VAR Discussion

[NeverFeltBetter]

Roda taking the **** a bit for sure, but the silver lining is that VAR, still such a relatively new system, will have its role more readily defined going forward. It's all growing pains.

I think it's reasonable for the build-up to a goal to be subject to challenge if something illegal is alleged to have occurred. You could even put a time-limit on it - say, 10-15 seconds - after which you could argue the defending team have had ample opportunity to prevent a resulting goal.

[NeverFeltBetter]

IFAB meeting this weekend to make a more long-term decision on VAR: http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/43202295

UEFA President sounds none too impressed, though it's claimed the system has been "98.9%" accurate. It won't be used in the CPL in the near future.

[osarusan]

Anybody watching Spurs Rochdale? A VAR critic's dream!

Goal disallowed for clear and obvious foul, analysts don't think it was.

Spurs player 3 yards outside the box feels an arm on his shoulder pulling him back...waits until he gets into the box and then fall over. Apparently it's a penalty as the foul continued into the box (I don't see why it's more of a penalty than a free kick in this instance tbh).

Then Son shuffles/pauses while taking the penalty, it gets disallowed and he gets a booking for the shuffle. I actually thought shuffling/pausing was allowed as long as it wasn't on the step that involved striking the ball. That went to VAR, and a free out was given. Rochdale go up the other end and score almost immediately - that one goes to VAR too (briefly) to check for offside.

5 mins additional time at the end of the half.

[pineapple stu]

There's an excellent article in the current issue of When Saturday Comes on the VAR (and by "excellent", I mean it agrees with my viewpoint). It describes the Liverpool v West Brom Cup tie as "farcical" due to the number of VAR decisions, which both ruined the flow of the game for those in the ground and apparently caused the officials to start doubting themselves, leading to more VAR calls (both issues I've raised before)

It ends with the paragraph -


But a lack of perspective about football and its importance is the critical problem. By succumbing to one-eyed appeals for fairness because there is now more money riding on the outcome of matches than ever, we hold unrealistic expectations and the misguided sense that any of this actually matters. It really doesn't

It's a really well-written article, even if you don't agree with the above conclusion, which is at the core of the author's view.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Don't think any VAR advocate would seriously stand over the level of usage in a few minutes as demonstrated in tonight's game. Think it's clear the system should be reined in and, knowing I am a broken record on the subject, a challenge system would do that.

And I don't want to judge the WSC article on the basis of a single paragraph, but I don't agree with this "It doesn't matter" argument. To them and you maybe. It matters to me and others.

[osarusan]

It's not really connected to VAR, but it seems that the decision to disallow Son's penalty was correct. I am still confused - feinting is allowed during the run-up, but not after the run-up has been completed. So, when is a run-up completed? After all his feinting, Son still had to take one more step, and plant his left foot, before striking the ball with his right.

I would have thought the run-up was completed when that final planting of the non-striking foot took place, but it must be earlier than that. I couldn't find a definition/law for it.

[pineapple stu]

And I don't want to judge the WSC article on the basis of a single paragraph, but I don't agree with this "It doesn't matter" argument. To them and you maybe. It matters to me and others.
That's fair enough. To me, the hint is in the word "game" or "sport"; I think society gets too hooked up on reflected self-worth from sport in particular.

But try this passage from Uwe Rösler, manager of Wigan -

My opinion is don't complicate the game - it's beautiful as it is. People try to make it different for some reason. I don't like it; it interrupts the flow.

Anyways, have a read of the article because, whether you agree with it or disagree, it's a very well-written piece.

osarusan's post on the penalty retake is interesting - and coupled with the issue of whether Mata was offside by a kneecap, it raises the question as to whether VAR is just going to mean the same disputes as before, but at a more atomic level. Is that really what we want?

[NeverFeltBetter]

It might lead them to just clarify that no feinting is allowed, full stop. For me, it seemed plain that the run-up was every movement until your non-kicking foot was planted before your kicking foot kicked the ball. But maybe ref's have received different instructions at some point?

