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

[Spiersey]

watching the USA v Sweden women's match yesterday... I have no clue how the 2nd US goal stood up... player was CLEARLY offside in the build up, and since it was a cross intended for her that the defender had to play, I'm not sure how "not interfering with play" could be determined.

As previously vented on here it took 10-15 seconds on TV to realise that the play was offside... yet after a VAR review and a 4 min delay on the pitch the goal was allowed to stand. For the life of me I don't understand the delay... the refs are asked to make split second decisions, yet the VAR folks get minutes and still screw it up.

I looked into this after the Australia one v Brazil. The problem is with the rules, not VAR. The attacker is only influencing play and not interfering with it. For them to be deemed interfering they have to physically contact the defender (or attempt to I think) Absolutely crazy rule. No idea how anyone can believe it's fair to give the goals.


I've mentioned in the Womens WC thread prior but VAR was meant to eliminate bias and in my opinion, it's made it even worse. Decisions are still favouring the big/home sides. Uruguay got an incredibly debatable pen last night and Japan were denied theres.

 

[montpelier]

Didn't we establish from a LIV-TOTT game that a defender deliberately playing a ball puts everyone back onside?

 

[Spiersey]

Didn't we establish from a LIV-TOTT game that a defender deliberately playing a ball puts everyone back onside?

You're correct but that rule has no bearing on this scenario.

 

[montpelier]

You're correct but that rule has no bearing on this scenario.

The defender is free to play the ball how she likes, isn't she? Or she could leave it.

Once she plays it - having been free to play it, all bets are off.

I think there is a reason they have to distinguish 'influence' from 'interference.' Which has to do with which (originally onside or offside) players might do what in the next phase of play. You couldn't tell who is who at that stage.

Easiest question to ask is ''did the defender get a free & unimpeded'' opportunity to play the ball. There's no such thing as 'influence' therefore, I'm saying. No one made her stick it in her own net. Hard luck if you do. You never reach the next phase but I'm speculating that that is why this distinction of influence & interference is being made.

I dunno, I would have to confess to not actually having seen it - .

 

[sullydnl]

Even as someone staunchly in favour of VAR, I agree with this.

 

[El Zoido]

Should be a good advert for VAR. The game would be 1-1 without it.

 

[Canuckred64]

One of the differences with the VAR in the NFL and MLB is that the decision is made by the people reviewing the call on the TV monitors at head office the ref or ump doesn't factor in. In soccer the people watching on the TV screens take a couple of minutes to decide whether they want the ref to come over and watch the replay which takes another couple of minutes. It takes too long, I wonder if there was any discussion about taking the ref out of it completely and leave the decisions up to head office? Not that I am saying that's a good idea, but just wondering.

 

[adexkola]

Even as someone staunchly in favour of VAR, I agree with this.

What prompted this tweet?

 

[Berbaclass]

One of the differences with the VAR in the NFL and MLB is that the decision is made by the people reviewing the call on the TV monitors at head office the ref or ump doesn't factor in. In soccer the people watching on the TV screens take a couple of minutes to decide whether they want the ref to come over and watch the replay which takes another couple of minutes. It takes too long, I wonder if there was any discussion about taking the ref out of it completely and leave the decisions up to head office? Not that I am saying that's a good idea, but just wondering.

Yeah would be more efficient, just have another ref watching the footage to decide and relay the info to the on field ref.

 

[VeevaVee]

What prompted this tweet?

England v Cameroon. A few big VAR decisions, correctly called but took ages, then Cameroon went mad about them when they watched on the screen (even though they could see the correct decision was made).

 

[sullydnl]

One of the differences with the VAR in the NFL and MLB is that the decision is made by the people reviewing the call on the TV monitors at head office the ref or ump doesn't factor in. In soccer the people watching on the TV screens take a couple of minutes to decide whether they want the ref to come over and watch the replay which takes another couple of minutes. It takes too long, I wonder if there was any discussion about taking the ref out of it completely and leave the decisions up to head office? Not that I am saying that's a good idea, but just wondering.

I think they ultimately felt there were benefits to having the same person who made the initial decision making the final decision.

So say the referee decides something wasn't a red but was straight overruled by VAR. People could complain that it was a subjective call and one valid interpretation was overruled by another equally valid one.

Whereas say a referee decides something wasn't a red, is prompted by VAR to review it, then overrules his own initial decision. Now the argument that one valid interpretation has been overruled by another valid interpretation doesn't hold as even the person who made the initial interpretation doesn't believe it stands up to scrutiny.

