VAR Discussion

[pineapple stu]

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).
I would have thought that, by virtue of the VAR team suggesting a review, they're fairly confident that the ref got the decision wrong, and so the VAR will overrule the ref the vast majority of the time.

[osarusan]

I would have thought that, by virtue of the VAR team suggesting a review, they're fairly confident that the ref got the decision wrong, and so the VAR will overrule the ref the vast majority of the time.

But the on-field referee still has the final authority, right? Tonight's penalty for Iran was one I thought iffy enough for the referee to stick to his guns.

[pineapple stu]

I believe so. And I'm presuming that a lot of the VAR decisions are instigated by the VAR team, not the ref.

I can only presume that VAR - certainly to start out, while it's trying to gain traction - wouldn't be wasting its time on maybe calls. With TV to review, you should be either sure or forget about it, I think. Which would lead to relatively few occasions where the ref decides he's still right.

[osarusan]

I can only presume that VAR - certainly to start out, while it's trying to gain traction - wouldn't be wasting its time on maybe calls. With TV to review, you should be either sure or forget about it, I think. Which would lead to relatively few occasions where the ref decides he's still right.

Did you see the Iran penalty decision tonight?

I was surprised the assistants even asked the ref to review it, to be honest.

I wonder if refs feel that it would lead to absolute mayhem among the players if they reviewed it (essentially meaning a panel of refs think they made a clear and obvious error) and they didn't change their mind.

[pineapple stu]

Only briefly in the analysis afterwards.

I agree it was far from clear-cut alright. Maybe the VAR refs thought it looked clear; I don't know. Maybe it's just an outlier; a bad decision (which, of course, the suggestion has been that VAR can't really make)

Did the ref just have a bad game? Seemed to be spending far too much time reviewing decisions, and only booking Ronaldo was bizarre.

(Again, just going on the analysis)

[NeverFeltBetter]

I think this ref certainly let player pressure influence him. Brady was right in one thing, and one thing only I feel, when he said that the Ronaldo yellow influenced the later decision to give Iran a penalty (that this would mean his "FIFA conspiracy to get Portugal/Ronaldo through to the next round" claim make even less sense appears not to have occurred to him).

[OwlsFan]

I think they should do what they do in cricket. Take it out of the hands of the ref and leave it in the hands of some faceless guy looking at a screen. This should stop the harassing of the ref after the VAR decision is made. For rugby it's played on the screen and the ref is the final arbitrator but the ref is in a different position in rugby. He can penalise teams by moving the ball forward which is vital in rugby but not football plus as we know you don't argue with the ref in that game. I thought the Iranians were a disgrace last night with their badgering of the ref. They decided early on that they weren't getting the rub of the green from the ref and hounded him at every chance. They didn't like that it was referred to the VAR which presumably was as a result of a message in the ref's earpiece. They were probably hard done by when a later appeal for a penalty for them wasn't referred.

The referee running off the pitch and looking at the screen just opens him to further abuse. Get rid..

[pineapple stu]

What's interesting is that in no instances does the ref appear to be instigating the video review.

At best, it seems he might ask the VAR team to double-check something, and let them come back to him. Or else the VAR team are saying to him he's missed something which they really think he should review.

So on that basis, appealing to the ref to review the decision is literally pointless, because he won't review it unless he's advised he should by the VAR team.

The conclusion to that of course is that players will just harass the ref for whatever reason is currently trendy, and it needs to be clamped down on. Waving an imaginary yellow at a ref is supposed to be a booking (I believe), but it's never enforced. Moving a free ten yards on for dissent definitely was a rule for a while, and I don't know why it's not now.

They're not panaceae, but they can't hurt, and I don't know why they're not being implemented. If it means that, for a while, some games end up as 8 v 10, so what? That was the fear in the 1998 World Cup when there was a record amount of red cards because of the clamping down on the tackle from behind - but the message got through.

[mypost]

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).

A penalty award in the Egypt v Saudi Arabia game was upheld after a VAR review. But most decisions will be overturned, once the review is called for.

I would agree with all the decisions in the Group B games. The yellow for the elbow review may have been lenient, but was still punished. Without VAR, nothing would have been done. All other incidents in both games were eventually corrected, imo. That's what it's there for.

