imo, that's how it should be anyway...If you're not 100% sure don't raise a flag then.It's going to be interesting
imo, that's how it should be anyway...If you're not 100% sure don't raise a flag then.It's going to be interesting
Yeah that makes much more sense. What's been the protocol if it's the wrong decision so far?imo, that's how it should be anyway...If you're not 100% sure don't raise a flag then.
Though I'm in favour for VAR to be used at all tournaments, I'm not sure of this. One of the things that football should maintain is the integrity of the referees and telling them not to make decisions because VAR will take care of it is reducing their influence. VAR's use should only be to remove clear errors in decisions from referees so the benefit of doubt for close calls should be with the ref. Plus, I don't think VAR has developed a system to automatically create lines on the pitch to judge offsides, so you're going from one margnial decision from the linesman to one from the VAR referee.It's going to be interesting
How would a challenge model "mess" any less with the referee decision making? The point, not to guess offsides, when you can judge them more clearly in a review would apply to it as well. What you also forget is that such a directive is in place because refs actually don't get these close calls right enough times and every time they get them wrong a potential goal is denied.Why the feck won’t someone just propose the challenge system. It’s so bloody obvious that it’s so much better than anything else.
Instead, they’re going to actively mess with referees in their decision making, just so that they can go back and review the decisions afterwards. It also messes with the ‘clear and obvious error’ clause because if the linesman doesn’t flag because he’s been told not to, and then the video shows a marginal offside, then it’s going to be given as a goal because it’s a tiny error, even if he would’ve raised his flag if he hadn’t been told not to.
Make referees do their job as they usually would, and then let the teams challenge them if they think they’re in the wrong.
Because if you take the decision to review away from the referees you won’t get situations where the ref goes “this looks like offside, but I’ll let it go so I can watch it again later”. Then, it turns out that it’s offside, but just barely, so a goal that is offside ends up counting as a goal because it’s not an obvious error.How would a challenge model "mess" any less with the referee decision making? The point, not to guess offsides, when you can judge them more clearly in a review would apply to it as well. What you also forget is that such a directive is in place because refs actually don't get these close calls right enough times and every time they get them wrong a potential goal is denied.
This directive exists because the people in charge of referees see wrongfully disallowed goals on the replay and think it's better to reverse an offside goal than lose good goals (scoring chances) wrongfully. And again: that same logic applies with a challenge system, because there too the assumption (that you have the unfiltered upside that you don't lose goals due to guess work while the downside, namely irregular goals, are drastically mitigated through replay use) would be just as valid.Because if you take the decision to review away from the referees you won’t get situations where the ref goes “this looks like offside, but I’ll let it go so I can watch it again later”. Then, it turns out that it’s offside, but just barely, so a goal that is offside ends up counting as a goal because it’s not an obvious error.
If the teams have challenges, the ref will think “this looks like offside, so I’ll give the offside and if it’s wrong the teams can challenge”.
Sure, it might lead to few situations where the question of how to compensate the team on the end of a bad offside call arises, but I’m guessing that’ll police itself due to teams not wasting a challenge on a 1v1 situation 40 yards out (if all they can get out of it is a free kick), whereas they might challenge a shot at an open goal, if reversal of the offside decision would allow the goal to stand.
This directive is artificially created because the referees, ie the ones who make the decisions, themselves can decide when to review a decision. This will undoubtedly change their decision making in certain situations, especially because they've been told to do so! They've told them "if you think it's marginally offside, don't give it and look at it later", which is problematic in terms of the integrity of the game where referees can't be trusted to officiate the game in the way they think is appropriate.This directive exists because the people in charge of referees see wrongfully disallowed goals on the replay and think it's better to reverse an offside goal than lose good goals (scoring chances) wrongfully. And again: that same logic applies with a challenge system, because there too the assumption (that you have the unfiltered upside that you don't lose goals due to guess work while the downside, namely irregular goals, are drastically mitigated through replay use) would be just as valid.
Again: you can just as easily say this in the challenge model: "if you're not sure, leave it, if you're wrong they will challenge", it should also be easy to weed out those guys, because they will have way more VAR interventions than the average . Furthermore you have the "clear mistake issue" either way, at least unless you believe that the linesmen can make more accurate calls than a video ref with multiple replays and still frames - if something is too close to call for the VAR then chances are huge that it's also too close to call for the linesman. As far as I know "ref is sure" trumps all other instructions anyway, that's what some refs said anyway after interrupting the play half a second before the ball crossed the line.This directive is artificially created because the referees, ie the ones who make the decisions, themselves can decide when to review a decision. This will undoubtedly change their decision making in certain situations, especially because they've been told to do so! They've told them "if you think it's marginally offside, don't give it and look at it later", which is problematic in terms of the integrity of the game where referees can't be trusted to officiate the game in the way they think is appropriate.
Where does the line go? Let a red card tackle go because you can look at it later, then the player goes and injures someone else before play is stopped?
I agree that disallowing good goals is a bad outcome. The problem is that if you're going to use a system where only clear and obvious errors are reversed, then you'll see many more illegitimate goals being allowed, and that for me is a bigger issue than disallowing some good goals. The reason for this is, as I've explained above, the following; Linesman sees marginal offside -> Does not flag. Referee goes to review -> Review shows marginal offside. Because it was only a tiny error, it will not be overturned, which leads to an illegitimate goal standing.
You wouldn't need such a directive if you had challenges, because then the directive would be "officiate the game to the best of your ability using your integrity and knowledge". End of. If the manager disagrees with you, he'll challenge the decision.