In both scenarios the same outcome is reached but in the latter one it is (arguably) a less contentious decision as even the ref now clearly feels his initial call was incorrect.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

VAR showing how pointless it has become with the end of that England Cameroon WWC match.

 

[sullydnl]

Ultimately though without VAR a correct England goal wouldn't have stood and an incorrect Cameroon one would. That's a potentially huge swing in a game from wrong decisions and one I've very glad didn't fall to the benefit of a rather dirty and unprofessional Cameroon side.

 

[Alex99]

VAR showing how pointless it has become with the end of that England Cameroon WWC match.

I think what it's showing is the massive issues with VAR that need to be sorted, but that it can be used well.

Moving forward I think they need to seriously think about changing it from being a "review everything" system, to utilising some sort of "challenge" system, similar to what they use in tennis, but with the addition that the referee can choose to refer to it at anytime if they feel like their view of a major incident was inconclusive.

If only the captain or manager can request a VAR call, and you're given, say, three challenges (with the caveat that they aren't used up if the challenge is upheld), then it shouldn't take over games to quite the same extent.

Something else that I think they need to look at putting a stop to is the live broadcasting of reviewed incidents. Don't let the players or the crowd see what's happening, and go back to how it was in the 2018 Men's WC where the referee was the only person reviewing incidents. If they want transparency, simply release the reviewed footage once the game is over.

Finally, and I think this is the biggest issue we're seeing at the Women's WC, is that VAR is only as effective as the match official utilising it. Too often I think we've seen poor officiating only being amplified by the fact that there is VAR available. In the England/Cameroon match then, it almost seemed as though the referee had stopped attempting to make anything other than the basic, most straightforward calls, because she knew that she had VAR to help her out.

 

[sullydnl]

I think what it's showing is the massive issues with VAR that need to be sorted, but that it can be used well.

Moving forward I think they need to seriously think about changing it from being a "review everything" system, to utilising some sort of "challenge" system, similar to what they use in tennis, but with the addition that the referee can choose to refer to it at anytime if they feel like their view of a major incident was inconclusive.

If only the captain or manager can request a VAR call, and you're given, say, three challenges (with the caveat that they aren't used up if the challenge is upheld), then it shouldn't take over games to quite the same extent.

Something else that I think they need to look at putting a stop to is the live broadcasting of reviewed incidents. Don't let the players or the crowd see what's happening, and go back to how it was in the 2018 Men's WC where the referee was the only person reviewing incidents. If they want transparency, simply release the reviewed footage once the game is over.

Finally, and I think this is the biggest issue we're seeing at the Women's WC, is that VAR is only as effective as the match official utilising it. Too often I think we've seen poor officiating only being amplified by the fact that there is VAR available. In the England/Cameroon match then, it almost seemed as though the referee had stopped attempting to make anything other than the basic, most straightforward calls, because she knew that she had VAR to help her out.

Though what would stop a team with remaining calls using them up towards the end of 90min to kill time and break up the flow of the game? After all, we already see substitutions used for that purpose. Hardly ideal if games end with several minutes of substitutions and var appeals.

 

[One Night Only]

VAR in the Milan Derby ... Imagine that shitshow.

 

[utdalltheway]

Ultimately though without VAR a correct England goal wouldn't have stood and an incorrect Cameroon one would. That's a potentially huge swing in a game from wrong decisions and one I've very glad didn't fall to the benefit of a rather dirty and unprofessional Cameroon side.

1-1 then right? It could have turned the whole game.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I think what it's showing is the massive issues with VAR that need to be sorted, but that it can be used well.

Moving forward I think they need to seriously think about changing it from being a "review everything" system, to utilising some sort of "challenge" system, similar to what they use in tennis, but with the addition that the referee can choose to refer to it at anytime if they feel like their view of a major incident was inconclusive.

If only the captain or manager can request a VAR call, and you're given, say, three challenges (with the caveat that they aren't used up if the challenge is upheld), then it shouldn't take over games to quite the same extent.

Something else that I think they need to look at putting a stop to is the live broadcasting of reviewed incidents. Don't let the players or the crowd see what's happening, and go back to how it was in the 2018 Men's WC where the referee was the only person reviewing incidents. If they want transparency, simply release the reviewed footage once the game is over.

