Refs and VAR at the World Cup

[TheNewEra]

Michael Oliver was also awful and missed a bunch of fouls for Brazil, he referees in the PL.

Lahoz was much worse and lost control of the game from the start, he referees in La Liga.

I don't disagree, but Lahoz shouldn't be refereeing the WC.

My point is pick the cream of the crop, there's 2 games every day. I'm sure there's a handful of good referees in the top 5 leagues.

Obviously sure pick some female referees too.

If they aren't refereeing top level football or if they have a spotty record I don't see the point.

 

[noodlehair]

I'm not really sure what the two refs yesterday did wrong. Only dodgy call I thought was the foul on Kane which could have been a penalty, but it was debatable if it was in the box. It was definitely a foul but could understand VAR not being sure enough to intervene.

Other than that, it just seemed to come down to him not awarding Saka a foul for every one of the 50 times he threw himself on the floor. If you're going to throw yourself to the ground trying to con a freekick multiple times a game, every game, you can't moan if the ref ignores a few that MIGHT have been a foul. You're the one who's creating the doubt and making it difficult for the ref in the first place.

Portugal were the same. Especiallyin the first half. Trying to con the ref every 2 minutes then whining if he doesn't fall for it. How about trying to win the football game rather than expending actually quite significant amounts of energy trying to cheat the referee?

Overall I think the ref's and VAR are much better than the PL. You get some oddballs like with the Holland game, but we aren't getting completely bonkers VAR decisions that defy all logic or reason every other game like we do in the premier league. A couple of weird offside ones but that's about it.

 

[sebsheep]

Other than that, it just seemed to come down to him not awarding Saka a foul for every one of the 50 times he threw himself on the floor. If you're going to throw yourself to the ground trying to con a freekick multiple times a game, every game, you can't moan if the ref ignores a few that MIGHT have been a foul. You're the one who's creating the doubt and making it difficult for the ref in the first place.

That's an odd way to frame him constantly being fouled.

 

[noodlehair]

That's an odd way to frame him constantly being fouled.

He wasn't constantly being fouled. He ends up on the floor literally every time he loses the ball, and then throws a little tantrum every time he isn't given a foul. He also likes to try and run through defenders even when the space isn't there so loses the ball quite a lot.

If you're on the floor every single time there's any light physical challenge against you, no ref is going to give a foul every time, otherwise they'd end up with everyone at it and giving 200 freekicks a game.

I don't like this about Saka. He has all the ability to beat players and isn't afraid to engage defenders and take them on. He doesn't need to go down the Sterling route of expending half his energy trying to con the ref rather then looking to keep the ball or create something.

It's quite boring having people moan about officials in a game where England were given two penalties and numerous freekicks in dangerous positions.

 

[Abizzz]

I don't disagree, but Lahoz shouldn't be refereeing the WC.

My point is pick the cream of the crop, there's 2 games every day. I'm sure there's a handful of good referees in the top 5 leagues.

Obviously sure pick some female referees too.

If they aren't refereeing top level football or if they have a spotty record I don't see the point.

I think this might work in the future if the top 5 leagues themselves start having the same approach to referees as the clubs have to players (i.e gathering the best from around the world rather than just keeping it English/Spanish/German/Italian/French).

 

[sebsheep]

He wasn't constantly being fouled. He ends up on the floor literally every time he loses the ball, and then throws a little tantrum every time he isn't given a foul. He also likes to try and run through defenders even when the space isn't there so loses the ball quite a lot.

If you're on the floor every single time there's any light physical challenge against you, no ref is going to give a foul every time, otherwise they'd end up with everyone at it and giving 200 freekicks a game.

I don't like this about Saka. He has all the ability to beat players and isn't afraid to engage defenders and take them on. He doesn't need to go down the Sterling route of expending half his energy trying to con the ref rather then looking to keep the ball or create something.

It's quite boring having people moan about officials in a game where England were given two penalties and numerous freekicks in dangerous positions.