I would like to see the microphones opened up between the on field and VAR ref, during an on field review. I'm sure it could be done for tv. It's a straight conversation between the referees, all in English with no players involved. It would help with transparency, and convince the sceptics who still want cheating and dark arts to win, over getting the correct decision. The fact is, it does work, it is working, and it will work, no matter how much they protest. And in 5 years, it will be very much the norm across the globe.

[osarusan]

What's interesting is that in no instances does the ref appear to be instigating the video review.


Is the ref allowed to ask for a review? You'd imagine he would be, but then when we see players crowding round pressuring the ref and asking endlessly for a review, I wonder if it's not better if the ref can't instigate a review, so all that whining would be pointless.

The problem then though, is that we would know that any review is because the panel think an error has been made, and the ref would be under that pressure instead.

[mypost]

In a lengthy, VAR dominated press conference with Collina, 4 incidents are shown after the group phase , along with the audio communication between the ref and the room. They start after 21 minutes of the video.

https://youtu.be/zYapOnBsSVY

So far in the World Cup, there has been less fouls, more penalties, and a 99.3% correct decision rate. Somehow, I don't think the percentage is quite so high with refs in our league.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Players making the VAR sign has to be sorted out, it's beyond irritating. That'll be an immediate yellow soon.

[NeverFeltBetter]

"I think VAR has been good" - Liam Brady, who claimed VAR was part of a FIFA conspiracy to aid Ronaldo a few weeks ago.

[osarusan]

From the BBC, might clear things up...or not!

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/624/cpsprodpb/17C67/production/_102538379_var.png

Interesting that VAR can simply overrule the decision, or recommend an on-field review. I wonder what the differing criteria are for that.

EDIT: If my understanding of that is correct, the VAR team can 'review for clear error' and see that a clear error has been made...yet they can decide not to recommend on-field review.

[NeverFeltBetter]

With the World Cup over, the question becomes one of VAR's further implementation. UEFA is still somewhat resistant for the moment, refusing to use the system in club competitions in the coming season, so not clear if it will be used in Euro 2020. Various domestic leagues are a different story. England appears likely to be a bit of a holdout after mixed reaction to its use in cup competitions; various media outlets, especially the BBC, seem to hate VAR with a passion. But it does seem to me that the genie is out of the bottle on video referrals, it's more a case of refining it than rejecting it.

[osarusan]

Yeah, I can't see VAR going away, just being refined as you say.

Some of my thoughts - as the referee has the power to request a VAR review on his own impetus, this leaves him open to endless badgering to do so, as we saw during the world cup. Unless there is a policy that the referee cannot request a VAR review (VAR reviews being a one-way system where the VAR panel make that decision), I cannot think of a good way to stamp that out, apart from just carding it every single time until it goes away, if it ever does.

Until VAR came along, all that hectoring the ref after he had made a decision was pointless - he was hardly going to change his mind. But now, there is a way for him to do so. The hectoring makes more sense than ever.

And more fundamentally, I think there needs to be an examination of what the goal of VAR actually is. Is it to get the big decisions right? Or is it to eliminate some of the worst and most critical referee errors? Because they are not the same thing really.

[samhaydenjr]

Players making the VAR sign has to be sorted out, it's beyond irritating. That'll be an immediate yellow soon.

Or it could be made an official thing - each team allowed a certain number of VAR challenges per half - if they make that sign for an incident, ref stops play and reviews - if challenge is unsuccessful, team loses challenge and game restarts with an indirect free kick to the other team. If it's successful, challenging team gets what they want and keeps the number of challenges allowed. If a team uses up their challenges, ref's decision becomes final again.

[pineapple stu]

I think if you introduce challenges, you open yourself to teams using challenges strategically to break up play. Respect for the ref is probably at an all-time low these days, and being able to openly challenge them would just impact that further. Wouldn't be in favour of that.

[NeverFeltBetter]

FIFA's summation of VAR at the World Cup is, as you would expect, super duper positive. (https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/refereeing-and-var-at-the-2018-fifa-world-cup-a-new-era-for-football)

Raised my eyebrow at this, from FIFA’s Deputy Secretary General :


The implementation of VAR represented a huge talking point during the World Cup, generating fantastic debate about football and its rules.

“It is great that there has been such widespread discussion, but only fully understanding the Laws of the Game and VAR procedures gives credibility to these discussions," added Boban.

And this:


Building on the success of refereeing and the use of VAR at the World Cup, FIFA will continue its efforts to improve and develop overall standards of refereeing and assist all member associations and leagues wishing to implement VAR in their competitions.