[NeverFeltBetter]

IFAB backs VAR, formal decision on whether it will be used in Russia on the 15th March, seems likely: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/fifa-world-cup-var-good-football-180303180935214.html

Spain and France will both be using the system in their leagues next year.

Edit: Also introducing a 4th sub for extra time it seems.

[osarusan]

osarusan's post on the penalty retake is interesting - and coupled with the issue of whether Mata was offside by a kneecap, it raises the question as to whether VAR is just going to mean the same disputes as before, but at a more atomic level. Is that really what we want?
The ref did go to VAR for the penalty, but I'm not sure why - to check that the feinting took place after the run-up was complete? But in that case, there must be a definition of 'run-up completed' somewhere, and it should have been emphasised more in commentary (they had some ex-Premier League ref there as an analyst also).

We have all seen feinting being allowed during penalties, so what was so different about Son's penalty? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcM_Yshetho)

EDIT: This article goes into a bit of detail about it and how vague that law is: https://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnation.com/2018/3/1/17065670/tottenham-hotspur-analysis-rochdale-fa-cup-son-heung-min-disallowed-penalty

[pineapple stu]

There were three Tottenham players in the box when he connected; that's it surely? I think that's a free out now (could well be wrong) - but if that is what it is, then it was so blatant it didn't really need checking the VAR.

[osarusan]

I agree with you in general Stu, that VAR will see examination of decisions at a more atomic level, and it will be (on occasion, maybe plenty of occasions) a pain in the arse. If it helps to get more decisions right, I'm in favour, but I know we just disagree on the importance of that.

What I also wonder about is what the definition of a 'clear and obvious' mistake is, and how that can ever be defined really.

I've mentioned before that, unlike rugby, where almost all of the reviews are for things which can be examined objectively, in football, it's looking at what are subjective decisions. Not only is it a question of whether something is a foul or not, which is subjective in itself, it's also a question on whether a referee made a clear and obvious mistake by awarding/not awarding a free kick, which is another layer of subjectivity. This subjectivity will make it much much more contentious.

[osarusan]

There were three Tottenham players in the box when he connected; that's it surely? I think that's a free out now (could well be wrong) - but if that is what it is, then it was so blatant it didn't really need checking the VAR.

He booked Son for unsporting behaviour.

Encroachment by attacking players should be punished by retaking a successful penalty, not a booking and a free-kick. Read the article I linked to, it is quite informative.

[pineapple stu]

Arguably "Clear and obvious" is something that can really only be defined after the event. The Mata decision is not really clear and obvious - but that's in hindsight. In that instance, I guess the ref just had a hunch Mata might have been offside and decided to double-check. Once the review is called for, I don't think a player can be deemed offside, but not by enough that it matters.

[pineapple stu]

He booked Son for unsporting behaviour.

Encroachment by attacking players should be punished by retaking a successful penalty, not a booking and a free-kick. Read the article I linked to, it is quite informative.
OK; that doesn't seem to make any sense. The article's confusing, but in a good kind of way. (Although - grrr at "infringements on PKs"...)

Incidentally, when does encroachment become a foul? When it happens or when the ball is played? That'd alter the timeline the article talks about.

[osarusan]

Arguably "Clear and obvious" is something that can really only be defined after the event. The Mata decision is not really clear and obvious - but that's in hindsight. In that instance, I guess the ref just had a hunch Mata might have been offside and decided to double-check. Once the review is called for, I don't think a player can be deemed offside, but not by enough that it matters.

Yeah, with offside, they are simply looking for offside/not offside, it is not a question of clear and obvious error or not.

[NeverFeltBetter]

VAR has been unanimously approved for Russia by IFAB.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Happened upon an example of VAR in action just now, in a Kansas City/Seattle MLS game. Ref awards a penalty to Seattle for handball, on the advice of the linesman. Even a quick replay shows this is wrong (the ball hits the defenders elbow close to the body as he slides to block a low cross) and the biggest delay to proceedings is the ref deciding whether or not to go to VAR. When he does, it takes maybe 20 seconds or so to determine no penalty should be awarded. Further delays to the restart of play comes from Seattle complaining.

