Someone needs to help me out at 1:55 of the highlights in the Uruguay v Paraguay match from yesterday: This goal was disallowed for offside. But, that can't be right--can it? How did VAR not allow this to stand? Anyone watch and have a fuller understanding of what happened?
Also a couple intriguing red cards in Peru v Venezuela: 0:46 for a 2CT on Peru and 3:14 for SFP against Veneuzla via VAR. These clips are reinforcing my thesis that after years of closing gaps, we are drifting again on geographical discrepancies relative to enforcement of the Laws.
Perhaps the consideration was interference with an opponent by the player after he passed it? The defender by him goes down, and it looks like there may have been contact. But the angle we have doesn't really show what happened well. (Though I'm not sure, even if there was interference, that opponent actually had a opportunity to play or challenge for the ball--perhaps, ITOOTVAR, that wasn't clear error of judgment?) (I had wondered if the issue was the R whistled, making VAR review impossible, but in the second replay, we can see the R first signal for a KO, so he can't have blown before it entered the goal.)
Colombian VAR and AR suspended by CONMEBOL: http://refereeingworld.blogspot.com/2021/06/var-and-ar-suspended-by-conmebol.html
I understand the AR error—there was an OSP attacker at the time the ball was played and the onside attacker passed the defender, which is a not uncommon mistake. But I’d really like to know what the VAR saw/thought that led to recommending an OFR—my hypothesis above would only make sense if the AR said that’s what he flagged.
There was no OFR. The AR raised his flag for offside and the VAR checked it, without OFR, recommending directly to the referee to disallow the goal. They only looked at the offside position, without considering whether he was involved or not in active play. The VAR audio in included in the link above.
Oops. I left out the “not” in front of recommending in my post. To me this error is understandable from the AR, but inexplicable that the VAR didn’t evaluate participation. I think publicly suspending the AR is pretty harsh.
I wonder if they'd have been suspended if the VAR had talked about whether the player was involved in play or not. You could make an argument that the player was interfering with GK's line of sight (I'm not saying it's the right call, but it's at least plausible). But unless I missed something in the audio & captions, that was never a consideration at all. They only checked the position. That's mind-boggling. I also wonder if there was any conversation between the AR and CR prior to giving the offside. Obviously the player was in an offside position, but CR and AR need to decide whether that constitutes an offense or not before making the offside call on the field. With comms I'd want to talk about it; without comms I'd still want to come together and discuss the call.
the R signaled for the goal before calling the OS. This is perplexing with comms. As I understand it, the AR should have been calling “delay” into the com if he wasn’t flagging immediately, and certainly should have been saying something immediately on the ball going in the net. Lack of experience with VAR by the R and AR? (Though even without comms or VAR, the R should have checked with his AR before signaling the goal.)
Absolutely disgusting COL:ARG This is the type of simulation that ruins the game. It is flat out cheating. https://streamable.com/z8smt3
Not quite qualifying, but probably not worth starting another thread for this. Another big mistake re: VAR in CONMEBOL:
Wow. I see how the mistake was made, as they zoomed in, but wow that's wholly unacceptable. This is exactly the kind of clear error by an AR (though I understand how the AR lost that defender) that VAR is meant to fix. It looks to me that they have inferior tech to MLS, as it didn't seem they were syncing the various views--if they were, it would seem they wouldn't have lost the key defender. Is that just my perception?
Also had this bizarre review after Boca Juniors goal. Had multiple offside checks and foul checks in APP plus multiple cautions for entering RRA. The referee and VAR from this one have been suspended and the var, avar, and ar from the above offside one have been suspended.
Yup, VAR just makes everything better . . . I do think suspending the AR from the first one is harsh. It's a miss, but it's not hard to see how an AR loses that defender. Yes, it should hurt his rating, but it seems the only reason it became a suspension is the VAR missed--and the VAR's miss is not excusable.
It took 5 minutes from goal to no goal. And VAR room was looking to review everything. But why punish the Ref? What they finally found did look like a decent push by the attacker #29 on the defender.
Because he's ultimately responsible and he changed a decision that he shouldn't have. No matter how bad the VMOs are on a particular play, the Referee can always go against the recommendation that comes down (though, as I've noted elsewhere, really can't ignore a call to come conduct the OFR, despite what some have suggested). I barely think that would be a defensible foul call if it was called live by the referee. There is no way whatsoever that is a clear and obvious error.
This ^^ Seems a case where the VAR watched it too many times and convinced himself there was more there than there was. (Perhaps also started feeling subconsciously that if it took that long there must be something in one of the events been checked?) And because the VAR is only supposed to recommend an OFR if there is a C&O error, the R gets to the screen pre-conditioned to think he must have missed something. I think that makes it really hard for an R to not reverse the call (though we have seen some excellent decisions doing exactly that at times). But that is what he should have done here--if that is a clear and obvious foul, then there is a foul on every cross that comes into the PA in every professional game.
Apologies, could not find a Copa Libertadores thread. Wild post-match scenes from Tuesday's Atletico Mineiro v Boca Juniors match. Boca knocked out on penalties following 0-0 aggregate but they felt they had two legit goals overturned by VAR, one in each leg. Boca Juniors were furious after having goals disallowed by VAR in both legs of their Copa Libertadores tie against Atletico Mineiro.This was the goal they had disallowed in the first leg.pic.twitter.com/QQY7EvhWEl— Sam Street (@samstreetwrites) July 21, 2021 Can't find the VAR video from the second leg. Les parece offside? @BocaJrsOficial @CONMEBOL @Libertadores @giraltpablo #varsil #Libertadores pic.twitter.com/NHbbx4iS4O— meCamT! (@camp_eme) July 21, 2021
That first goal disallowed for a foul on the attacker is a never a foul anymore at really any competitive level. I can kind of accept calling that a foul in real time, but no way is that a foul on review. One of the key improvements in officiating that has been made in the last 20 years is the horrible habit of calling non-existent or extremely soft fouls on attackers on crosses/set pieces. Fouls that would never be given as penalties are called on attackers. Referees just being absolutely terrified of awarding remotely controversial goals. Go watch games of Collina and Co from 1998 to around 2006. Exhibit A (CONCACAF's own Peter Pendergast): 55 second mark in the video. Exhibit B: 2:18 in the video How do you see a foul there? Exhibit C: Where is the foul? Apart from Maradona in '86 and Henry's handling against Ireland, I can't think of a goal getting awarded for a non-offside offense that shouldn't have (i.e a foul on a defender) and ruining a referee's career or tournament. There wouldn't have been a Korean fan saying "man we got robbed on that Spain goal off that set piece, that was a foul." While the scale will inherently always be tipped toward the defender getting a "softer" foul than an attacker in the penalty area, it is not as pronounced as it used to be. But this VAR review is just making things go backwards and even worse.
But I think we’ve gone too far the other way. I am astounded by the drag downs that aren’t called. But what is really frustrating is the shove that disrupt the shot/headballl that are never called.
I agree with you on the Rojas incident but I think you managed to pick three incidents where I'd argue that the referee was probably right! At least there should be no doubt about the Al-Ghandour case (jump to 3:10):