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.
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.
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)
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).
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
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..
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
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.
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.Originally Posted by osarusan
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.
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.
Last edited by osarusan; 28/06/2018 at 2:38 PM.
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.
Players making the VAR sign has to be sorted out, it's beyond irritating. That'll be an immediate yellow soon.
"I think VAR has been good" - Liam Brady, who claimed VAR was part of a FIFA conspiracy to aid Ronaldo a few weeks ago.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
From the BBC, might clear things up...or not!
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.
Last edited by osarusan; 15/07/2018 at 5:43 PM.
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.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
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.
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.
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.
FIFA's summation of VAR at the World Cup is, as you would expect, super duper positive.
Raised my eyebrow at this, from FIFA’s Deputy Secretary General :
And this: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.
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.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.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
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?
Bookmarks