He was the most fouled player in the game... That doesn't include incidents like in the build up to the 1st France goal either.
Whether or not he ends up on the floor doesn't really matter, it can happen with a fair challenge or a foul. One of these incidents led to a penalty for England, did he throw himself down then or are we okay to call that out as a foul?

Are you suggesting people can't talk about the referee getting things wrong if he also happened to correctly rule in favour of their team at points in the game?

 

[Doracle]

It's quite boring having people moan about officials in a game where England were given two penalties and numerous freekicks in dangerous positions.

The fact the ref got some decisions correct doesn’t excuse the fact he missed the obvious fouls on Saka (cost England a goal) and Kane in the first half (arguably cost England a penalty), a couple more on Saka in the second half and, somehow, needed var to tell him the Mount one was a penalty. He was terrible and it’s obviously going to get mentioned.

 

[Gycraig]

I'm not really sure what the two refs yesterday did wrong. Only dodgy call I thought was the foul on Kane which could have been a penalty, but it was debatable if it was in the box. It was definitely a foul but could understand VAR not being sure enough to intervene.

Other than that, it just seemed to come down to him not awarding Saka a foul for every one of the 50 times he threw himself on the floor. If you're going to throw yourself to the ground trying to con a freekick multiple times a game, every game, you can't moan if the ref ignores a few that MIGHT have been a foul. You're the one who's creating the doubt and making it difficult for the ref in the first place.

Portugal were the same. Especiallyin the first half. Trying to con the ref every 2 minutes then whining if he doesn't fall for it. How about trying to win the football game rather than expending actually quite significant amounts of energy trying to cheat the referee?

Overall I think the ref's and VAR are much better than the PL. You get some oddballs like with the Holland game, but we aren't getting completely bonkers VAR decisions that defy all logic or reason every other game like we do in the premier league. A couple of weird offside ones but that's about it.

This is what var is for though, you can’t watch the foul on saka where he gets booted twice with no ball contact and with a straight face say it’s not a foul

 

[noodlehair]

He was the most fouled player in the game... That doesn't include incidents like in the build up to the 1st France goal either.
Whether or not he ends up on the floor doesn't really matter, it can happen with a fair challenge or a foul. One of these incidents led to a penalty for England, did he throw himself down then or are we okay to call that out as a foul?

Are you suggesting people can't talk about the referee getting things wrong if he also happened to correctly rule in favour of their team at points in the game?

No the penalty was a pretty blatant foul. Whether or not he ends up on the floor does matter, because if he's on the floor crying for a foul every single time an opposition player touches him, its putting doubt in the referee's mind. It also means that he's taking himself out of the game every single time, since its quite hard to disrupt the opposition or do your job off the ball if you're busy sitting on the floor waving your arms around. The first France goal doesn't happen if Saka isn't so preoccupied trying to buy a cheap freekick. How is that not important?

What exactly is it the referee got wrong? The first France goal Saka has just thrown himself on the floor under the slightest challenge. I wouldn't be happy at all if that was given against us, and absolutely fuming if we'd scored a goal a minute later and it was taken back and ruled out for that. Other than that, the Kane penalty incident, which was just outside the box...could have gone either way but not exactly worth crying about.

It's just quite sad and small time to blame the ref when we missed a penalty, had plenty of chances, and our manager made ridiculous substitutions. The ref is way dien the list of reasons why England went out, and it's a stretch to have the ref on the list at all.

 

[sebsheep]

No the penalty was a pretty blatant foul. Whether or not he ends up on the floor does matter, because if he's on the floor crying for a foul every single time an opposition player touches him, its putting doubt in the referee's mind. It also means that he's taking himself out of the game every single time, since its quite hard to disrupt the opposition or do your job off the ball if you're busy sitting on the floor waving your arms around. The first France goal doesn't happen if Saka isn't so preoccupied trying to buy a cheap freekick. How is that not important?

