VAR - Not the hero we want, the one we need

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

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.

Nah.

Stronger is fine, leading with your arm into the "head area" (he actually gets him chin/neck) is a foul.

Whether it should be a foul is another matter (I loved a hard game a of football personally) but under the rules, it's a foul..... regardless of Pele being an idiot and not concentrating on getting back up.

 

[ROFLUTION]

I have money on Costa, so of course that wasnt a fault.

 

[Anustart89]

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.

A forearm with the full weight of a body behind it tends to be stronger than a throat.

 

[Anustart89]

Just like I predicted a few days ago, the instruction to let play go on leads to trouble.

Ref waves play on so VAR can review, review says not big mistake -> illegitimate goal stands. See below.

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.

Allowing non-goals to stand, which the current system is making possible, is far worse than disallowing good goals, similar to how giving a ghost goal would be worse than not seeing that the ball has crossed the line (pre goal line tech).

 

[Phil]

I think they missed one tonight. I think I'm not surprised.

 

[kouroux]

Just like I predicted a few days ago, the instruction to let play go on leads to trouble.

Ref waves play on so VAR can review, review says not big mistake -> illegitimate goal stands. See below.



Allowing non-goals to stand, which the current system is making possible, is far worse than disallowing good goals, similar to how giving a ghost goal would be worse than not seeing that the ball has crossed the line (pre goal line tech).

I think maybe they're too afraid to use the system in its full capacity (judging goals that don't involved a big mistake like you said) because they don't want it to lead to discrediting their referees too much. It's a political move that can and will ruin games.

 

[sullydnl]

Have to say, I thought it was a foul too.

Obviously that isn't the question that gets put to the VAR though. They're not there to decide if it's a foul or not, they're there to decide if it is so obviously a foul that the referee gets overruled. Which is rather different, even if I did think it was verging on being that clear-cut too.

Though thinking about it, as soon as I saw the foul I knew that whatever decision VAR made, some people would be arguing that it was the wrong one. Which might indicate that I didn't think the referee was definitely wrong, though more likely meant I knew some people really want to criticise VAR.

On the plus side, the actual technology side and communication of things was fine. Quick, clear and easy.

 

[Anustart89]

I think maybe they're too afraid to use the system in its full capacity (judging goals that don't involved a big mistake like you said) because they don't want it to lead to discrediting their referees too much. It's a political move that can and will ruin games.

Yeah, that is a big issue, because while they don’t want to discredit the ref, they’re telling them to be more lenient than usually because we have VAR to back them up. That means that the logic above is flawed, because they’re not overruling the ref, but a more lenient version of him.

It’s an absolute clusterfeck when you tell the refs to officiate in a more lenient manner and then not reverse those lenient decisions with the help of video evidence, because it allows a bunch of goals that shouldn’t be goals to stand.

 

[kouroux]

Yeah, that is a big issue, because while they don’t want to discredit the ref, they’re telling them to be more lenient than usually because we have VAR to back them up. That means that the logic above is flawed, because they’re not overruling the ref, but a more lenient version of him.

It’s an absolute clusterfeck when you tell the refs to officiate in a more lenient manner and then not reverse those lenient decisions with the help of video evidence, because it allows a bunch of goals that shouldn’t be goals to stand.

It will lead to easy and cheap criticism of the system which is fine IMHO but needs to be used to its full potential.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Just like I predicted a few days ago, the instruction to let play go on leads to trouble.

Ref waves play on so VAR can review, review says not big mistake -> illegitimate goal stands. See below.



Allowing non-goals to stand, which the current system is making possible, is far worse than disallowing good goals, similar to how giving a ghost goal would be worse than not seeing that the ball has crossed the line (pre goal line tech).

Like so many thing with football/FIFA, they manage to feck up even the simplest things.

Rugby ref refers it to a VAR but (especially in internationals) can see it on the big screen as well.... joint effort. I've seen plenty of try referrals where the referee sees an angle and just tells the VAR guy to forget it as he's seen an angle that sorts it.

Why football had to decide that (1) the VAR ref would take over responsibility and (2) he can only overturn obvious errors, is beyond me.

I don't want to hold a game up for ages, but what's stops a ref watching the same angles as the VAR ref as well and saying "actually, changed my mind" (marginal or otherwise)?

Tennis doesn't have referrals to Hawkeye and say "well the touchline official called it out but it was only marginally in, so we'll leave it stand as out"? It changes the decision, the players stand by it, the crowd are fine, no-one gives the touchline official grief, they move on.

I know football is not just about line calls but a leading arm in the throat is a leading arm in the throat? Thought the key for VAR was to get things right (not just reduce the errors a bit) but FIFA are still bothered about refs looking like they get a lot of initial calls wrong.... who cares? Get the end result right.

 

[Anustart89]

Like so many thing with football/FIFA, they manage to feck up even the simplest things.

Rugby ref refers it to a VAR but (especially in internationals) can see it on the big screen as well.... joint effort. I've seen plenty of try referrals where the referee sees an angle and just tells the VAR guy to forget it as he's seen an angle that sorts it.

Why football had to decide that (1) the VAR ref would take over responsibility and (2) he can only overturn obvious errors, is beyond me.

I don't want to hold a game up for ages, but what's stops a ref watching the same angles as the VAR ref as well and saying "actually, changed my mind" (marginal or otherwise)?

Tennis doesn't have referrals to Hawkeye and say "well the touchline official called it out but it was only marginally in, so we'll leave it stand as out"? It changes the decision, the players stand by it, the crowd are fine, no-one gives the touchline official grief, they move on.

