I see the video referee causing a bit of predictable controversy in the Confed Cup. Russia had a penalty appeal, Mexico broke away on a counter, but the ref broke off the attack to go and look at the replay of the penalty incident. He decided no penalty, and so it was a drop ball, which was uncontested as Russia just gave possession back to Mexico - as far away as possible, of course.
Game was stopped for a good 45 seconds in the meantime.
All a bit ridiculous, and would be even more farcical if in any way regular.
And another video call in the second half - Mexico score, and a good 20 seconds pass before the ref decides that actually, he wants a look at the telly. The goal is correctly ruled out for offside. But still, this already looks like going the way of rugby - constant stoppages taking the moment out of the game.
A Swedish innovation which might make David v Goliath clashes like Sheriff Y.C. v Shelbourne a bit more interesting.
https://www.theguardian.com/football...-orebro-countyThe rules are these: in each tie the lower-ranking team receives the same number of bonus penalties as the number of league divisions they are below their opponents. Four tiers separated Karlslunds and Hidingsta, so our opponents received four spot‑kicks. The lower-ranking team, who also enjoy home advantage in every Eksjohuscup fixture, can choose to take these penalties before the match kicks off, immediately before the second half gets under way or, in perhaps the most bizarre twist of all, a combination of both.
A man can have no greater love than give 90 minutes for his friends.
This bit -
- is probably an issue for the FAI...the cup exists partly to offer smaller clubs the opportunity to claim valuable prize money, which is awarded after each round.
I actually run/play in a chess tournament each year which has a similar idea; you get more time (and your opponent gets less) the more your opponent out-rates you (as in, is better than you). The best players still typically win, but it does allow for much lower-ranked players going quite far and as a format, it works quite well.
I wouldn't use it in a serious competition though. The League Cup might be suited to it.
Was watching today, I was under the impression the ref had asked for a look straight away and it took around 20 seconds for the VAR to give an answer, and then he just ordered a free that Russia took quickly. TV audience at a big disadvantage in understanding whats going on as they moved to that "picture and picture" format showing Russia playing on and then the VAR in their booth at same time. Obviously the VAR needs serious fine-tuning, as does making sure the people watching, stadium and TV, know whats going on. It isn't clear if it's the ref's call to go to the VAR, or of the VAR is in his ear whenever they feel the need. I'd hope that in a years time they get some issues ironed out.Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Stu, I think it's fair to say you're fairly adamantly anti-VAR, but do you think that it would be better for the game if Mexico's offside goal had stood? What kind of VAR system would you be willing to tolerate?
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
That could well explain the delay alright.
I've seen how video officials work in rugby - and I have to note up front I have no time for rugby. But refs can barely make a call these days without checking, the game is extended hugely in length, and there's been some big mistakes made, which kind of negates the point. (And I think there was a penalty incident in the Confed Cup as well which was highly controversial even after VAR?)
Yes, I think it would have been better for the game if the offside goal had stood. It didn't change anything in the event, and Mexico were denied a good counter attack because of it. As in my previous post, I think the VAR decision - however it worked, and what you've said there makes sense - destroyed the moment of the goal. I think if the goal had been allowed, it would have been ruined as a moment for the Mexico fans. A bit like that ghost whistle when Sledge scored in Euro 2012 - I know everyone in the bar I was in thought there was a free out, and then the celebration when we realised the goal stood simply wasn't the same.
I've said before that I don't mind goalline technology because it's instant and doesn't interfere with play. I've also said before that I think a fifth official watching the match on TV, who can give the ref a tip-off on something he's missed, could well work - again, no stopping play. How it works in this instance - checking if a goal was offside or not - I'm not sure. But in the event of a penalty, say, the ref can allow play to go on for a few seconds while the fifth official quickly checks a replay. Not perfect - but I don't see perfection as something to necessarily strive for. The game has coped just fine for 130 years without perfection.
But it's not as if football nowadays is anything like the game it was when it was first codified in 1863. Just speaking generally, do you object to all rule-changes since then or where do you draw the proverbial line in the sand after which you feel no further changes can be justified? If you do draw a line at a specific point in history, why that point in particular? If you don't draw a line at a particular point in time, but feel that some of the rule-changes since 1863 have been justified, how or on what basis do you gauge which changes have been justified and which haven't been justified considering you simultaneously don't appear to believe in fine-tuning towards an improved or more "perfect" game?
Perfection is both subjective and often practically unachievable, but can't improvement of the game be at least something for which to strive? That's what rule-makers are hoping to achieve in this instance. Sometimes, a change may work, whilst, on other occasions, the idea may turn out to have been misguided, but I don't think that is any reason to rule out all potential changes. A change that has undesirable consequences can be abandoned and overturned if necessary.
The rules have always evolved in line with changes in perceived needs and desires of the footballing fraternity over the past century and a half, so any notion of objecting to change on the basis of maintaining the "purity" or whatever of the game is surely a bit of a myth.
Did you read my post? I think I've been fairly clear as to where I draw the line Danny. Stopping play during a counter-attack to check an offside, and then to re-start with a hop-ball, is not on. Ruining the moment of a goal to go off and check is not on.
