UEFA Competitions 2023-2024 Referee Discussions [Rs]

Discussion in 'Referee' started by MassachusettsRef, Jun 23, 2023.

  1. USSF REF

    USSF REF Guest

     
  2. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    South Jersey
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  3. USSF REF

    USSF REF Guest

     
  4. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  5. Tigerpunk

    Tigerpunk Member+

    Jun 17, 2004
    I understand that under the rules as currently interpreted, that's the correct call. I cannot understand why anybody thinks that this version of plinko is good for the game, or that the only alternative is this or the bad old days of 0-0 draws.
     
    ShayG and StarTime repped this.
  6. USSF REF

    USSF REF Guest

    They will keep tinkering until it goes back to what it was originally (plus no accidental goal from the hand).
     
  7. soccerref69420

    soccerref69420 Member+

    President of the Antonio Miguel Mateu Lahoz fan cub
    Mar 14, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    Korea DPR
    I worded it badly and look like an idiot But this is what I mean. If the ball is coming off somewhere else on the body and then hitting the arm, whether off themselves or off an opponent, are we penalizing it as a handball or not? And is it changing depending on what league we’re watching? Someone above said that this would never be called in EPL but is in UEFA. And I forget how MLS does it, I saw barkey say something about it in an inside video review but forgot. How do we know which standard to use?

    The best referee in the world right now just called this a penalty, so I would be calling this a penalty in my games as a result.
     
  8. StarTime

    StarTime Member+

    United States
    Oct 18, 2020
    I’m really surprised that the 72’ handball incident wasn’t given. To me it looks more like a handball than the stoppage time incident, and I don’t think most anyone would have any complaints about it.

    I’m torn on the stoppage time incident. First, let me say I think it is a penalty under UEFA’s instructions. Watching the slow-no replay of it, it makes it look really harsh. The arm is in a fairly natural position for running and it comes to him off his chest first. But then I watched it in real speed and my gut reaction was “clear penalty”, mainly because the chest touch isn’t as easily perceptible. I always think that these things are best judged watching in real speed, so I’ll say I prefer penalty here.

    But twos thing that have been lost are that 1) Marciniak never views the replay at real speed, and 2) it seems like the notion of “clear and obvious” is out the window with respect to handballs. Then again, maybe not, because I don’t know how you explain the 72’ one.
     
  9. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I don’t think the concept is complicated at all. We have two questions. Was the handling deliberate? Was the player unnaturally bigger? If either of those is true, then a deflection off the body doesn’t wipe out the HB offense. (It might, however, be relevant to what the R believes is natural position.)
     
  10. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    The problem is that nobody agrees what "unnaturally bigger" or "deliberate" mean....

    As I've said in other threads, under the normal use of the English language, for any action to be "deliberate" requires forethought and intent, which by definition CAN'T be present in any situation where the defender has zero reaction time.
     
    Tigerpunk repped this.
  11. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    VAR is just not fundamentally working and not giving palatable results to the general public/stakeholders involved.

    It's just obvious that the game is just not better off as a result of this and no one involved in the governing of the game is willing to come out and even half-heartedly admit that maybe it's time to reevaluate.

    Instead everyone just keeps doubling down and saying "we need better training, let's fast track ex players, etc."

    Or better yet, what we need is even more VAR involvement.

    It's just not working.
     
  12. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    It's becoming exhausting. We are examining referee decisions even more than the pre-VAR era.
     
  13. USSF REF

    USSF REF Guest

    VAR is working fine.

    It is correcting a significant number of clear and obvious errors. The stats are pretty plain to see. Mostly it just fixes mistakes at the expense of a review every other game and average time lost of 3 minutes.


    Unless the idea was that 99% of all errors would be eliminated and that VAR would never create is own new kind of errors...
    1. Failed send down (infrequent, but generates debate)
    2. Correct decision reversed to incorrect (rare, but extremely noticable resulting in controversy)

    If that was the standard then this is a failure.

    Or if happiness and acceptance was the standard then this is a failure.
     
    Patrick167 and Beau Dure repped this.
  14. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    Sergio Ramos. This is brilliant. I don’t know how the ref keeps a straight face when he corrects the call after an OFR.
     
  15. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Who ever could have predicted that?!

    This was one of my fundamental arguments that, I recall, many people dismissed as crazy in the early developmental/experimental phases. It's undeniably true at this point. It's not even close, in fact. I mean, Dale Johnson has created his own cottage industry of journalism around VAR. Similar pundits or outlets exist in all the major professional countries.

    One of the primary arguments in support of VAR--perhaps the primary supporting argument, at least inside the officiating world--was that it would reduce controversy and lessen attention on referees. The fact that almost no one examined that argument and could see that it would end up being laughably untrue is just beyond my comprehension.
     
  16. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    The purpose of VAR is to decrease the likelihood of an egregious mistake.

    What happened in today's game was not an egregious mistake. It's a close call based on an interpretation that a lot of people don't like and would generate a lot of discussion whether VAR existed or not.

    Which means it has absolutely nothing to do with whether VAR's goal is worthwhile and whether it's achieving that goal. For that, you have to look at the data cited above.

    Or watch cricket or any other sport that does it right.
     
