Refs and VAR at the World Cup

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
120,897
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
The one on Maguire was like the pen McTominay gave away Vs Chelsea
It was a full on rugby tackle on Maguire though, was much more than just a bit of wrestling.
I haven’t seen it, so could well be talking bollox (and not for the first time!) but players are allowed to put their hands on other players. So there can always be a doubt when a player throws himself to the ground when someone puts their hands on him. Shirt pulling is different because it is never allowed. So if you can see a handful of shirt then the ref has no choice. Although it is often ignored by VAR, for some reason. Just VAR doing VAR things.
 

Djemba-Djemba

Full Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
18,894
Location
Manchester
I haven’t seen it, so could well be talking bollox (and not for the first time!) but players are allowed to put their hands on other players. So there can always be a doubt when a player throws himself to the ground when someone puts their hands on him. Shirt pulling is different because it is never allowed. So if you can see a handful of shirt then the ref has no choice. Although it is often ignored by VAR, for some reason. Just VAR doing VAR things.
The Maguire one the defender isn't even looking at the ball and has both arms wrapped around him as they fall to the floor.

It's a blatant penalty.

The Stones one is soft but it's a penalty too, I'm ok with that. Like you said, it's just when they seem to pick and choose when to intervene that does my head in.
 

Hulme91

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
203
I haven’t seen it, so could well be talking bollox (and not for the first time!) but players are allowed to put their hands on other players. So there can always be a doubt when a player throws himself to the ground when someone puts their hands on him. Shirt pulling is different because it is never allowed. So if you can see a handful of shirt then the ref has no choice. Although it is often ignored by VAR, for some reason. Just VAR doing VAR things.
I'd suggest watching the incident tbh as it's fairly cut and dry, the Iranian player has both arms around Maguire and wrestles him to the ground while Maguire is attempting to move towards the ball
 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
5,776
Maquire was wrestled to the ground in the Iranian box in the 2nd or 3rd minute.
That was a 100% penalty imo, have no idea how they could miss that. On the other hand I also thought Harry was climbing a bit too much at his assist. To summarise, there is no consistency at all.

edit: found a picture. Should be said Kane was also a bit aggressive in that situation.

 

Desert Eagle

Punjabi Dude
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
14,821
The foul on Maguire was even more obvious yesterday. Incompetence or corruption
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
30,553
According to that Dale Johnson guy, when it comes to VAR intervening in incidents like that (not neccessarily the ref giving the call in the first place) two of the factors they look at is whether the player is being stopped from playing the ball (so the proximity of the ball) and whether the player being held is holding his opponent in turn (at which point they're seen to cancel each other out). So that's presumably what they saw as the difference between the Maguire one and the others.

He still thought the Stones penalty shouldn't have been given by VAR as it's overly soft for an overturn, mind.
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
7,331
The foul on Maguire was even more obvious yesterday. Incompetence or corruption
It’s the VAR’s fault for not sending the ref to the monitor. This whole thing of only sending the ref over if it’s a clear mistake is completely ruining things. Follow rugby’s lead and let VAR and the ref make a joint decision regardless.
 

romufc

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
11,175
The start of the World Cup has actually been really poor in terms of VAR. Some very dubious calls.

The England one was quite bad because its the same officials in the same game making 2 different decisions on the holding on a corner.

It made no sense at all.
 

Northstand

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
2,737
Only just seen the brief highlights of the Denmark-Tunisia match. Refreshing to see the on-field referee dismiss VAR's call for a penalty for an accidental handball: something we rarely see in the English game.

Edit: And the Mexico-Poland referee reverts to type in awarding a highly dubious penalty called by VAR.
 
Last edited:

Trumpeter Whydah

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 14, 2022
Messages
77
Supports
Full Members
Apart from Chris Beath, the Aussie ref in MEX-POL who lacked both vision and a clear line during the game, risking too hot emotions (both teams were surprisingly calm and mannered), the on-field refs were quite good today I'd say.

At least by old standards: German speaking pundits were all ranting about the loss of referees margins of discretion when the shoulder offside visualization was shown. Checked SRF, ZDF and ORF, all nostalgic of the old, traditional in dubio pro striker, as if that was the problem about the scene. Was that the same in UK and other places?