All as we've seen before - from a "What went wrong" perspective, I would say the ref should have allowed to refer to VAR immediately instead of awarding a penalty then humming and hawing for a while - but I was struck by the crowd reaction. It must be because it's the States, but the atmosphere wasn't dead, as they were chanting for VAR, and a huge roar when the ref changed the decision, followed by "*******" chants at the complaining Seattle players. Familiarity with video referrals obviously helps.

[osarusan]

Stu will love this:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/43791511


A penalty was awarded after players had already left the pitch for half-time in Mainz's Bundesliga win over relegation rivals Freiburg on Monday.

Referee Guido Winkmann called both sides back from the dressing room after consulting the video assistant referee (VAR) system and penalising Freiburg for handball.

[pineapple stu]

Yes. That's clearly idiotic.

I'll allow that it's a refereeing issue rather than a VAR issue per se

[NeverFeltBetter]

I wonder if the GD situation there might have influenced the ref's decision? Either way, there should obviously be a prohibition against using VAR after half-time or full-time has been called by the ref. Use it or don't, but don't pick both options one after the other.

[sidewayspasser]

Watched that match on BT Sport last night. The ref blew for half time more or less immediately after the handball situation with no indication that there might be a VAR case. Players headed towards the tunnel, and BT went into their commercial break - only to come back after two or three commercials when the players were coming back onto the pitch for the penalty.

Normally I'm all for VAR, but this situation was just crazy.

[pineapple stu]

Who actually called for the VAR?

[sidewayspasser]

Seems the VAR made the call.

[DeLorean]

Was it the right call at least?

[sidewayspasser]

It was. Handball with an outstretched arm that didn't look accidential.

[NeverFeltBetter]

VAR can say something to the ref, but it's the ref who actually makes the call to use it. Why it took so long in this case is bad form. I really do think the razor-tight nature of the relegation battle played a part, as there are three teams on 30 points with only a few games left, with Freiburg in the drop-zone by -9 GD from Mainz (now).

[pineapple stu]

But you can no more let than come into a decision - even your mind, as a ref - than Michael Oliver could allow Juve's great comeback sway his decision to award Barca a penalty.

To me, this is analogous to the ref giving a corner, and then changing his mind to give a penalty. It's always said that a ref can't change his mind. Now he can. Will players be harassing referees down the tunnel now?

(And again, I think this is a refereeing issue, not a straight VAR issue. The ref has messed up here; it's different to play being fragmented by repeated VAR referrals)

[osarusan]

Yes. That's clearly idiotic.

I'll allow that it's a refereeing issue rather than a VAR issue per se

Yeah, I'd agree, it would be similar to a referee being alerted by a linesman that there had actually been a foul.

The fact that it was VAR probably meant it took long enough for the players to have left the pitch though.

[NeverFeltBetter]

With the World Cup on the horizon, VAR's use in the FA Cup Final gave me cause for optimism: a few penalty calls and an offside goal where the ref briefly consulted VAR via earpiece and was satisfied with the decision, no need for lengthier consideration or an off-field review. I think that's the optimal use of the system, and the "flow" of the game wasn't effected.

The issue is that there are officials at the World Cup who won't have used VAR in an actual match before, and I think that's inevitably going to get messy.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Rather than fill up the tournament thread, thought we should talk VAR in the World Cup here.

First incident of note this morning. Leaving aside the correctness or incorrectness of the decision - I think the trip constituted "careless" under the LotG definition myself, but theres a larger question about consistency that's worth asking - I'm more struck by the "clear and obvious" question. What constitutes "clear and obvious"? Clear and obvious to the official in the booth?

Also, just as I am typing, a trip in the Argentina/Iceland game. Should be a penalty, a yellow for diving instead. Did VAR not note the incorrectness, or did the Ref overrule without review?

[pineapple stu]

I saw somewhere that the ref in the France game signalled for a VAR at the time of the penalty, but had to wait until the next break in place to review it. (I don't know if that's true or not; just what I read). In that case, the difference with the Iceland game must be that the ref decided there was definitely no penalty, even though it was a clearer foul than the France one.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Regards that incident, the RTE panel had a good discussion, with Hamann, no fan of VAR, calling for the VAR official to be given the power to instigate a review/make a decision themselves, something that I think is inevitable, but will be strongly resisted by officials. He also pointed out, quite rightly, that it's irresponsible to have officials who have never used the system in competitive matches given charge of matches here.

