And yet here is what it says in the actual Laws: Let's ask some questions, and see if we can get to a Red Card for Violent Conduct base on the Laws written above. Did Barrios use excessive force or brutality against Henderson? Subjective Did Barrios deliberately strike Henderson in the head or face with the hand or arm? No So, the Laws only specify being struck in the head or face by the hand or arm when not challenging for the ball (e.g. a slap or punch). Therefore, the only thing that can be considered is whether or not the act of Barrios bringing his head up into Henderson's chin was excessive or brutal. Again, this comes down to the competition; in most domestic or club competitions, it would probably be the case, but in this World Cup, it has been shown that it is not (and this is not the first incident where something a lot of people thought would be considered Violent Conduct, was not adjudicated as such).
This is what the FIFA site says how VAR is used. It seems clear to me that the referee can initiate VAR review. https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/media-tiles/video-assistant-referee-var/
The force is obvious, ignore the bullshit slow mo.....and watch in real time. First 4 seconds of the vid. ACTUAL force.
The slow mo is important because it shows him going into the chest and then the chin while pulling away. Not nearly the force that you want to think there is.
Otamendi kicks ball into Rakitic's head after play was whistled dead with ACTUAL force. And then he does it again, this time to Pogba: These should probably have been Violent Conduct as well, but they were not adjudicated as such.
Seems to me most people should take a breath....watch this for 5 minutes, then come back to your musings about VC..... https://explore.org/livecams/brown-bears/brown-bear-salmon-cam-brooks-falls
If you are a ref in any way...and you think that is not a red..you are a disgrace to your profession. The slow mo is the least important part of the footage, because it neither shows the true intent or force. Real time you can see the aggression and pure intent to scrape the head under the chin of the player at force.
It's completely different. Jeez. I believe he did it on purpose...but it can't be proved. That is a difficult decision. You don't accidentally roll your head and butt somebody in the jaw with malice.
Look the bulk of the games that I do are in the U-14 to U-20 range. If a player were to try to do that (without any specific instruction by the league) I would absolutely red card it if I saw it. That said, if I were to receive specific instructions to avoid red cards at nearly all costs, as many have implied was told to refs of this World Cup, then my decision making process may be different. The best example I can think of that is doing college showcase matches where players are in a non-result oriented tournament. They are there to be noticed by college coaches. Jokingly we say 'No blood, no broken bones, no foul.' In reality, we are to use a higher standard to judge fouls Your real time video looks like a direct shot to the head when in fact it was a 'hit' to the chest and then a hit, more of a glance as he pulls away.
All I'm getting is that in normal circumstances it is a red...but the ref's are under different instructions this WC. Yet none of you know the instructions of this WC...or are able to post a comparable video of a player getting hit in the face that is so blatant and didn't get punished. Just admit he (or the people advising him on VAR) got one big decision wrong..and let's all move on.
Well, it looks like Geiger passed his assessment on his match. He moves forward in the tournament. The “assessors” on this thread may do well to try and see why their own opinions don’t match the ones that actually matter.
Karloski, if the Barrios head butt is a red to you, then the Henderson head butt on Mina is also a red, correct? I thought both were not reds, by the way.
Saying as you said, "This will be my final post in this thread." about 10 posts ago, I think you might be the one having trouble moving on. I'm sorry we all don't agree with you. Get over it.
This is actually quite funny, because by the way you guys ref...Henderson's was never a red..because on a scale of 1-100 there was about 0.1 force in his head movement. Yet for me, he should never make that movement and contact to another player...if he is thick enough to get provoked and cost his team, get him off the field for stupidity...red. Yet, also hilariously, Henderson's half assed head smooch was a result of the ref not punishing players for worse offences earlier. He knew he was allowed to get away with it...precisely because the ref set a precedent by yellow carding a far worse offence earlier. This is what happens when you try to 'bend' the rules.
Nobody quote me again and I will be gone. I'm not letting people speak rubbish about my points and get away with it.
I’m going to wildly guess you don’t fancy Henderson because of the club he plays for. Just a guess. I could be wrong.