What exactly is it the referee got wrong? The first France goal Saka has just thrown himself on the floor under the slightest challenge. I wouldn't be happy at all if that was given against us, and absolutely fuming if we'd scored a goal a minute later and it was taken back and ruled out for that. Other than that, the Kane penalty incident, which was just outside the box...could have gone either way but not exactly worth crying about.

It's just quite sad and small time to blame the ref when we missed a penalty, had plenty of chances, and our manager made ridiculous substitutions. The ref is way dien the list of reasons why England went out, and it's a stretch to have the ref on the list at all.

That goal doesn't happen if the referee calls a foil, which he should have because Saka was fouled.

Him being on the floor does not matter unless he's taking a dive. Players quite often end up on the floor after legitimate tackles, they might even think they have been fouled.

Pointing out the ref got things wrong does not mean people are blaming him but it's also daft to act like a team scoring to make it 1-0 after he fails to call a pretty clear foul has no effect on a game.

 

[Ananke]

The fact the ref got some decisions correct doesn’t excuse the fact he missed the obvious fouls on Saka (cost England a goal) and Kane in the first half (arguably cost England a penalty), a couple more on Saka in the second half and, somehow, needed var to tell him the Mount one was a penalty. He was terrible and it’s obviously going to get mentioned.

He GAVE us two penalties though. We should apparently be thankful…

 

[Anustart89]

Regarding the Kane penalty, surely the length of the check suggests that they thought it was a foul but couldn’t certainly determine if it was inside the box, right?

If they didn’t think it was a foul, then they’d have completed the check much quicker. Obviously they agreed it was a foul but you can’t give a penalty if you’re not certain it’s inside the box (or in the line), so I think the moaning about that incident is misguided.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

FIFA should be under massive scrutiny for the performance of the refereeing teams in the Argentina - Netherlands and England - France games. Even assuming simple incompetence rather than outright bias or worse, it's unacceptable at this level. But, the "right" teams went through in both cases so outside of England and the Netherlands there will be little pressure.

 

[noodlehair]

That goal doesn't happen if the referee calls a foil, which he should have because Saka was fouled.

Him being on the floor does not matter unless he's taking a dive. Players quite often end up on the floor after legitimate tackles, they might even think they have been fouled.

Pointing out the ref got things wrong does not mean people are blaming him but it's also daft to act like a team scoring to make it 1-0 after he fails to call a pretty clear foul has no effect on a game.

That's rubbish though. It COULD have been a foul, but it would have been pretty soft and it was obvious Saka was looking for it. Trying to blame losing a game of football on a call like that is beyond petty. Its laughable.

And aside from that, If you're going to play for a foul and rely on the referee rather than your own ability, you can't then whine when it doesn't work every single time. It isn't the referee's job to win the game for you or bail you out every time you end up sat on the floor as the other team run off with the ball.

If he stays on his feet, as he could have, the goal doesn't happen, and then the referee isn't a factor. Saka/England could learn from it and next time take control of the situation themselves...or it can be all the referee's fault and then at the next tournament we'll go out again and blame the referee again for awarding a throw in the wrong way or something.

Again it wasn't a pretty clear foul. There's no point repeating things that aren't true. And if a player is on the floor every time an opponent challenges him, regardless of if its a foul or not, that is obviously not going to help his team. I mean this is literally the most direct example of why.

This is boring to be honest. If England had scored in the same circumstances and it was called back for the foul people would be talking about conspiracies because of it being such a bollocks decision. Basically grow up.

 

[TheNewEra]

That's rubbish though. It COULD have been a foul, but it would have been pretty soft and it was obvious Saka was looking for it. Trying to blame losing a game of football on a call like that is beyond petty. Its laughable.

We must have watched a different game.


Here's an alternate angle btw: https://streamin.me/v/6629f9e4

This is not soft.

He literally throws his leg forward and that puts Saka on the ground.

That's a clear foul.

It's not a shoulder to shoulder, he hacked him down which is a foul in any league in the world.

If hacking someone from behind isn't a foul then great, let's just do that every time someone shields the ball or gets away from us defending will be easy then.

It's not even a tackle, he doesn't even get the ball.