I also agreed with Whelan's summation in-match: the ref thought his own view was more than good enough to judge the incident, but more importantly was not inclined to give Argentina another penalty.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Another no call just now for the Swiss equaliser, pretty clear shove in the back from the Zuber to lose his marker. Only excuse that springs to mind is if a Brazilian player was doing the same off camera and it was a six of one situation.

[pineapple stu]

Curious call in the Egypt v Russia game. Free given on the edge of the box - and then overruled to a penalty, without any need for the ref to consult with the screen.

I didn't know that was possible. I've said before I don't mind the idea of a TV ref watching and advising the ref via headpiece of anything he's missed.

[osarusan]

Curious call in the Egypt v Russia game. Free given on the edge of the box - and then overruled to a penalty, without any need for the ref to consult with the screen.

I didn't know that was possible. I've said before I don't mind the idea of a TV ref watching and advising the ref via headpiece of anything he's missed.

Maybe because it was not a question of whether there was a foul or not, but simply a question of where it was?

[pineapple stu]

But isn't that the referee's decision to make too? The foul may have started outside the box and continued inside, so the ref needs to decide if it's a free or a penalty. I don't see it's that different to the video refs telling the real ref he's missed an obvious foul, but I thought he had to check it and give the decision himself

[micls]

But isn't that the referee's decision to make too? The foul may have started outside the box and continued inside, so the ref needs to decide if it's a free or a penalty. I don't see it's that different to the video refs telling the real ref he's missed an obvious foul, but I thought he had to check it and give the decision himself

If it continued inside, it's a penalty.

Ref may just have asked them 'Did it continue into the box'.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Reviewing the IFAB rules on VAR (emphasis mine):
"Once the review is initiated, the referee has the option to:
• make a decision based only on the information received from the VAR or
• review the footage directly before making a final decision (on-field review – OFR)

OFRs will be mainly for ‘subjective’ decisions or to assist match control or to ‘sell’ a decision. An OFR should not be needed for factual decisions such as the position of an offence or player (e.g. offside), point of contact on the body for handball or a foul, ball out of play etc.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this means the on-pitch ref has the sole authority to decide whether he will leave the field to review an incident himself, and it specifically isn't required if the only question is the position of a foul (ie, inside or outside the box: the VAR has authority to determine this as it not subjective, according to IFAB)

[mypost]

The on field ref has the discretion to review an incident on the pitch, once he has signalled that a review is underway. It's not mandatory.

"Clear and obvious" was and is, a formula of words to justify that everything be checked. So everything is checked, and all major decisions on the pitch at VAR games, are provisional until the VAR confirms it. While it may take a bit longer to confirm it, the alternative is years of controversy and resentment. Brussels 81, Brussels 97, Paris 09, just three of many examples where we were done by bad refereeing errors which defined/decided our qualifying campaigns.

So I'm fully supportive of VAR, I've wanted it since the year dot, it is the future of refereeing, and in general, it's working very well at the current WC. TV viewers are told what is happening, fans in stadiums know what is happening, and reviews are faster than the naysayers predicted.

All officials know the laws of the game inside out, and apply them based on what they see at the time. Now they have a back up option to bail them out, if they get a call clearly wrong. It's not necessary for them to have used the system in their own leagues prior to the WC. They have all been fully briefed on how to use the system, and they all have a common language, which is obviously English. So there's no communication issues between them.

A number of games with VAR decisions have been discussed here. The only thing that matters is "was the right decision made"? That is what it's for. There may be millions of cash on the line, a promotion/relegation spot, a cup final decision etc, so we need to have the right decision. The EPL and UEFA don't have the bottle yet to bring it in the way others have, but they're only delaying the inevitable. The days of players getting away with stuff they shouldn't are coming to an end, and that can only be good for football.