Finally, and I think this is the biggest issue we're seeing at the Women's WC, is that VAR is only as effective as the match official utilising it. Too often I think we've seen poor officiating only being amplified by the fact that there is VAR available. In the England/Cameroon match then, it almost seemed as though the referee had stopped attempting to make anything other than the basic, most straightforward calls, because she knew that she had VAR to help her out.

This is the first thing they need to do. Stop it, just stop.

 

[giorno]

VAR in the Milan Derby ... Imagine that shitshow.

So far so good

 

[Alex99]

Though what would stop a team with remaining calls using them up towards the end of 90min to kill time and break up the flow of the game? After all, we already see substitutions used for that purpose. Hardly ideal if games end with several minutes of substitutions and var appeals.

I personally see no reason why we can't operate with a hybrid of the current timekeeping format and a stop-clock format. As is for throw-ins, goal kicks, corners and free-kicks with no red cards, stop-clock for penalties, free-kicks with red cards, substitutions and VAR reviews.

Teams wanting to break the flow of the game already find a way to do so, but we can minimise any potential time advantage they may gain.

 

[Josep Dowling]

England v Cameroon. A few big VAR decisions, correctly called but took ages, then Cameroon went mad about them when they watched on the screen (even though they could see the correct decision was made).

It was Englands second goal I didn’t get. The first replay I could tell it was onside without a line. It then took the officials over 2 minutes to decide it was in fact onside. Why? It didn’t need to be looked at in detail.

Plus the fact how did the linesman call it offside in the first place. We keep being told they won’t want to call close offsides because of VAR yet she decided in that moment to raise her flag. It really felt like the officials didn’t know the rules of the game.

 

[Alex99]

It was Englands second goal I didn’t get. The first replay I could tell it was onside without a line. It then took the officials over 2 minutes to decide it was in fact onside. Why? It didn’t need to be looked at in detail.

Plus the fact how did the lineman call it offside in the first place. We keep being told they won’t want to call close offsides because of VAR yet she decided in that moment to raise on flag. It really felt like the officials don’t know the rules of the game.

I don't know what the protocol actually is, but if that set of officials are supposed to be in charge of another match this tournament then FIFA need to seriously think about sending them home and replacing them with another set, because that was horrendous from start to finish. The referee in particular looked like she couldn't be bothered doing anything that wasn't completely straightforward and obvious because she knew she had VAR to help her, but then bowed to pressure from Cameroon's players toward the end of the game when actually using it.

For England's first, she took an absolute age getting the Cameroon players back on the line.

She only awarded a yellow card for a dangerous elbow.

She didn't see nor do anything about the spitting incident, which would have actually been something well worth reviewing on VAR.

She took an insanely long time to review a fairly obvious offside call for England's second.

Immediately following that review, she allowed the Cameroon players to display obvious dissent (including one player pointing to her eyes and up to the screen while getting right in the referee's face), and waste a considerable amount of time outright refusing to kick off.

Allowed basically the same thing to happen again when Cameroon's goal was rightfully disallowed.

Completely bottled awarding England a penalty, then completely bottled sending off the Cameroon player for the tackle on Houghton, and did nothing about their captain screaming at a clearly hurt Houghton while she was on the floor.

 

[Josep Dowling]

I don't know what the protocol actually is, but if that set of officials are supposed to be in charge of another match this tournament then FIFA need to seriously think about sending them home and replacing them with another set, because that was horrendous from start to finish. The referee in particular looked like she couldn't be bothered doing anything that wasn't completely straightforward and obvious because she knew she had VAR to help her, but then bowed to pressure from Cameroon's players toward the end of the game when actually using it.

For England's first, she took an absolute age getting the Cameroon players back on the line.

She only awarded a yellow card for a dangerous elbow.

She didn't see nor do anything about the spitting incident, which would have actually been something well worth reviewing on VAR.

She took an insanely long time to review a fairly obvious offside call for England's second.

Immediately following that review, she allowed the Cameroon players to display obvious dissent (including one player pointing to her eyes and up to the screen while getting right in the referee's face), and waste a considerable amount of time outright refusing to kick off.

Allowed basically the same thing to happen again when Cameroon's goal was rightfully disallowed.

Completely bottled awarding England a penalty, then completely bottled sending off the Cameroon player for the tackle on Houghton, and did nothing about their captain screaming at a clearly hurt Houghton while she was on the floor.

Yep, the worst refereeing performance I’ve seen since the infamous Chelsea v Barcelona semi final.