Did Saka levitate himself across the floor in that clip?

Again it wasn't a pretty clear foul. There's no point repeating things that aren't true. And if a player is on the floor every time an opponent challenges him, regardless of if its a foul or not, that is obviously not going to help his team. I mean this is literally the most direct example of why.

Sorry but it's night and day.

It's an absolute joke a linesman and a referee can't see that. The ball doesn't even move but Saka gets thrown on the floor.

 

[noodlehair]

We must have watched a different game.


He literally throws his leg forward and that puts Saka on the ground.

That's a clear foul.

It's not a shoulder to shoulder, he hacked him down which is a foul in any league in the world.

If hacking someone from behind isn't a foul then great, let's just do that every time someone shields the ball or gets away from us defending will be easy then.

It's not even a tackle, he doesn't even get the ball.

Did Saka levitate himself across the floor in that clip?



Sorry but it's night and day.

It's an absolute joke a linesman and a referee can't see that. The ball doesn't even move but Saka gets thrown on the floor.

This is just pathetically childish, really.

Telling everyone it's a clear foul doesn't make it so. I could understand if Saka had the ball in his own box and a France player has hacked him in half and booted the ball straight in, but he's lost the ball by the other team's corner flag by going down like he's made of cardboard and then an entire passage of play happens before the goal.

It's one of those that in every game some the ref will give and some he won't, and even if it's the wrong call you just get on with the game. There's no way VAR is going to go back and change a goal based on that, and nor should it.

Again you are trying to tell me that if England scored that goal and it was disallowed based on that, you'd be fine with it? Give me a fecking break. I'd be beyond livid

 

[TheNewEra]

This is just pathetically childish, really.

Telling everyone it's a clear foul doesn't make it so. I could understand if Saka had the ball in his own box and a France player has hacked him in half and booted the ball straight in, but he's lost the ball by the other team's corner flag by going down like he's made of cardboard and then an entire passage of play happens before the goal.

It's one of those that in every game some the ref will give and some he won't, and even if it's the wrong call you just get on with the game. There's no way VAR is going to go back and change a goal based on that, and nor should it.

Again you are trying to tell me that if England scored that goal and it was disallowed based on that, you'd be fine with it? Give me a fecking break. I'd be beyond livid

When the ball is shielded and the player is between you and the ball, you can't go through the player to get the ball.

Upamecano doesn't get any of the ball, but he goes through Saka. He puts Saka on the floor.

It's not really anything to do with strength too, he first goes through his legs then he literally brushes him aside with his legs.

He gets none of the ball, and Saka can't throw himself across the pitch by himself, that comes from the contact with Upamecano.

That's a foul, in any league. Maybe not rugby league.

I agree VAR shouldn't have to step in for something so obvious, the referee or linesman should spot that it's right in front of the linesman.

Upamecano is a big lad, Saka isn't. That is a clear foul to me, if it's not a foul then the game is gone.

It's just generally poor refereeing.

 

[noodlehair]

When the ball is shielded and the player is between you and the ball, you can't go through the player to get the ball.

Upamecano doesn't get any of the ball, but he goes through Saka. He puts Saka on the floor.

It's not really anything to do with strength too, he first goes through his legs then he literally brushes him aside with his legs.

He gets none of the ball, and Saka can't throw himself across the pitch by himself, that comes from the contact with Upamecano.

That's a foul, in any league. Maybe not rugby league.

I agree VAR shouldn't have to step in for something so obvious, the referee or linesman should spot that it's right in front of the linesman.

Upamecano is a big lad, Saka isn't. That is a clear foul to me, if it's not a foul then the game is gone.

It's just generally poor refereeing.

Yes you've already said this but it doesn't change that Saka was playing for it and it doesn't change that it was at the opposite end of the pitch to England's goal.

I'm not going to fully repeat my other point about how often Saka goes down too easily and that this (obviously) affects the decision making of officials.