I don't know if this is an indication that FIFA won't be pushing VAR as much as possible, or a read-between-the-lines "get with the programme" type message.

[Señor Willy]

One simple, imo, way of speeding up VAR despite all the other inconsistencies would be to have a TV at the end of the pitch behind each goal. Surely that makes sense? With the ref running to halfway it takes an age, have 3 screens one at halfway and one at each end. Most incidents are close to goal mouth... or is there a special reason it is on half way that I am not aware of?

[pineapple stu]

I imagine they want it clearly away from the players. If the screen was around the goal, they'd probably all crowd around it.

There's also the risk the ball could hit the screen if it were behind the goal.

[NeverFeltBetter]

UEFA's current plan to use VAR, from the final qualifying round on, from next season for CPL, then season after for Europa League: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2018/0831/990722-champions-league-to-use-var-from-2019/

[pineapple stu]

Hmm. How's that going to affect LoI clubs? Who's going to supply the extra camera angles, or will refs be looking at a replay a la MNS?

[NeverFeltBetter]

VAR confirmed for CPL 19/20 and Euro 2020: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2018/0927/998399-var-to-be-used-in-the-champions-league-from-next-season/

I presume 2020 will be the first time it will be used in Ireland? Unless LOI clubs advance far enough in Europe.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Confirmed for EPL from next season: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2018/1115/1011151-var-to-be-introduced-to-premier-league-next-season/

I think it's fair to say the debate, in terms of "Should it be implemented?", is essentially over, and it's now "How do we make it better?"

[NeverFeltBetter]

UEFA bump up VAR implementation, it will now start from the knock-out stages of this year's CPL and Europa League: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2018/1203/1014821-uefa-green-light-for-var-technology/

[osarusan]

Interesting.

There must be some rules in terms of minimum number and quality of cameras. Is the onus on the home team to supply them?

[NeverFeltBetter]

Pochettino has become the media's favourite anti-VAR commenter, but makes a strange claim here I think (aside from "Literally nobody likes VAR!", which is becoming a repeated thing from some media sources): https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2019/0123/1025151-football-is-about-mistakes-pochettino-wary-of-var/

Did a load of fans leave that Spurs/Rochdale game at half-time? A quick Google search didn't find any reference to that. And if they did was it not because of the awful weather that night, not VAR?

The incident in the first leg of Chelsea/Spurs was strange all the same.

[OwlsFan]

Hate VAR ;)

[mypost]

I suppose that's because they usually make the right decision. Your fans told everyone exactly what they thought of VAR after the incident, but you had no case. The wrong decision given on the field was put right on the spot.


Yeah, I can't see VAR going away, just being refined as you say.

Some of my thoughts - as the referee has the power to request a VAR review on his own impetus, this leaves him open to endless badgering to do so, as we saw during the world cup. Unless there is a policy that the referee cannot request a VAR review (VAR reviews being a one-way system where the VAR panel make that decision), I cannot think of a good way to stamp that out, apart from just carding it every single time until it goes away, if it ever does.

Until VAR came along, all that hectoring the ref after he had made a decision was pointless - he was hardly going to change his mind. But now, there is a way for him to do so. The hectoring makes more sense than ever.

And more fundamentally, I think there needs to be an examination of what the goal of VAR actually is. Is it to get the big decisions right? Or is it to eliminate some of the worst and most critical referee errors? Because they are not the same thing really.

It's the first question. This is a tool to help referees, and get injustices corrected there and then. It's not a challenge system for players.

VAR is not going away, it is the future of match officiating, it's going to become the norm soon. It's been introduced to the European Cup next week. Therefore referees will not be standing on the goal line anymore.

[mypost]

Imagine Ronnie Whelan's goal v the USSR. Hits the back of the net, wild celebrations. Then the ref - in a manner which at best, I think, wasn't very well signed - decides he wants to see if it should be a free out for high feet. There's a pause of 30-45 seconds while the ref looks at it, and then decides to look at the replay. The moment is killed. That's my concern with the VAR as used.

In those days, there would have been nothing to question. If you won the ball, that's all you needed to do.

Ultimately the only thing that matters is whether it counts or not, so if it takes an extra 30 seconds to confirm the goal is legit, fine. The decisive goal in that tournament was offside, even under the old rules. I wish we had VAR around then to correct the mistake. So we would still be on course to get the point we needed to get out of the group, and I wouldn't be talking about the injustice 30+ years later.