I know football is not just about line calls but a leading arm in the throat is a leading arm in the throat? Thought the key for VAR was to get things right (not just reduce the errors a bit) but FIFA are still bothered about refs looking like they get a lot of initial calls wrong.... who cares? Get the end result right.

Agree with that.

They’ve taken a system and implemented it in a way that leads to an even worse outcome than they’ve anticipated, which is the facilitation of non-legitimate goals. Only FIFA, eh?

If I were tonight’s ref and had that first goal overturned ‘over my head’, I’d be relieved. I’d find it quite embarrassing to be part of a five-man team looking at a flying elbow to someone’s throat without anyone seeing that it’s a foul. That, to me, discredits the referees and makes me lose faith in their competence more than reversal of an on-field decision after video review.

Bloody idiots.

 

[bleedred]

But,but VAR makes the game fair right?

 

[Ashley R1+O]

Thought it was a foul on Pepe, this type of VAR is the 'howler' VAR that barely rules on anything, I think that version is way more consistent than changing this that and the other. VAR is a horrible thing in the teething process and you guys have just begun deconstructing how weird it can be at times. You've got a couple more years of this yet.

 

[Rafaeldagold]

A forearm with the full weight of a body behind it tends to be stronger than a throat.

What a moronic post.

Oh really a moronic post? Well var didn’t call it as a foul either- because...it wasn’t a foul.

 

[Arruda]

Could have been a foul, or could have not been. It's the nature of football, many things are subjective, and there's no chance VAR, this or any other type, will ever solve that sort of doubt.

 

[Anustart89]

Could have been a foul, or could have not been. It's the nature of football, many things are subjective, and there's no chance VAR, this or any other type, will ever solve that sort of doubt.

Respectfully disagree, there is no possibility for me that a forearm to the throat is not a foul. Under what circumstances would it be allowed to do that? It’s the same as slapping someone, pinching someone or going in studs first, for me it’s just not part of the way you’re allowed to win the ball within the rules.

 

[hellohello]

I was very surprised when it wasn't overturned, but I'll wait to see more of the world cup before making my mind up about it. I just hope the use of VAR is consistent, and if an incident like this happens again that there will be no intervention from VAR either if the referee didn't give it.

 

[do.ob]

I think they need to make the referees give a small statement in cases like these. Often there are reasonable explanations for seemingly controversial/wrong (VAR) decisions, which really help clear up things.

 

[red4ever 79]

Wish they would get rid of VAR. Goal line technology is great but this stopping the game and waiting is killing the atmosphere and feeling

 

[mancan92]

To be honest I don't think it was a foul. Specifically with VR it wasn't clear cut. So I don't see any issue.

 

[Anustart89]

To be honest I don't think it was a foul. Specifically with VR it wasn't clear cut. So I don't see any issue.

Genuine question, why do you think that it’s not a foul?

Do you not see his forearm go to Pepe’s throat, do you think forearm smashing someone’s throat is allowed (under certain circumstances eg little amount of force/other mitigating circumstance), or is there some other reason as to why you think it’s allowed to do that?

 

[Gio]

First feck up of the tournament.

 

[GaryLifo]

Well it's got that one wrong imo

 

[K2K]

I thought you had someone in the studio doing the review.

How does it work ?

 

[GaryLifo]

That's a farce. No way was that clear cut enough to award a penalty there.

 

[711]

Absolutely fecking awful. Right or wrong it wrecks the game, pulling it back is a fecking disaster.

 

[Erics_Collar]

There was contact, but Griezmann has flung himself to the ground there. VAR process just doesn't sit right with me. It's very anti-climactic and is a massive interruption to the game.

 

[DavelinaJolie]

Absolute tosh.

 

[Jagga7]

The defender clipped his ankle on the follow through. Clear pen, VAR got it right.

 

[arnoldS]

How is that wrong? He clearly caught him on the heel inside the box.

 

[GaryLifo]

Referee only watched it once as well. He made a decision from one replay.

 

[Drainy]

Can we VAR encroachment into the area too?

 

[GaryLifo]

The defender clipped his ankle on the follow through. Clear pen, VAR got it right.

Not if the defender touched the ball, which it looked like he did.

 

[Jed I. Knight]

Absolutely fecking awful. Right or wrong it wrecks the game, pulling it back is a fecking disaster.

Yup. Horrible. What if the Aussies score on the break before the game stops?

 

[Andycoleno9]

Var is a great thing. Finally there will be no stories about how ref robbed someone or something like that. Those minute or two waiting for decision is worth waiting

 

[Erics_Collar]

I think what that decision will do now, is that if a player feels ANY contact in the box, just go down. VAR will show that there was contact and you'll get your penalty. This is not a good thing.

 

[exit35]

How come BBC had a much better camera angle?

The one the ref used in the small booth was from a distance but the BBC had a zoomed in slow mo view that clearly showed the defender touching the ball into the foot of griezmann causing him to make the heavy touch.

Joke.

 

[cyberman]

Absolutely fecking awful. Right or wrong it wrecks the game, pulling it back is a fecking disaster.

You know what solves that? Don't foul the opposition player in the box!

 

[VP89]

This France Australia game is a good case for Var. Shows how it can work with some good organisation.

 

[Lennon7]

Only thing I don’t get with VAR is why does the ref have to go over to the screen on the side of the pitch to check the incident? Can’t the fellas in the VAR room who are constantly assessing the game just give a snappy call over a headset for which the referee will have to trust their professional judgement?

Takes too long sometimes.