And, am I the only one to miss a background and a clear reference to what is shown in these offside ping animations?
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
13,355
According to that Dale Johnson guy, when it comes to VAR intervening in incidents like that (not neccessarily the ref giving the call in the first place) two of the factors they look at is whether the player is being stopped from playing the ball (so the proximity of the ball) and whether the player being held is holding his opponent in turn (at which point they're seen to cancel each other out). So that's presumably what they saw as the difference between the Maguire one and the others.

He still thought the Stones penalty shouldn't have been given by VAR as it's overly soft for an overturn, mind.
First bit goes against the laws of the game


LAW 5 THE REFEREE
5.3 Powers and duties

Disciplinary action
  • punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/the-referee/#decisions-of-the-referee
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
30,553
First bit goes against the laws of the game


LAW 5 THE REFEREE
5.3 Powers and duties

Disciplinary action
  • punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/the-referee/#decisions-of-the-referee
Could be, I haven't the foggiest notion.

There's a reason referees don't ref directly off the laws of the game alone. Without knowing what the battery of ever-changing interpretations, clarifications, directives and training that make up the de facto rules say the written laws only tell you so much.

At a glance I'm not even sure if that piece of law is supposed to apply to multiple offences by multiple players. It reads like it could be the rule as applied to multiple offences by the same player in a single incident. For example when a player commits a bad tackle, squares up to his opponent and then shoves him.

It does seem like the Maguire decision was a bit of an outlier when you look at the penalties given to Iran, Argentina and Poland though, so it would be interesting to know the rationale.
 

lonelyred

Full Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Far far away...
When? At the time when the ball was released by the previous passer? Or at the time of receiving the ball? Or anytime during the play?
That is just the definition of the offside position (any time during the play, to use your words, and it is still not an offence by itself). I guess what you ask is: when being offside becomes an offence. As someone has already answered to your question: at the moment the ball is played towards the player who is in the offside position (or in your words, "released by the previous passer").
 
Last edited:

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
19,650
It's like being back in pre-VAR times. Nothing gets overruled anymore no matter how ridiculous.
 

Jev

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
6,567
Location
Denmark
If that Ronaldo penalty is not overturned, there's absolutely no point to it.

It's been an absolute farce from the start, it's made the game a lot more boring and frustrating and not at all more fair.

Just scrap it and give us our sport back, please.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
120,897
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
It's like being back in pre-VAR times. Nothing gets overruled anymore no matter how ridiculous.
If that Ronaldo penalty is not overturned, there's absolutely no point to it.

It's been an absolute farce from the start, it's made the game a lot more boring and frustrating and not at all more fair.

Just scrap it and give us our sport back, please.
Exactly. It’s not fixing bad decisions. Just creating new ones.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
19,290
Location
Behind the right goal post as "Whiteside shoots!"
If that Ronaldo penalty is not overturned, there's absolutely no point to it.

It's been an absolute farce from the start, it's made the game a lot more boring and frustrating and not at all more fair.

Just scrap it and give us our sport back, please.
A problem is var seems to be all or nothing.

They should refer 50/50s and say ref you may be right but worth another look to check. Like rugby “I think it’s a try but worth a check”
 

Jev

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
6,567
Location
Denmark
A problem is var seems to be all or nothing.

They should refer 50/50s and say ref you may be right but worth another look to check. Like rugby “I think it’s a try but worth a check”
But this is not a 50/50. The Ghana player plays the ball, barely touches Ronaldo who clearly dives. It's never a penalty by the laws of the game and for VAR not to recognize that after several replays is scandalous.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
19,290
Location
Behind the right goal post as "Whiteside shoots!"
But this is not a 50/50. The Ghana player plays the ball, barely touches Ronaldo who clearly dives. It's never a penalty by the laws of the game and for VAR not to recognize that after several replays is scandalous.
Wasn’t meaning specifically for this one (I don’t think it was a pen).

my point is if there’s a shade of grey (regardless of whether we think there’s any grey), why not give an on field decision and the ref OR VAR can say “but with a check”?

Union and League do it. Get 98/99 out of a 100 big calls right.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
19,650
Exactly. It’s not fixing bad decisions. Just creating new ones.
VAR was overzealous when first introduced, and now they've overcorrected *far* in the other direction.
This is what it used to be like before VAR. One awful decision after another and pray they get canceled out. I don't see it as an argument to abolish video review but to make the guidance about it more sensible. The on-field ref gets too much deference now. And I don't like how a tiny snippet of zoomed-in, slowed-down video is the only thing shown on screen when they do try and overturn.

