Huge controversy in an opening match of CONMEBOL qualification between Uruguay and Chile. Eber Aquino, the Paraguayan referee, gave Uruguay the penalty at 3:37 after a long OFR, but didn't give Chile a penalty at 5:50 or 8:56. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...me-win-hosts-opening-World-Cup-qualifier.html
Any video that has the title of "El Robo Del Centenario" (the robbery of the century) is hard to take seriously. So it's micro-analyzing frame by frame every foul and missed decision against Chile? The video producer needs to get a life.
I would tend to concur. The first one is a penalty. The last one isn't. The middle one is debatable, and definitely could be, but I don't see the conclusive angle in any of those highlights. All that said, VAR in CONMBEOL is fascinating. I think this game seems mild, compared to some of the stuff we saw in Copa America. Just wait until later in the qualifiers. And wait until it debuts in CONCACAF!
See also the linked article: "The country's union of professional footballers threatened to make an official protest to the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) over the 'glaring lack of criteria' used in the decisions. Current and former players, too, expressed their anger. Gary Medel, the captain who missed the game through injury, wrote on social media: 'I'm saying nothing so I don't get into trouble!! But that was terrible @CONMEBOL' And former striker Ivan Zamorano also took to Twitter. 'How long are these robberies going to be allowed in South America,' Zamorano wrote. 'Real thieves. Match gifted to Uruguay.'"
We'll see what the next matchdays bring In the meantime, two of the top referees, Pitana and Tobar, were in action yesterday. Roldan, Bascunan, and Haro among those assigned to the next matchday.
That is pretty much said after every defeat by every team in CONMEBOL after any remotely controversial or debatable referee decisions. Weren't Messi and Neymar suspended for months due to spewing conspiracy theories about the referees in the past couple of years. That tells you all you need to know.
Interesting. I missed the changes where really bad judgment by the R became a valid basis for a protest . . . .
Yeah, from CONMEBOL games... and the suspensions were (amusingly?) timed so that they didn't actually miss any games anyhow.
I don't think it's worth creating a new thread, but the second half of Ecuador v Uruguay had two OFRs (one for a goal via handling that took way too long and one for a penalty/reckless yellow that might not have been clearly wrong in other competitions) and one injury plus the normal slate of substitutions... +10 minutes. I'm only seeing bits and pieces, but the application of VAR in CONMEBOL is as fascinating as one might suspect. Watching this match did remind me of something... it seems referees in most other competitions have dispensed with the "ear check" mechanic. It's alive and well in South America. Have I missed it elsewhere?
By the way, CONMEBOL is publishing a live feed after the game of the VAR decisions and how the refs decided on things.Here is one of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFpQUdTC55A
They, uh, confirmed that penalty, huh? Wow. I've seen several of these on the CONMEBOL YouTube page. I can't help but continue to fallback on the "fascinating" word. Maybe it's worth just changing this thread to "CONMEBOL WC Qualifiers?"
Probably a good idea. It would just be nice if most of us could watch these matches without shelling out $30/game. Just in general, I find watching CONMEBOL games the most interesting from a general refereeing perspective. From the endless supply of referee swarming to the general (as Stu Holden would say) "housery" that is part and parcel for those games, they are generally fascinating case studies and training tools for me.
I find Conmebol matches great case studies for managing matches. But if you wanna watch a confederation with wild tackles and issues watch CAF (African confederation). You’ll see some crazy tackles and talk about “questionable” referee decisions.
this is only a short highlight, but I don't think it even resulted in a red card? Más allá de la intención, este evidente topetazo -con doble rodillazo aéreo- contra Exequiel #Palacios es con uso desmedido de la fuerza contra un rival de espaldas. El #VAR debió rever esta jugada y el juez debió EXPULSAR a Ángel Romero.#Eliminatorias pic.twitter.com/g66ywBbZVw— Pablo Lisotto ⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@plisotto) November 13, 2020 and the argentina player that was injured ended up with a fractured spibe
I guess if you like VAR, this is a demonstration of properly taking away a goal where possession was gained with a foul. If you don’t like VAR, it’s a demonstration of the brutality of VAR ruining a beautiful goal because of something that happened a long time ago.
Not only in MLS, but everywhere else - it was a mistake. "The starting point for a phase of play that leads to a goal or penalty incident will be limited to the immediate phase and not necessarily go back to when the attacking team gained possession." (https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297401)
yes correct. I guess my point is - people that see this as a reason VAR is ruining the game aren’t accurate. VAR didn’t ruin this but instead a combination of two bad referee decisions caused controversy. One to not call a foul and the other to intervene outside the protocol. You should just be complaining about poor officiating. If this had occurred immediately before the goal we would all agree it was a good use. So for me it’s not an indictment of VAR...just poor decisions.
Was this a change, and is it defined anywhere by IFAB? I thought the APP had been gaining possession forward. (Seems to “immediate phase” is awfully mushy.)
The last iteration of the VAR Handbook that I saw (2018) stated: So the APP is not exclusively the change in possession going forward. There's a second more subjective standard that has to be met, too. The Handbook speaks A LOT about this and even says it The Handbook then goes on to stipulate "this concept will be further defined during the education phase," which is now over... but, well, I don't think there is an updated Handbook after the education phase ended and APP isn't defined in the current IFAB protocols outside this bullet: So with all that said... yes, I think this outside the APP. There are 8 passes between the foul and the goal. I would say the final 4 passes are clearly part of the APP and you could convince me the 5th-to-last pass is, too. But after that, I just don't think the subjective standard is met. But this does illustrate how tricky this is all is. That goal never happens without a reckless foul that gets blatantly missed. But we are okay with that while we are NOT okay with offside by 3 milimeters? And, of course, the referee team here felt differently so apparently it's not obvious to everyone!
It also should be noted that this is likely a WC referee team for 2022. We talk a lot about the EPL and how they do things differently. But I'm telling you... the increased worldwide use of VAR is going to make consistency 100x tougher at Qatar 2022 than it was in Russia 2018. Because in 2018, FIFA controlled the rollout and controlled how referees were learning VAR for the first time. Now, most referees at the next World Cup are goign to have 3-5 years of experience with VAR and it's going to be vastly different referee to referee, country to country and confederation to confederation. It could be a wild ride.
The funny part is that I think there was even more obvious foul missed on an Argentine player by a Paraguayan when Paraguay gained possession. But because Paraguay didn't score on the possession it doesn't get reviewed. I was watching the Notre Dame vs. Clemson college football game two weeks ago and the second half and overtime turned into a seemingly endless instant replay review. Every single play was being stopped to review and it was killing the spectacle and the momentum of the game. You could see the frustration from every one. Coaches, fans, and even the game announcers. Mike Tirico made a point that was so fundamental to what the problem with instant replay in sports in. He said "here is the system, you can't get most of them right you have to get all of them right when you have the access to it." (2:50:00 in the video). That's essentially what will happen to soccer and the rabbit hole it's already started to go down. You can try as you like to develop system that is theoretically only a "break glass in case of emergency" type of system. Essentially, only use it if your house is on fire, but it eventually comes to the point of using it when you smell smoke from a single match. We've seen it in basketball. They originally only used replay to confirm if a shot beat the clock. Then they expanded to see who the ball went off last and now they've expanded to where you can challenge foul calls. But you're only limited to one per game. Inevitably, that's gonna get expanded as well.