Match 4: USA : PAR - MAKKELIE (NED)

As I recall the “advertising” it was supposed to be almost instant and avoid most delayed flags. Maybe ARs will have jobs longer than we thought . . .

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c5yze64d362o

Dale said it was wrong...

 

God what a mess. I originally thought it was correct because I watched the press briefing after this year's IFAB AGM and came away with that understanding. Then again, Collina was one of the Board members fielding questions. I'm really starting to think the Board ended that meeting with members having different ideas of what they had implemented.

 

this is the most convinced I’ve been it was right tbh

 

I knew he had "interesting" interpretations of Law but not even being able to source direct information properly is shocking.

 

I would be hesitant to dismiss Johnson's interpretation just yet (but maybe he is wrong).
I think this could be more of a space to watch than perhaps people consider at the moment.

 

Absolutely this

I am really wondering if different members of IFAB have a different understanding on what the law changes they passed actually mean.

 

Well, Dale is right that it is a mess . . . 0

 

Regarding the "ha ha what if Paraguay scored?!" angle...

After the reversal, the restart should have been a dropped ball. But just because Makkelie gave an IFK does not mean that he rolled back time and awarded Paraguay's DFK to the US in the form of an IFK. Why do we think that is a thing?

So what if they did score...Mistaken Identity and Violent Conduct can be reviewed at any time during the match. You don't rewind everything back to that point once you have the review, you just treat it like a new decision and the game carries on.

So if Paraguay scored, they score.

From my perspective, the management of the situation was normal: if the VAR informed the Referee that a review was needed for Mistaken Identity, the guidance is to find the best neutral moment and stop the game when no goal scoring opportunity or attack is happening. Makkelie did that.

The old Mistaken Identity required no OFR, but this is now a subjective decision: did Almiron dive or not? That naturally takes the view of the Referee.

I'm guessing (like we all are) that if this was caught before Paraguay took their DFK, that it would have indeed been changed to have the US take an IFK. But now that the game was stopped solely for a review of a previous play, the restart is a dropped ball.


Separately...how many bad dives have generations of USMNT defenders taken YCs for in CONCACAF? And how many times have we complained? Well, the future is now. To have 7 pages of "he can't do that!" tells me we're all fun at parties.

 

I can get that, but how does it know which team kicked the ball? The attacking team or defending team? There is no way that can be identified unless a human is intervening?

 

So, forward dives, defender is carded, DFK scores directly. We have the goal stand from the FK awarded due to the simulation that is being carded. What a cluster f$#.

As I alluded to above, if we are going to do this review, it makes no sense at all to not have this review need to be done before the restart. None.this is totally unlike having carded the wrong player on the same team.

 

To err is human. Soccer is willing to accept that. Otherwise we play with robots and xG.

But when you're at a tournament with limited YCs before you sit out...ESPECIALLY in a situation where you're rewarding a player for diving...this feels like the perfect way to dip your toes in the "fairness" pond.

Makkelie didn't get duped on any dangerous "regular" FKs from what I recall. Just this one.

All of your non-soccer friends love this. Why can't we?

 

why is it fair to review diving if the defender is cautioned and not if he isn’t?

whether simulation should be reviewable is a great question ….and was probably always going to come into the inevitable creep of VAR. But this is a weird distinction to make. (And it’s going to be really fun I. This WC if a ref gets duped by a dive that leads to a critical goal and it isn’t reviewable because there wasn’t a card on the defender.)

 

but if it is a 2CT, play would be held up for the review on that grounds, right?

 

But hang on here. If the defender isn't cautioned and there is a resulting PK, then it's reviewable and would theoretically be reversed to come out. That's been happening since the beginning.

If it's just a bad call anywhere else on the field, then tough luck. Be a better referee, I guess.

How are we pretending that non-YC/RC and non-PK plays are somehow important in the realm of Video Review? They're not important. The plays that rise to the level of misconduct or a PK are the most important, and the initial VAR protocols a decade ago confirmed this.

Now that Makkelie deemed this play important, we get to scrutinize it. That's not a hard concept. Ream would have been 1 YC away from sitting a match due to deception.

No one cares about bad calls in the middle of the field. Aren't we the ones that make fun of coaches for yelling about midfield throw-ins?

Things evolved and now we can use the tech to correct bad decisions that would have otherwise caused referees, fans, and admins restless nights.