[osarusan]

Another VAR penalty today, given for Australia after a handball. Ref initially waved it away, but moments later went off to view it and awarded a penalty. It was a header that hit a defender's arm almost straight away - I suppose the question was whether the arm was in an unnatural position or not.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I'm finding the primary issue now is less whether VAR is getting things right, and more what its missing. A glaring spotlight is on the issue of shirt-pulling in the penalty area, something that is practically a routine part of the sport when it came to set-pieces, but can longer viewed as acceptable with referrals possible. Not five minutes ago there is another instance, where a Danish attacker was clearly pulled to the ground inside the area by an Aussie defender with an arm full of his jersey. Until VAR starts calling them, or until refs start to listen, it will continue to grate.

[osarusan]

Not five minutes ago there is another instance, where a Danish attacker was clearly pulled to the ground inside the area by an Aussie defender with an arm full of his jersey. Until VAR starts calling them, or until refs start to listen, it will continue to grate.
I must have missed that.

I said long before the world cup that there is always enough going on with every corner for loads of decisions to be made either way.

I wonder if something like shirt-holding from a corner only becomes a clear and obvious error when it clearly prevented an attempt on goal (which may have been the case here, I missed it).

[mypost]

I'm finding the primary issue now is less whether VAR is getting things right, and more what its missing. A glaring spotlight is on the issue of shirt-pulling in the penalty area, something that is practically a routine part of the sport when it came to set-pieces, but can longer viewed as acceptable with referrals possible. Not five minutes ago there is another instance, where a Danish attacker was clearly pulled to the ground inside the area by an Aussie defender with an arm full of his jersey. Until VAR starts calling them, or until refs start to listen, it will continue to grate.

It was never a routine part of the sport, it was and is a foul, which can and often should result in a penalty awarded. Once the refs do that, that will put a stop to it. Indeed corners are often taking longer than usual now, for the ref to remind players what can happen.

But you have to find the English commentators reactions to the incidents last weekend hilarious. The Brazil v Switzerland incidents were not fouls in their opinion. But the similiar incidents in their own game v Tunisia were widely seen as stonewall penalties, that prove that VAR is rubbish and useless.

VAR has worked very well so far in general. Even in the most questionable decisions, a valid case can be made for why the VAR decision was given. It has already overturned a yellow card for mistaken identity. Without the system around, injustices would still be happening almost every single game. And the less injustices there are, the fairer the game will be.

[OwlsFan]

I agree VAR is far better than no VAR. It does bring with it though players surrounding the ref looking for a VAR referral while in the old days protesting a decision was 99% a waste of time. Kevin Doyle said that in the USA if you make a VAR signal to a ref you immediately get a yellow card. That might deter it a bit.

But for Blatter, we could have VAR a while back and it would have spotted Henry's handball and we would have had to endure losing the penalty shoot-out instead ;)

[NeverFeltBetter]

A player calling for a VAR referral is already supposed to be an automatic yellow.

[micls]

A player calling for a VAR referral is already supposed to be an automatic yellow.

I don't think so. The rule says 'excessive' gesturing. Not just saying it once.

It sets out that any player "entering the referee review area (RRA)" or "excessively using the 'review' (TV screen) signal" must be booked, rubber-stamping a proposal from January's IFAB meeting.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Interesting night for VAR. Even with Liam Brady and Darragh Moloney crying conspiracy (embarrassing stuff), thought the only wrong one was the penalty for Iran, ironically given all their complaining, and even that was just down to interpretation.

The bigger issue was a ref letting players push him around. There might have been more than one red for dissent tonight.

[osarusan]

The bigger issue was a ref letting players push him around.
I thought that it was more the case that his video assistants took an eternity (in football terms) to get him to review the footage, and left him just standing there in the middle of moaning players.

As an aside, have we seen a ref stick to his original decision yet after being invited to view footage by the assistants? I thought that ref might do it tonight for the late penalty claim, but he did change his mind and give it (wrongly in my opinion).

[NeverFeltBetter]

Quite possible, but there was no end to players and coaches crowding around for every incident. A few more yellows or a red might have sorted that out.

I think someone got in Moloney's ear and got him to row back a bit. Maybe a producer was worried about a suit! Or perhaps that's my own mad conspiracy.