS. There's too much contact on the ball for penalty to be considered the correct outcome there at this level in a situation like that. The only question is how much ball contact is needed to make it a clear error. Like I say, in MLS I think PRO wants that sent down. Here? It's sort of impossible to figure out what the correct standard is given Valeri's high level of experience and Jug's low level of experience but maybe UEFA's higher threshold than what Valeri is usually used to...

Another case for the argument that a system designed to correct clear errors has led to more inconsistency with the application of the Laws because we've layered on a second system of decision-making with different standards, depending upon competition and geography.

 

Which angle or timestamp on the clip are you using to get there?

I think the one that suggests that the most is 0:44-45 or so. But then when you go back to 0:32-33, it becomes evident that the tackler's lead foot isn't anywhere near the attacker's left leg when that occurs. If anything, contact is closer with the tackler's "non-tackling" leg on the ground. But we know from the 0:44-45 angle that contact didn't happen there, either, because the attacker pretty blatantly kicks that leg out into the hamstring.

I don't know. Obviously I already reached my conclusion here, so take everything with that grain of salt. But I think the three clips taken together show blatant simulation--well disguised and effective simulation, but simulation nonetheless. He's literally doing things with his feet and legs to deceive a referee.

It all raises a very interesting tension within the philosophy of VAR. If people see what I see, then we have all the evidence we need to prove a referee was intentionaly deceived by the actions of a player. You would think that's the type of error we want corrected. But it would also stretch the imagine to say this is "clear." So is VAR forced to allow really good simulation to succeed because of the "clearly wrong" standard?

 

Yes.

This is kind of the opposite side of what I posted above, right (or, very similar, I suppose, but in the attacker's favor)?

When you slow it down and see when the contact occurs, you see that the foul was consequential (note: I don't even think it's worth debating whether or not this is an intended foul action). So any argument that the foul action was "trifling" because it was late or didn't affect the shot disappears.

But, you have to slow it down and really parse it for that to become obvious. And we have instructions not to rely too heavily on slo-mo. You watch this at full-speed and it is one of those "seen them given, seen them not" type things. Slo-speed and it's probably a red card for DOGSO. So with VAR and the mantra to do what "football expects" when there are two plausible paths, where does that leave us? I understand why it leaves a VAR at not intervening (perhaps particularly when an earlier intervention was rejected?). But I'm also not sure it's consistent with what fans want or expect.