[osarusan]

I thought the VAR-influenced penalty to Man United was crazy.

I'm not against VAR at all, but that's the kind of incident it shouldn't be involved in. BT had 3 ex-Man United players analysing, and none thought should be a penalty.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Obvious contact, the arm is out a bit. It could be argued that if he has a mind to turn his back he should have a mind to put his arms closer to his body, and since he does turn can it be considered an "unexpected ball"? God knows the ref had long enough to consider.

I've probably said it here before but handball could do with some serious work in the laws, particularly the definition of "deliberate". My first description of what the defender did tonight would not be "deliberate". Maybe a bit careless, not mindful enough.

VAR also gave a late penalty to Porto in the other tie tonight, not quite as contentious. The sooner some kind of challenge system comes in to take the use of VAR out of the ref's purview (so this "clear and obvious" thing can be put to bed) the better.

[osarusan]

I've probably said it here before but handball could do with some serious work in the laws, particularly the definition of "deliberate". My first description of what the defender did tonight would not be "deliberate". Maybe a bit careless, not mindful enough.

According to BT commentator, the issue was whether the referee felt he had used his arms to 'make his body bigger' (I think that was the term used). I suppose the idea is that by having your arms extended a bit away from your body, you are blocking a bigger area. But given the way the defender leaped and twisted through the air, I think having his arms where they were is completely natural.

But maybe the issue is that I, and many others, just don't know what the latest interpretations/guidelines are for handball. There was an ex-ref on, explaining how the referee would have reached the decision he did, and I agreed, possibly for the first time in my life, with something Michael Owen said - if that is a penalty according to the rules, then we need to be looking at the rules again.

[DeLorean]

I think the WC taught us that the referees are now giving those kind of ones on review. There were much harsher ones awarded during that competition I think. The handball rule in relation to scoring a goal is about to become unambiguous (https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11655143/football-rules-how-will-new-ifab-laws-affect-the-game).


1. Accidental handball goal won't stand

Goals scored which have hit a player's hand, deliberate or not, will no longer stand.

Gallagher said of the change: "It will be significant as we will no longer see a goal scored hitting the arm.

"80 per cent of the handballs that referees give are not deliberate, but because a player gains a material advantage. Taking the word deliberate out will eradicate that."

Some ambiguity remains and Gallagher added: "We will still have the problem of asking 'has he made himself bigger, has he put his arms in an unnatural position?'

"There will still be the arm close to the body that will hit the arm and the referee will deny a penalty."

Dalot's shot was probably off-target last night, but let's pretend it was flying into the top corner. The handball, accidental or not, would constitute a material advantage for the defender. If an advantage cannot be gained from handball when scoring a goal, why should it be any different when defending one?

Gary Lineker seems to be of the opinion that they should just penalise handball in all circumstances, remove all debate.

[DeLorean]

BT had 3 ex-Man United players analysing, and none thought should be a penalty.

On the flipside, PSG manager Thomas Tuchel was much more open to the idea that it was a penalty.


No, I think it’s difficult. I think there are reasons why you can give this penalty. When he goes to VAR we know he has reasons. With a handball decision, you have soft facts but not hard facts. The shot is wide, and then suddenly it’s a penalty.

Okay. I am a big supporter of VAR, and I remain a big supporter of VAR. When Dalot took a shot, I saw the ball flying straight from his foot and it goes way over the bar. I was surprised to see it was a corner because I hadn’t seen that, then he goes to the VAR, so I knew he was going to give it because he had evidence.

There are too many points in whether we punish it – the distance from the player, does he move his arm. It’s 50-50. Some say no when others say yes, that’s the difficulty with handball. But we played on the thin line for 60 mins knowing this could happen.

They don't make 'em like him anymore!

[osarusan]

The handball, accidental or not, would constitute a material advantage for the defender. If an advantage cannot be gained from handball when scoring a goal, why should it be any different when defending one?

I wouldn't be a fan of a new rule on any handball, accidental or not, automatically causing a penalty to be awarded (or a goal to be ruled out). Although it would be consistent in the way you say.