Even if I accept your, frankly wrong view that this was somehow the most obvious foul in football history, it just isn't worth crying about. Sometimes a ref will miss a foul. It's not like a France player punched the ball into the net or we had a goal disallowed for nothing. It's hardly a scandal.

 

[TheNewEra]

Even if I accept your, frankly wrong view that this was somehow the most obvious foul in football history, it just isn't worth crying about. Sometimes a ref will miss a foul. It's not like a France player punched the ball into the net or we had a goal disallowed for nothing. It's hardly a scandal.

100% the games over now, it doesn't change the result no matter if people debate those calls.

I hope there's better officiating in the SFs because I think there were 2 bad matches in the QFs Netherlands Argentina being one of them

 

[sebsheep]

That's rubbish though. It COULD have been a foul, but it would have been pretty soft and it was obvious Saka was looking for it. Trying to blame losing a game of football on a call like that is beyond petty. Its laughable.

And aside from that, If you're going to play for a foul and rely on the referee rather than your own ability, you can't then whine when it doesn't work every single time. It isn't the referee's job to win the game for you or bail you out every time you end up sat on the floor as the other team run off with the ball.

If he stays on his feet, as he could have, the goal doesn't happen, and then the referee isn't a factor. Saka/England could learn from it and next time take control of the situation themselves...or it can be all the referee's fault and then at the next tournament we'll go out again and blame the referee again for awarding a throw in the wrong way or something.

Again it wasn't a pretty clear foul. There's no point repeating things that aren't true. And if a player is on the floor every time an opponent challenges him, regardless of if its a foul or not, that is obviously not going to help his team. I mean this is literally the most direct example of why.

This is boring to be honest. If England had scored in the same circumstances and it was called back for the foul people would be talking about conspiracies because of it being such a bollocks decision. Basically grow up.

You're complaining on the Internet that are complaining about a refeering decision. I'm not entirely sure you're in a position to tell people to grow up.
I haven't once even blamed the defeat on the referee so I don't know why you keep bringing it up...

It's fine if you don't think it was clearly a foul, it's just starting to look like you haven't watched the incident because you keep talking about with a really odd interpretation of events.

 

[Red in STL]

Yes you've already said this but it doesn't change that Saka was playing for it and it doesn't change that it was at the opposite end of the pitch to England's goal.

I'm not going to fully repeat my other point about how often Saka goes down too easily and that this (obviously) affects the decision making of officials.

Even if I accept your, frankly wrong view that this was somehow the most obvious foul in football history, it just isn't worth crying about. Sometimes a ref will miss a foul. It's not like a France player punched the ball into the net or we had a goal disallowed for nothing. It's hardly a scandal.

IMO you are both right and both wrong, I think it probably was a foul but Saka looks to slip a bit and he does go down a bit easy too often, maybe the ref saw it or maybe he didn't but VAR has no involvement, there's no obvious error and there's several phases later before the goal is scored.

The was it a penalty or not is clear cut, the incident was outside the box, it should have been a foul given but VAR doesn't determine fouls outside the box and award a free kick, it determines if it was a penalty or not, nothing more.

 

[noodlehair]

100% the games over now, it doesn't change the result no matter if people debate those calls.

I hope there's better officiating in the SFs because I think there were 2 bad matches in the QFs Netherlands Argentina being one of them

Netherlands vs Argentina the ref was a bit of a mess, but then it doesn't help when both sets of players behave like twats. Commentary were going on at the ref booking too many people but then you had players booting the ball at the opposition bench and mass brawling on the pitch. Is the ref meant to just let them do whatever they want?

The England game I don't even understand what the problem was. The ref was fine. England lost because they didn't take their chances, missed a penalty and because their manager does things like bring on his most out of form player who missed training all week, ahead of his top scorer. Unluvky sure but can hardly say they were cheated. Crying about the ref over something no one would bat an eyelid at in any other game is not a good look.

It's the absolute nonsense decisions in football that refs have no excuse for. The ones where they invent a decision out of nothing or seem to reinvent the rules mid game, but there's actually not been many of them in this world cup at all, compared to the premier league where we get them multiple times a week.