 

[montpelier]

I think what it's showing is the massive issues with VAR that need to be sorted, but that it can be used well.

Moving forward I think they need to seriously think about changing it from being a "review everything" system, to utilising some sort of "challenge" system, similar to what they use in tennis, but with the addition that the referee can choose to refer to it at anytime if they feel like their view of a major incident was inconclusive.

If only the captain or manager can request a VAR call, and you're given, say, three challenges (with the caveat that they aren't used up if the challenge is upheld), then it shouldn't take over games to quite the same extent.

Something else that I think they need to look at putting a stop to is the live broadcasting of reviewed incidents. Don't let the players or the crowd see what's happening, and go back to how it was in the 2018 Men's WC where the referee was the only person reviewing incidents. If they want transparency, simply release the reviewed footage once the game is over.

Finally, and I think this is the biggest issue we're seeing at the Women's WC, is that VAR is only as effective as the match official utilising it. Too often I think we've seen poor officiating only being amplified by the fact that there is VAR available. In the England/Cameroon match then, it almost seemed as though the referee had stopped attempting to make anything other than the basic, most straightforward calls, because she knew that she had VAR to help her out.

We were wanting correct decisions & to eliminate the whoppers though.

The referee misses stuff - only one side will care at any given time.

This is making the VAR into a bit of a lucky dip - the whopper errors are back with a chance of sneaking through.

I don't know what to think about not broadcasting (in the ground). But I think it's another debate with various factors.

But going on - a goal is scored, we wait to see if a review is coming in. It might now come in when it's a total waste of time, you now open it up to a load of misuse. There might then be a minimum number of challenges a game probably, 6 you say?

And we still miss the big one.

 

[Alex99]

We were wanting correct decisions & to eliminate the whoppers though.

The referee misses stuff - only one side will care at any given time.

This is making the VAR into a bit of a lucky dip - the whopper errors are back with a chance of sneaking through.

I don't know what to think about not broadcasting (in the ground). But I think it's another debate with various factors.

But going on - a goal is scored, we wait to see if a review is coming in. It might now come in when it's a total waste of time, you now open it up to a load of misuse. There might then be a minimum number of challenges a game probably, 6 you say?

And we still miss the big one.

It's not a perfect system, and I'm not claiming it to be the best solution, merely suggesting an alternative. However, what they're using in the WWC is not working how it should be.

I suppose the point about challenges is that the teams will have to think about it a bit. You say about teams pointlessly wasting a challenge on an obviously fair goal just to disrupt the game, but at the same time, you could have a team 2-0 up, concede a goal in the 88th minute and use up their last challenge to try and disrupt the play, then concede a marginally offside equaliser that's missed by the officials and they've no challenge left. If they want to misuse it, then there's potential for them to be punished because of it.

Currently we've got referees being dragged halfway across the pitch every five or ten minutes because someone in a room in the stadium has told them there might be something they've missed. It's supposed to be for "clear and obvious" errors, so for me (if we're not doing a challenge system), we need to either give an official in the VAR room the power to make a decision for the on-field referee, or only use VAR when the on-field referee thinks they may have missed something.

 

[montpelier]

Currently we've got referees being dragged halfway across the pitch every five or ten minutes because someone in a room in the stadium has told them there might be something they've missed. It's supposed to be for "clear and obvious" errors

@Alex99

Yes, the 'COE' principle seems like a very great area of difficulty. That's become the worst element probably. They are rewriting rules even, aren't they? The handball is partly that - to eliminate the opinion pov, make it black/white.

I don't think VAR external intervention is a terrible idea but I think they're a bit obsessed with not having anything that undermines the ref - so they lean toward involving the referee.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I hate this iteration of VAR... Both the rules and the technology itself aren't fit for it.

 

[Alex99]

@Alex99

Yes, the 'COE' principle seems like a very great area of difficulty. That's become the worst element probably. They are rewriting rules even, aren't they? The handball is partly that - to eliminate the opinion pov, make it black/white.

I don't think VAR external intervention is a terrible idea but I think they're a bit obsessed with not having anything that undermines the ref - so they lean toward involving the referee.

I think the last point is the biggest issue for me. It's a massive, massive change to the game, but they're trying to implement it without really changing anything.

Make it so the VAR official is also whatever tier/grade referee the on-field match official is, and make it clear that going forward, any game with VAR essentially has two referees.