But I think that most people who follow football actually have a fairly similar view on what 'should be' a penalty. Using a hypothetical, if a player takes a shot and it smacks off the hand of the defender who is 2 yards away and has his hands down by his sides, 'should' that be a penalty? I don't think so, and am not in favour of law changes that would make it one.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Neymar was rather less gracious. I wonder if he'll be cited for his social media posts, certainly managers have been done for less.

I see a lot of people saying "It was going wide anyway", but does that really matter? And the "distance from the player", as Tuchel mentions, I think that only applies for "unexpected ball", and this wasn't an unexpected ball.




Gary Lineker seems to be of the opinion that they should just penalise handball in all circumstances, remove all debate.

I wouldn't be in favor of that myself. There are legitimate instances of unexpected ball, and of players trying to move their arms out of the way only to be hit. Those shouldn't be infringements.

[DeLorean]

I wouldn't be a fan of a new rule on any handball, accidental or not, automatically causing a penalty to be awarded (or a goal to be ruled out). Although it would be consistent in the way you say.

But I think that most people who follow football actually have a fairly similar view on what 'should be' a penalty. Using a hypothetical, if a player takes a shot and it smacks off the hand of the defender who is 2 yards away and has his hands down by his sides, 'should' that be a penalty? I don't think so, and am not in favour of law changes that would make it one.

I agree there probably has to be some leeway.

[DeLorean]

Neymar was rather less gracious.

"How can it be handball when it hits his back?", he said, before the expletives. Not much credibility on the subject after that!

[NeverFeltBetter]

The word "silhouette" is now part of instructions to refs: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47471380

The word "deliberate" meanwhile, seems to have basically no meaning anymore.

[osarusan]

I think we are going to see 'natural position' defined as having the arms very close to the sides at all times, and anything else considered unnatural and therefore part of an attempt to increase the blocking space of the ball.

[SkStu]

I wouldn't be in favor of that myself. There are legitimate instances of unexpected ball, and of players trying to move their arms out of the way only to be hit. Those shouldn't be infringements.

Completely agree NFB and I could see the game deteriorating to a point where we’d have forwards in the box intentionally trying to flick the ball up against some defenders arm.

[NeverFeltBetter]

UEFA backs up the official: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47495707

[DeLorean]

Dermot Gallagher's view is bizarre I think.


I didn't think it was a penalty. I would be pretty annoyed if I was a defender and that was given against me.

If you look at it, it's struck the defender on the arm, there's no doubt about that but his arm is so close to his body, he's turning away, I don't think he had any intention whatsoever of doing anything but getting out the way of the ball.

For me, I'm very surprised it was given.

The defender jumps to block the shot. How on earth can that be interpreted as trying to get out of the way of the ball?

I don't know why he was so surprised to see it given either. On the evidence of the WC, it was pretty obvious those kind of ones are being given - rightly or wrongly.

[osarusan]

What bothers me about it is that there seems to be this idea that a player's arm is either 'naturally' positioned or else it is 'away from the body' - one or the other.

But there is a huge overlap in those two things. Where the arm naturally goes is often away from the body. It would be completely unnatural for Kimpembe to have run, jumped, and twisted the way he did while having his arms close to his sides - they are naturally used for extra leverage.

We have all seen penalty claims when a player cuts the ball back from near the endline, and the ball hits the trailing arm of the defender making a sliding tackle to block the cross. That is the most natural position for a defender's arm to be in when making that kind of tackle, and it's well away from the body and making the blocking area bigger.

So I think it's too simplistic to say that 'natural' means 'not away from the body', because it often does. Maybe there will be something about a duty of care to keep the arms close to the body when a shot is expected, or something like that....just stay away from the word 'natural'.

[osarusan]

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?
Prescient post.

[pineapple stu]

Is your view on it changing in light of how it's being used (as opposed to how it could be used)?

[osarusan]

Is your view on it changing in light of how it's being used (as opposed to how it could be used)?

No, I don't think so. I'm still generally in favour of it. I always knew that it would cause problems when it came to subjective decisions. My issue in this case is with the guidelines for handball, not with VAR itself. All VAR does is shine a light on the laws of the game, and in many cases, highlight how much or how little the fan (or supposed expert) knows about the laws.

And it causes the laws to be examined more forensically than before.

What do you mean by 'how it could be used'?

[pineapple stu]

Just want to allow for differentiation between how it could be used ("clear" cases) and the actuality of it, where some of the cases are far from clear cut

But maybe, as you suggest, it's our understanding of the game that's wrong.