IMO the only good argument to abolish VAR is what it has done with the handball rules.
 

czemuch

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Messages
36
Michał Listkiewicz (ex international referee) in polish TV:
-no positional advantage of Ronaldo
-soft contact
-dive
-never a penalty

He has also mentioned that earlier in the game Ronaldo's goal should have counted.
 

SadlerMUFC

Thinks for himself
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
5,231
Location
Niagara Falls, Canada
I'm so glad TheCaf aren't refs. Too many emotions put into decisions. I get it...you don't like Ronaldo right now. But don't let your feelings about him rule your judgment on the call. Truth is, that was a play in which if the ref calls it, VAR won't overrule it. However, if the ref doesn't call it, VAR again won't overrule it. It wasn't the wrong call. An argument can be made for why it was a penalty. It may be soft and Ronaldo may be looking for it, but that doesn't change the fact that the defender stepped in and didn't get the ball but did get Ronaldo. Truth is, it was a dumb play by the defender. Ronaldo is going away from goal. There is no reason to step in and give the ref a decision to make...
 

Foxbatt

Full Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
14,197
I'm so glad TheCaf aren't refs. Too many emotions put into decisions. I get it...you don't like Ronaldo right now. But don't let your feelings about him rule your judgment on the call. Truth is, that was a play in which if the ref calls it, VAR won't overrule it. However, if the ref doesn't call it, VAR again won't overrule it. It wasn't the wrong call. An argument can be made for why it was a penalty. It may be soft and Ronaldo may be looking for it, but that doesn't change the fact that the defender stepped in and didn't get the ball but did get Ronaldo. Truth is, it was a dumb play by the defender. Ronaldo is going away from goal. There is no reason to step in and give the ref a decision to make...
VAR is not over ruling anything. But VAR looks at every decision and they have the authority to say to the referee it may be better for him to have a slow motion look.
It may be a penalty or not. That's why VAR is there for. Not to referee the game.
 

Jev

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
6,567
Location
Denmark
A good article from The Atlantic about VAR and the ruled out Ecuador goal against Qatar: https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...ar-vs-ecuador-world-cup-opener-soccer/672243/

You’d be hard-pressed to find a soccer fan who thinks VAR is great as is. The Ecuador-Qatar decision is a clear example of why. It was, in the narrowest, most annoying sense, the correct decision. To the naked eye, or even to those watching a television replay, the infraction was virtually invisible amid the chaos. But VAR spotted it.

Congratulations, officials—you got it right. But for what? Sports are, in the end, entertainment, and officiating must always be a balance between accuracy and watchability. If the former were our only and ultimate concern, we would put every potential infraction under the microscope … and the game would be utterly unwatchable. The plays that officials review—that they ought to review—are the ones where the call, if allowed to stand, would seem genuinely unfair. No one (except maybe the opposing team’s fans) likes to see a legitimate-looking goal disallowed. When Valencia’s header found the net, he and his teammates did not delay their celebration. The Qatari players did not turn to the referee in protest. The fans did not hesitate to lose their minds. Not even the commentators seemed to have considered the possibility that the goal might not stand, and so television audiences didn’t either. No one was asking for this. Had the game proceeded, no one would have thought twice.

VAR is useful only insofar as it makes soccer better for the fans. It can do that only if it can alert them that a check is under way soon enough and return a verdict fast enough that it doesn’t make celebrating goals impossible for fear of a reversal. It should rule out only those goals where, when you look back at the replay, people might reasonably think, Yeah, that’s offside. Some sort of modified tie-goes-to-the-runner rule would help here by eliminating the scourge of the “toenail offside.” You could even give the attacker a buffer of a foot or two.
 

Lyricist

Full Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2012
Messages
3,865
Location
the booth
A good article from The Atlantic about VAR and the ruled out Ecuador goal against Qatar: https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...ar-vs-ecuador-world-cup-opener-soccer/672243/

I simply cannot understand people's qualms with that VAR call. It's a clear offside that is just very difficult to spot due to the bouncing of the ball and due to the amount of people close to the initial aerial duel. But it is not "the narrowest of offsides".

Why not take for example Lautaro's goal against Saudi Arabia as an annoying VAR call? There only the tip of the shoulder was offside.
 
X