It would be stupid to instruct referees to do differently than what they feel is the right decision on the off-chance that it might be challenged. The difference between the two models is that while one minimizes the errors made, it has no limit on how many reviews there can be, which wastes time and is one of the chief complaints. The other model might not eliminate all errors but will minimize protests and anger during/after games from the involved teams.Again: you can just as easily say this in the challenge model: "if you're not sure, leave it, if you're wrong they will challenge", it should also be easy to weed out those guys, because they will have way more VAR interventions than the average . Furthermore you have the "clear mistake issue" either way, at least unless you believe that the linesmen can make more accurate calls than a video ref with multiple replays and still frames - if something is too close to call for the VAR then chances are huge that it's also too close to call for the linesman. As far as I know "ref is sure" trumps all other instructions anyway, that's what some refs said anyway after interrupting the play half a second before the ball crossed the line.
As was seen with the Mata goal in the FA Cup against Huddesrfield, offside will be given if the replays indicate to the VAR that the player was offside, regardless of how marginal it might be. Where the appropriate technology exists, it is regarded as a binary decision - the player is either onside or offside.Why the feck won’t someone just propose the challenge system. It’s so bloody obvious that it’s so much better than anything else.
Instead, they’re going to actively mess with referees in their decision making, just so that they can go back and review the decisions afterwards. It also messes with the ‘clear and obvious error’ clause because if the linesman doesn’t flag because he’s been told not to, and then the video shows a marginal offside, then it’s going to be given as a goal because it’s a tiny error, even if he would’ve raised his flag if he hadn’t been told not to.
Make referees do their job as they usually would, and then let the teams challenge them if they think they’re in the wrong.
You make it sound like this is black and white, like refs know their rulings with mathematical certainty, when the reality is often not as clear cut. High levels of certainty warrant immediate calls, whereas the instruction we are talking about is regarding tight situations which by definition come with low levels of certainty and thus not just an off-chance that a ruling might be challenged. And again: the principle remains the same, no matter if a review is induced by VAR or a team's challenge.It would be stupid to instruct referees to do differently than what they feel is the right decision on the off-chance that it might be challenged. The difference between the two models is that while one minimizes the errors made, it has no limit on how many reviews there can be, which wastes time and is one of the chief complaints. The other model might not eliminate all errors but will minimize protests and anger during/after games from the involved teams.
The challenge system polices itself as well because no team is going to challenge a corner in the third minute. Also, grievances would be lowered to a minimum. Team A could feel aggrieved that the ref reviews their shirt pull but not the other team’s if it’s up to the ref to decide. With a challenge system you as a coach are going to have to make the call on whether to challenge or not, and if you don’t you can’t complain after the game.
Didn'd they cancel the corner?Well look at that. Clear offside not given because of genius directives thanks to VAR and then we get a head injury.
Yes they did.Didn'd they cancel the corner?
I don’t know but the offside was blatant and a player could’ve ended up seriously injured because VAR is interfering with referees making the correct decisions, instead telling them to let it go in tight situations because they can always go back. Tell that to the guy that ends up getting injured because play goes on and ends up missing the world cup.Didn'd they cancel the corner?
Players tend to get injured when running regardless of VAR technology.I don’t know but the offside was blatant and a player could’ve ended up seriously injured because VAR is interfering with referees making the correct decisions, instead telling them to let it go in tight situations because they can always go back. Tell that to the guy that ends up getting injured because play goes on and ends up missing the world cup.
But in this situation, he wouldn’t have risked getting injured if var hadn’t forced instructions upon the linesmen to let play go even when they see that it’s offside, because play would have been stopped.Players tend to get injured when running regardless of VAR technology.
This wasn't even tight situation, it was a mistake since he was in deep offside.
The ref said it wasn't a foul, so he has to be clearly wrong to be overruled. I guess they decided he wasn't, possibly influenced by Pepe's poor playacting.I am pretty sure they are making mistakes intentionally now. How can you look replay of that goal and allow it?
He was clearly wrong, so there's really no defending them. Every replay showed that Costa was going intentionally with his elbow towards Pepe's throat and he managed to catch him, it's a clear yellow card foul.The ref said it wasn't a foul, so he has to be clearly wrong to be overruled. I guess they decided he wasn't, possibly influenced by Pepe's poor playacting.
Very clear one. I still cannot believe it wasn't called.That was a foul here and in China. But not in the Russian video room.
What Pepe does is irrelevant.The ref said it wasn't a foul, so he has to be clearly wrong to be overruled. I guess they decided he wasn't, possibly influenced by Pepe's poor playacting.
By the way, three out of four guys in there are Italian.That was a foul here and in China. But not in the Russian video room.
I thought that's the thing people wanted, so the game flow doesn't get disturbed too much? It's done like that in other sports that use VAR as far as I know - in doubt the ruling on the field stands.So the whole premise of only overturning clear mistakes(if that was why they didn't change it) is a bad idea for me.
If you are going to let the game flow to avoid stoppages when possible, then you can't start with the assumption that the ref is correct and phrase it as overturning. He would in that situation be deffering the decision to the VAR refs.I thought that's the thing people wanted, so the game flow doesn't get disturbed too much? It's done like that in other sports that use VAR as far as I know - in doubt the ruling on the field stands.
Think that's taking blaming VAR too far.I think in hindsight one might say that too much of Spain's posession was just "useless" recycling in the first and middle third.
Think that's taking blaming VAR too far.
It’s not a foul at all. He’s just stronger. This is the problem with var is that people will want fouls called for any minimal contact or fair duels.What Pepe does is irrelevant.
Costa leads with his arm, it's a foul, end of. Exactly what VAR was brought in for.... and they feck it up.