    ShayG and StarTime repped this.
  17. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Well, because now it's not just the refereeing decision on the pitch that is being examined...it's whether or not the VAR chose to intervene or not that is also being examined as well as whether or not the decision of the VAR to intervene/not intervene was correct.

    To me the problem starts with the "clear and obvious" language, which is far too broad and nebulous, and has led to huge amounts of conflict due to the fact that nobody can agree on what "clear" or "obvious" mean in a footballing context. The language specifying when a VAR should/should not intervene needs to be made a lot more specific.

    And of course it certainly doesn't help that the handball law is a bloody mess, with the footballing meaning of the words "intentional" and "deliberate" having been twisted into such a pretzel that they defy common sense.
     
  18. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    video review is great when the issue is objective. But it just isn’t for subjective calls, as they remain subjective. Soccer is challenge is that almost all of the calls that matter are subjective. Defining lines on subjective decisions is like squeezing water in your fist.
     
    Beau Dure and El Rayo Californiano repped this.
  19. USSF REF

    USSF REF Guest

    LBW!
     
    Rufusabc repped this.
  20. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It should have been. That's how some people sold it. That's what advocates want to continue to belive.

    That is not the purpose of VAR in our sport. It hasn't been since implementation. And it's straying further.

    But it has everything to do with it. You're assigning a goal that wasn't and hasn't been the goal since we actually started using VAR. I mean, we had a penalty given at the first World Cup Final via VAR that never, in a million years, was consistent with the ideas you're suggesting here. And that was over 5 years ago now. At some point, people need to start dealing with the reality of implementation and not pretend we are still dealing with the theories that were floated to justify video review back in 2015.

    This is possibly the best referee in the world in one of the most high-profile matches this fall and he barely blinked in using VAR to reach this decision. He didn't do anything wrong. One can calibrate the blame between the current handball law and the existence of VAR if they'd like, but the simple truth is this never gets called without VAR. And people who are much better at officiating this sport than anyone on this forum were certain they were doing the right thing and using VAR appropriately. Because, per every instruction at the levels they officiate at, they likely were.

    Sorry, what data? I skimmed and nothing stood out so am not sure what you're referencing here.

    I would preemptively point out that all the data that comes from governing bodies, such as PRO or UEFA, uses their interpretation of what a clear error is. So, to use a pretty apt example, at the end of this season Marciniak's intervention here will be included in a PowerPoint that shows a 100% correct VAR intervention and 100% correct final referee decision. And that sort of stuff means we always have to take VAR-related data with a gigantic grain of salt.
     
    RedStar91 repped this.
  21. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Anyway....there was another situation besides the three PK/no-PK calls in the PSG-Newcastle match that I would like to get people's opinion on, and that's the no-call when Skrinar fell on the ball and handled towards the end of the 1st half, arguably denying Isak a goal-scoring opportunity.

    Thoughts?
     
  22. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    South Jersey
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well the plot, as they say, has thickened.

    VAR from PSG/NEW has been replaced on his Wednesday assignment.
     
    JasonMa and mfw13 repped this.
  23. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Spectacular.

    So, if for the most likely reason, he was clearly and obviously wrong to think the non-call was clearly and obviously wrong? On a play where many here can defend the outcome?

    Amazing stuff. I wonder about Marciniak going forward.
     
    JasonMa, StarTime and Mikael_Referee repped this.
  24. USSF REF

    USSF REF Guest

    I think this is right... but the other part of my brain says this might just be an action to get this official out of the spotlight short-term. I guess time will tell on that.

    I think this shouldn't be a penalty. I think it's the reason they put the whole "justifiable/consequence" language.

    If Christina and Dale are correct (that this decision matches UEFA's current interpretation) then they will have nobody but themselves to blame for the confusion, but they will last it at the feet of these officials because of public backlash.

    It only highlights the problem with having confederation and league specific considerations that aren't published outside of refereeing circles and that the public struggle to understand.

    There could be a better way... common considerations agreed on by the main stakeholders, but that would require the 4 letter organizations to get together and cooperate, so nevermind...
     
    JasonMa, StarTime and mfw13 repped this.
  25. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Time might not tell if UEFA never says anything.

    That being said, @Mikael_Referee , are we aware of any last-minute (day-of!) VAR changes in the current era like this? I believe this is unprecedented, barring something like travel issues for the Tuesday matches, perhaps. Or COVID.

    In some ways I don't blame them for doing what they're paid to do, though. They are trying to analyze things in real time with limited information, just like most of us are doing here. They are going to make mistakes. Or there will be situations where they don't make mistakes but UEFA or whatever other body just changes its opinion on a whim.

    Now, whether or not their jobs should exist because they aren't really providing official insight is maybe a different question. Also, Johnson and Unkel are two very different cases for one very obvious reason.

    Sorry, but I never buy these arguments. Every single organization in the world could be operating on a unified theory and with a consistent application of the handball law and you still wouldn't get the public to understand. I mean, apparently two of the top officials in UEFA didn't even understand yesterday and we expect the public to do so?

    We're tilting at windmills with this sort of thought process. Handball is always going to be controversial. The public--as a whole--will never "understand." The best possible outcome is a law and accopmanying instructions that get closest to justice and consistency. But even that wouldn't lead to "understanding." That's a hopeless goal.
     
    JasonMa repped this.

Share This Page