 

[kouroux]

FIFA should be under massive scrutiny for the performance of the refereeing teams in the Argentina - Netherlands and England - France games. Even assuming simple incompetence rather than outright bias or worse, it's unacceptable at this level. But, the "right" teams went through in both cases so outside of England and the Netherlands there will be little pressure.

What made France more "right" to progress than England in the eyes of FIFA ?

 

[KirkDuyt]

Lahoz been fecked off apparantly and rightly so.

I dont think he influenced the outcome of the game, since he was rubbish both ways, but it's almost impressive to cause a game to erupt like that with a few dodgy calls and that insufferable look-at-me talking to players thing.

 

[Red in STL]

Well if it's any consolidation there are only 4 more matches to go, then everyone can go back to calling out how bad PL referees are in comparison with their continental counterparts - oh wait that's not gonna make sense is it - the reality is that most referees do the best they can in what is a nigh on impossible job, they get most decisions right, and yes, they know the rules better than the average fan does

 

[TheNewEra]

Lahoz been fecked off apparantly and rightly so.

I dont think he influenced the outcome of the game, since he was rubbish both ways, but it's almost impressive to cause a game to erupt like that with a few dodgy calls and that insufferable look-at-me talking to players thing.

Glad to see he's gone home

 

[Gycraig]

Yes you've already said this but it doesn't change that Saka was playing for it and it doesn't change that it was at the opposite end of the pitch to England's goal.

I'm not going to fully repeat my other point about how often Saka goes down too easily and that this (obviously) affects the decision making of officials.

Even if I accept your, frankly wrong view that this was somehow the most obvious foul in football history, it just isn't worth crying about. Sometimes a ref will miss a foul. It's not like a France player punched the ball into the net or we had a goal disallowed for nothing. It's hardly a scandal.

But the whole point of var is to stop things like this, you can’t honestly watch the video of saka being hacked down with no contact on the ball and say it’s not a free kick ? The referee in the studio said var should have pulled it back and checked that.
Referees miss fouls that’s accepted, var shouldn’t it’s literally the sole purpose of it.

 

[Red in STL]

But the whole point of var is to stop things like this, you can’t honestly watch the video of saka being hacked down with no contact on the ball and say it’s not a free kick ? The referee in the studio said var should have pulled it back and checked that.
Referees miss fouls that’s accepted, var shouldn’t it’s literally the sole purpose of it.

VAR isn't there to check random fouls and give free kicks, if it was the games would be 10 hours long!

Saka wasn't hacked down, was it a foul - maybe but it wasn't seen/given, did it directly lead to a goal, nope, the play went thru several phases before a goal was scored - VAR has no role to play in those circumstances

 

[Gycraig]

VAR isn't there to check random fouls and give free kicks, if it was the games would be 10 hours long!

Saka wasn't hacked down, was it a foul - maybe but it wasn't seen/given, did it directly lead to a goal, nope, the play went thru several phases before a goal was scored - VAR has no role to play in those circumstances

The referee in the studio literally said that var could and should have gone back to it. If the foul leads to a goal var should call it back to the foul

 

[Red in STL]

The referee in the studio literally said that var could and should have gone back to it. If the foul leads to a goal var should call it back to the foul

It didn't lead directly to a goal though did it? VAR probably did look at it and determined exactly that

 

[sebsheep]

It didn't lead directly to a goal though did it? VAR probably did look at it and determined exactly that

Do you know how far back var are allowed to check? What do you consider directly?

 

[Red in STL]

Do you know how far back var are allowed to check? What do you consider directly?

Do you know how far back var are allowed to check? What do you consider directly?

I don't know how far back in time they go back, but for a foul in the build up it has to be a goal scored directly because there was a foul, that doesn't happen in this instance because half the French team touched the ball after the "foul", the ball went down the line and across to the other side of the pitch and then in to the middle before the shot that went in, basically the foul did not directly cause the goal

If for example, the "foul" occurred, the ball was passed to the guy who tures and smacks in in the corner, that would be a goal directly as a result of the foul

 

[Anustart89]

Do you know how far back var are allowed to check? What do you consider directly?