Oh, so that is why Henderson went STRAIGHT for his eyes when his delicate chin was hit by the Columbian... Sorry to bring him back in (by quoting him), but I find this truly humorous having followed this undying thread for 29 pages. Also, it usually isn't a good sign when people try to bring "intent" into a referee discussion.
Damn! Is the line for competent reffing that high? It was a tough game to ref but in general the game moved on and the score more or less reflected the action on the field. Also, I also agree that the refs have very specific instructions. High standard for red cards and lower tolerance for penalties. It's undeniable because we are seeing about a 50% increase in penalties and a 50% decrease in red cards. Statistically that's significant.
Again, showing your ignorance. There is direct correlation between jaw and eye pain due to the close proximity of the eye sockets to the top of the jaw. Look it up and apologise if you want...or just keep quiet to save face.
You've approached this a half dozen times. Do you know whether Geiger initiated a conversation with the VAR or not? Your line of argument is based on assumption that may not be valid, or if valid is beside the point if the VAR procedure precludes the CR from asking the VAR for help as opposed to the VAR initiating contact. And given that the VAR does review any potential VC calls and both the R and VAR are well aware of what went down in the press conference last week with one of the presumptive favorites to do the final being 1) thrown under the VAR bus for ignoring his VAR's recommendation for an OFR and then 2) being sent home for the rest of the tournament, I'm pretty sure all of the officials in the games at this point are going to use all of the tools at their disposal - while following all procedures as proscribed - to get the correct call. To simplify: If Rs are even allowed to initiate contact with the VAR what evidence do you have that this was not done? Or if they're not, what evidence do you have that VAR considered this a potential red card and recommended an OFR to Geiger? - the only condition under which the OFR could've intervened with what Geiger and his other on-field officials saw and decided to do. You've got a lot of outrage going - at least that's how it comes across. And it all seems to be built on an assumption not facts. And the assumption doesn't seem particularly sound. I'm just asking for any help you can provide in understanding what basis (facts would be nice) you're using to base the assumption that Geiger didn't use VAR in this case.
I think Mark gave the best performance of the tournament in the most difficult match thus far. If England go through against Sweden, I think he’ll get the other semifinal. If England go out, he’s on a very short list for the final.
While my "outrage" (not exactly the right term) is about the overall game management, on this particular call, I will address the so-called assumptions of mine that you are questioning in no particular order. 1- I make no assumptions regarding Geiger not talking to anyone who might have seen the incident on VAR about it. But it is no assumption, rather a fact to anyone watching the game: Geiger himself didn't review the incident using VAR. And I believe he should have. 2- I assume he (the referee) is entitled to do so on his own initiative. My assumption on this is based on what I posted and cited already. If I am incorrect on that assumption, I want to see a credible site to prove it. 3- Whether not showing a red card was in the view of whoever was watching VAR a "clear and obvious error" isn't the issue to me. As I have said, while I think a red card would have been the right call, I am not someone who would necessarily prefer to see red calls even for such incidents if they look like an isolated incident and someone sharing my general bias against red cards might have also concluded, focusing only on this incident, that it wasn't absolutely "clear and obvious" error, i.e., that the magnitude of the impact absolutely required a red card as VC. But what I have said is that given how the game was proceeding, in this particular match, and given the behavior being shown, the proper way to both get the call right and to manage the situation would have been for Geiger himself to initiate VAR. Both to get this call right as well as to signal to the players more generally that he was going to look into such misconduct carefully. I have said my views on this and repeated already. I am sure my comments aren't popular with US fans and referees and, in any case, they aren't going to decide Geiger's fate in this tournament. But if the purpose of the conversation is for either side to convince the other, I see that purpose isn't being served. I don't think in my case it is because of any bias. Initially, I felt bad for Geiger when he was being constantly almost harassed with constant, often entirely meritless, dissent and complaints. Eventually, as it became obvious he needed to act strongly to what was happening and he wasn't, I ended up concluding he was doing a very poor job.