Ya. Maybe an administrator can change his title so underneath it says, "but knows nothing about refereeing"
Also using Billy's logic, Henry and Maradona's hand of god goals wouldn't be review-able since the refs didn't see it and handling isn't a serious incident.
I ignored nothing. You didn’t read my earlier post. The determination of “serious” must come before the PK determination. Just because it’s a potential PK doesn’t make it “serious” under the laws You must determine if it’s serious and then determine if it’s a potential PK
This play, to me, was a rare case of the offense being more clear at regular speed than in slo mo. First of all, folks, it went to VAR because Pitana didn't see the handling. He gave a goal kick, remember! Anyway, at regular speed, it was clear and obvious that the defender sped up his arm in order to meet the ball. I don't get why so few of the posters here arent mentioning that acceleration. As to Griezmann, it looked to me on the replay exactly like an NFL running back making a jump cut. I mean, there's no doubt there was a ton of contact, right? It's just that many people thought Griezmann simulated before the contact. As a fan, not a referee, allow me to gently point out that the referees here have an obvious referee-centric view of VAR, and have long been biased against it. y'all are holding VAR to a far higher standard than you hold referees...I lurk here a ton, and the acceptance of what I call "defensive refereeing," the bias in favor of things that keep the score down, is night and day to how VAR is judged.
I will say this about decision making. I've done some FIFA drills (we have a FIFA in our neck of the woods) and one of the drills they do is run, sprint, run and then they make a decision And then you repeat. It's a difficult drill Bc when your heart rate goes up it takes longer for your brain to process stuff. Even though the questions are like "what number is this green card". So I think Pitana double checking and triple checking instance is OK in my book given the stage and ramifications this had for his game. I'll take a stab at this in a respectful manner. Page 9 of the VAR protocol lists all the reviewable incidents and then at the bottom of it has a paragraph that says "ALL DECISIONS CAN BE REVIEWED.." I think you are getting caught up in the minutiae of the language. I'd also make the argument pitana didn't have a proper view. But either way a Goal kick restart instead of a PK restart is a clear an obvious error instead of serious missed incident.
From that angle you can't tell if his foot is hit, or if he moves his foot on his own. The reverse angle shows that he moves the foot on his own. The first contact that is made is lower leg to lower leg when Griezmann throws his leg out to meet Brozovic.
Thank you for being respectful. I have a general complaint that those who write the laws are poor writers. Look at the disagreement over "deliberate". USSOCCER is far worse than FIFA. The old ATR was horrible as they had things in there that were contrary to the LotG and sometimes simply made stuff up. But that aside, if you read my post #258, you'll see my complaints. While I see your "ALL DECISIONS," language, I don't think that overrides as it is a general statement vs. the specifics I address in post 258. However, I think it might be covered in the following language in the protocol (p 7): The VAR will automatically ‘check’ every situation/decision to see if a potential clear error has been made in a match-changing situation or if a serious incident/offence has been missed; there is thus no need for coaches or players to request a review as if something has been missed it will be seen by the VAR. I still am not comfortable with the word "serious" applying to handling as they anticipate "serious missed incidents" being off the ball. To ensure that the referee (not the VAR) is the key match official, the referee will always make a decision (except a ‘missed’ usually ‘off the ball’ incident), Regardless, the first paragraph seems to indicate they are going to review everything and if they see anything wrong, they will act. That all being said, I'd love to know why the used "serious". Using "serious" implies there are also "non-serious" missed incidents. Additionally, the stuff I posted in #258 clear instructs a decision BEFORE determining it to be a PK. Just because it is a PK doesn't make it serious. Regardless the above language indicates everything is being reviewed despite the language being crap. I also would hope VAR is looking at only serious law violations. It would be very interesting if a ref missed something, reviewed, and then found it trifling. Thank you for being respectful.
Here’s where I disagree with a ton of the commenters. A free kick was awarded. A poor defensive header scored the goal. 1-0 to France. A poor defensive header led to a corner. A horrible piece of defending in the area led to a penalty. 2-1 to France. Any other questions?
The fact that Perisic is directly behind Matuidi who somehow misses the ball at the last second basically invalidates that theory, if even possible to begin with. He wouldn't be able to see it, let alone speed up his hand to defect it.
That call has always turned on deciding precisely how far from the body a hand can get before it's in an unnatural position. Here, the hand is further away and had unnatural movement of the hand to the ball. I get it, but that was a closer call than this I think
This standard of course would still result in a PK here. You get into parsing direction of movement etc, then
Surprised that no one mentioned that 47 seconds into the game, on the first call of the game (throw in for France), Pitana pointed the wrong way.
This is some serious effort to reach a wrong headed conclusion. This isn't a two stage analysis. Was it a serious missed incident with regard to a PK (e.g., DFK in the 18)? If so, it's reviewable.
Nothing in the laws suggests this is a two step analysis. if it's either a clear and obvious error in relation to a PK, it's reveiwable. It's the fact that its related to the PK that makes is a serious missed incident. Your reading of the text is simply wrong.
Here is a view from someone who also a referee. Ivan Perisic penalty decision: Did referee get World Cup final call 'shockingly' wrong? ESPN FC
That handball PK doesn't irk me, but what REALLY irk me is Griezmann dive that give France the first goal. Doesn't matter how many times I rewatch it, it clearly a dive. How I wish VAR would step in and take a look at that dive.