There’s no exact guidance in terms of seconds or something like that. Usually it’s a matter of whether the defence has had a chance to reset and appropriately defend the attack resulting from the loss of possession.

The Arsenal goal against us is a good example. Ødegaard fouls Eriksen, takes the ball and immediately launches a ball in behind the defence which Martinelli scores from because Dalot had pushed up with Eriksen in possession. Had Ødegaard played the ball back to Ramsdale, United had got back into defensive positions and Arsenal then scored from a cross and a header then it probably wouldn't be disallowed despite the foul being the same.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

What made France more "right" to progress than England in the eyes of FIFA ?

Nothing whatsoever, I'm not saying FIFA have intentionally looked the other way because they're corrupt or biased.

I'm saying that they should be under huge scrutiny for their inability to ensure competent officiating at their multi-billion dollar sporting event, but they're being let off the hook because most people are happy with how the results went, probably similar to people being chuffed with South Korea getting so far in 2002.

Maybe it wouldn't make a difference either way in terms of getting FIFA to sort their shit out, but if England had beaten France in similar circumstances, or had Messi been knocked out of his last World Cup in a game where the referee had bottled sending off a couple of Dutch players, the outcry would be a lot louder.

 

[kouroux]

Nothing whatsoever, I'm not saying FIFA have intentionally looked the other way because they're corrupt or biased.

I'm saying that they should be under huge scrutiny for their inability to ensure competent officiating at their multi-billion dollar sporting event, but they're being let off the hook because most people are happy with how the results went, probably similar to people being chuffed with South Korea getting so far in 2002.

Maybe it wouldn't make a difference either way in terms of getting FIFA to sort their shit out, but if England had beaten France in similar circumstances, or had Messi been knocked out of his last World Cup in a game where the referee had bottled sending off a couple of Dutch players, the outcry would be a lot louder.

There is no way to know for sure if the outcry would be louder tbh

 

[TheNewEra]

Hope the Ref of Argentina Croatia is the final ref, he's the one who's made all the right calls this tournament

 

[sebsheep]

Hope the Ref of Argentina Croatia is the final ref, he's the one who's made all the right calls this tournament

Doesn't getting a semi pretty much rule you out of reffing the final?

 

[TheNewEra]

Doesn't getting a semi pretty much rule you out of reffing the final?

It was a penalty though, rather him than the Brazilian who did the England France game who was woeful.

 

[horsechoker]

Doesn't getting a semi pretty much rule you out of reffing the final?

It's a bit embarrassing but I don't think it should stop you reffing the final

 

[Beachryan]

It's probably worth noting that the way VAR is used in the prem is against FIFA guidelines, and waaaaayyyyy more tetchy than I've seen it used in Europe (where imo it's much better). The point of VAR is to correct a clear and obvious mistake. Not to give a second referee freeze-frame analysis from 18 camera angles a chance to over-edjudicate every decision. But (puts on tin-foil hat) the broadcasters, pundits and media in England would MUCH rather talk about VAR than tactics, or skills or football really. Because it's simple, controversial and opinion-generating.

The WC has had VAR much more inline with it's supposed use - correcting massive mistakes that are crucial.

I thought the ref in the England match was trying to let everything go, but in doing so enabled the French to commit probably half a dozen fouls that in other matches would defintely be called. Maybe in reaction to seein the Lahoz sh*t show the day before. England simply had more of the ball, and so were more the victims of it. It sucks - particularly the Kane one in the first half which is one of the clearest fouls you will ever see, no more than 10 feet from the linesman, but it is what it is. The two incidents on here being mentioned were both fouls, but VAR in its proper use would never overrule either.

In the Premier League interpretation, it would probably change both. Incorrectly according to what it's supposed to be used for, but Sky and BT would love it. I HATE the overuse of VAR in the prem, it's ridiculous.