The decision I referred to broke caused both of those. So on that basis, the video referral wasn't worth it. Even if it led to the "correct" decision (perfection) - a decision which didn't change the outcome of the match.
Last edited by pineapple stu; 26/06/2017 at 9:08 PM.
But isn't the point that we didn't know that at the time? At two up the game is dead and Mexico are cruising into the semi-finals, but with one goal between them the task in front of Russia was much more achievable. I mean, it was a fairly meaningless friendly tournament this time, but the VAR will likely have a decisive impact on a World Cup game next summer, provided it is retained, insofar as it will prevent an illegal goal that goes on to have a consequential impact on the rest of the game. I think that kind of fairness is preferable, even if it comes at the cost of impacting on spectators to a degree.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
In this instance, yes, but I think it's overlooked that it often isn't as decisive as people make out.
Anyway, you've either overlooked the point I've made, or decided (which is your right) that the above issue trumps it. I don't think it does though. 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.
I'm not intrinsically against technology - I quite like the goalline technology, and I've suggested a fifth official watching the match on TV and able to flag things to the ref in real time - but anything which inserts a pause like this into the game is bad for it. It doesn't matter if it clears up what will often ultimately be an irrelevant call, like in this case.
Yes, it is my opinion that certainty over a decision outweighs the emotional connection between fans and the "moment" of a goal, but I completely understand holding the opposite view.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
That'd be all well and good if there was certainty, but the experience in rugby shows there isn't. Calls are still wrong there, and I believe - though I'll admit I haven't been paying too close attention - that some wrong calls have already been made in football with video replays. The additional issue then is that rugby referees seem to use video replays as a crutch, and it hinders them making calls because they know they can refer everything back to the video.
That's exactly the kind of stuff football should be trying to avoid. But it's the path the current format is heading towards. Which is why I think it's bad.
There was a contentious penalty decision in the match last night, where a Chile player was, looking at TV replays, very clearly fouled and it wasn't called. Footage here: https://my.mixtape.moe/enhsnz.mp4
It's my understanding that the VAR has the power to inform the ref that an incorrect decision has been made (I mean, without the ref requesting it) and that either didn't happen last night or the ref choose to overrule without a further review.
As I said before, there should certainly be both a simplification of that system - I think the only time the VAR should be involved is if the ref specifically requests it, since the ref on the pitch is still the leading official of the game - and this should be outlined as clearly as possible to both spectators and the TV audience. An awful lot of people I've spoken to about this still don't rightly know how the VAR system currently works, and I think that FIFA has been really bad at communicating this, and I suspect a lot of players are in the same boat. I'd be interested in seeing the results of a player survey after the Confederations Cup on the topic.
While Rugby refs do rely on video referrals, I think they sort of have to far more than football refs will have to (or should be allowed to, to put it another way). More payers to keep an eye on, an intricate part of the game being a mash of opposing players, scores often obscured by said mash of opposing players, etc.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
I didn't see the match last night, but here's an article from the Independent criticising video replays. The main issue is that when it doesn't work, it can really wreck the game's flow. People can overlook this when a correct overrule is seen though.
Here's the incident -Early in the second half of the Confederations Cup final, Gonzalo Jara swung an elbow into Timo Werner’s face. The referee Milorad Mazic consulted the VAR and after a four-minute delay he still got the decision wrong.
The ref has a perfect view, but still goes to the video replay. After holding the game up for 4 minutes watching the incident back, he only books Jara.
The ref needs to trust himself to make a call in real time. I have no problem with something similar to citing coming into effect, and banning players for stuff like this after the event. Yes, it's not perfect either, but at least it should put in their mind that there's no chance of getting away with it - even if the ref misses an incident, they can and will still get banned.
As it is, we already have a complete and unmitigated failure of the system right there, in my opinion.
2-0... not such a dangerous lead after all...
http://www.skysports.com/football/ne...the-worst-lead
The results confirm the obvious in fairness but some interesting stats all the same.
A bit bizarre in a way...if a team goes 2-0 up and wins 2-1, does it count as a win for a 1-goal lead too?
Good question! I think this line might suggest they're only comparing 2-0 leads versus 1-0 leads, but hard to know for sure.
So, a 1-0 winning margin is far more vulnerable than a 2-0 lead.
No, they're comparing 1-goal and 2-goal leads - and then rightly extrapolating that a 1-0 lead is more vulnerable than a 2-0 one.
They could equally have said a 2-1 lead was more vulnerable than 3-1.
But hard to know if, say, that 4-4 draw is included in all four stats.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40843317
Feyenoord had a goal ruled out and a penalty given against them after the referee, who had initially not given the penalty and instead allowed play to continue (during which time Feyenoord went down the pitch and scored), used VAR to give the penalty.
That's exactly the kind of stuff that'll ruin games I think. You go 2-0 up, and then that's cancelled and there's a penalty against you? It'll completely ruin the drama of a game.
Still, not many ex-LoI players can say they've won the Dutch Super Cup.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks