Topic: VAR! Video Assistant Referee & Shite Referees in General

[Craig S]

Not exactly the same scenario though.
The Bundesliga one was at half time, and the United one was essentially the final act of the game.

I haven't seen the France incident, but from what Zimagic has said, the goal was scored then everyone lined up and the game was allowed to restart. The game shouldn't have been allowed to restart if the VAR check wasn't finished. And the VAR check shouldn't have started, or should have been binned once the ref decided the game was good to restart. 

Yes the game should not have been restarted. But the French have said he should not be permitted to go back and check. I am not sure that is true at all.

[Knight]

VAR generally worked in 2018 World Cup if only because it was rarely used. How has it got so much worse in 4 years? Just get rid of it.

When the tech is available it's very hard to resist the urge to use it. If you can do something, you should do something. We very much struggle to resist it's pull. Applied to VAR, it'll be very hard to resist the ever encroaching reliance upon it unless you make it very black and white when it can be referred too, and even then the temptation will be to continually expand the situations it's allowed to make interventions. Just because you could use a bit of tech, doesn't mean you should. A lesson humans won't learn.   

[Zimagic]

Yes the game should not have been restarted. But the French have said he should not be permitted to go back and check. I am not sure that is true at all.

I didn't think so either but they are pretty adamant. Came up in the Guardian today too: (From
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/01/france-tv-viewers-miss-world-cup-drama-over-griezmanns-disallowed-goal)

"The FFF did not elaborate on its complaint, but there are two points of contention. Griezmann was clearly offside when Aurélien Tchouaméni crossed but latched on to ball only after the Tunisia defender Montassar Talbi’s attempted clearance, by which point he was onside.

Also the game had restarted from kick-off, with the referee then appearing to blow for full time, before Conger went to review the footage. Ifab, football’s law-making body, states that if a game has been restarted after a goal is given VAR cannot intervene, so there was an error in procedure."

[Craig S]

I didn't think so either but they are pretty adamant. Came up in the Guardian today too: (From
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/01/france-tv-viewers-miss-world-cup-drama-over-griezmanns-disallowed-goal)

Ah, thanks. Yes they are right:

10. If play has stopped and been restarted, the referee may not undertake a ‘review’ except for a case of mistaken identity or for a potential sending-off offence relating to violent conduct, spitting, biting or extremely offensive, insulting and/or abusive action(s).

On the bbc, I think they did not even show the restart, as they showed so many replays.

[Barneylfc∗]

I didn't think so either but they are pretty adamant. Came up in the Guardian today too: (From
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/01/france-tv-viewers-miss-world-cup-drama-over-griezmanns-disallowed-goal)

What actually happened, did they restart, play for a bit then the ref blew for full time, then reviewed the goal?

After they reviewed the goal was the play then restarted to replay the time that was played between the restart and the full time whistle?

It's a shame it wasn't a goal that would've kept them in the tournament and they've been knocked out because of it. I wonder if they cried foul when Thierry Henry cheated Ireland out of a World Cup spot in 2009. c*nts.

[rob1966]

Ah, thanks. Yes they are right:
On the bbc, I think they did not even show the restart, as they showed so many replays.

What actually happened, did they restart, play for a bit then the ref blew for full time, then reviewed the goal?

After they reviewed the goal was the play then restarted to replay the time that was played between the restart and the full time whistle?

It's a shame it wasn't a goal that would've kept them in the tournament and they've been knocked out because of it. I wonder if they cried foul when Thierry Henry cheated Ireland out of a World Cup spot in 2009. c*nts.

I'm assuming then that VAR did the usual review of the goal that always happens and that the ref restarted play without VAR giving the OK. That's the only thing that makes any sense

[Zimagic]

What actually happened, did they restart, play for a bit then the ref blew for full time, then reviewed the goal?

After they reviewed the goal was the play then restarted to replay the time that was played between the restart and the full time whistle?

It's a shame it wasn't a goal that would've kept them in the tournament and they've been knocked out because of it. I wonder if they cried foul when Thierry Henry cheated Ireland out of a World Cup spot in 2009. c*nts.

I presume that VAR was reviewing it the whole time, they have to review every goal don't they? I'd say that the ref thought that there was no issue because it took so long and so restarted the game. If that's the case, it's on the him and the VAR for either not confirming the check was complete or the VAR not communicating that it was still reviewing.

So the ref restarts play with a kick-off in the centre circle, and, about 3 seconds later, blows for full time. General collapsing / clapping on the back ensures depending on what shirt your're wearing. Then the ref blows again touches his ear, does the Mia Wallace "Don't be a Square!" thingy with his arms and starts jogging to the screen.

Technical aspects of rules bookkeeping aside, it looks like a worse decision every time I watch it:

Griezman is a clear 2m off when the ball is hit. He makes no movement towards the incoming ball, turns and walks/jogs back a metre or so towards his own goal as the ball comes in. Randal Muani (12) is the nearest French player to the ball, is onside and jumps to contest the header side-by-side with the Tunisia defender. It's clear that Muani would have had an opportunity to play the ball had the defender not contessted it.

When the defender heads the ball Griezmann is now 1m onside and hits a half-volley across the keeper into the far corner.

Claiming that the defender only tried to play the ball because Griezmann was nearby and interfering is clearly incorrect because Muani would have had a better chance to play the ball and score.

So now the interpretation comes down to how you define "has to be in control of the ball". Does a stronger header mean he controlled the ball if it falls to a different French player who then scores? Or does the challenge from an onside player mean he wasn't in control of the ball making Griezmann's offside relevant again?

Frankly I don't care France lost, it didn't change the group standings but it could have and may in the future.

[Ravishing Rick Dude]

I really want to know how VAR saw that ball in?

[4pool]

I really want to know how VAR saw that ball in?

VAR review: For the VAR, Fernando Guerrero of Mexico, to overturn the decision of the assistant, he has to have definitive evidence that part of the ball is on the line. Importantly, this isn't just about the ball touching the ground. The curvature overhanging the line also counts, even if a very small part of the ball is doing so. (FIFA's new tracking technology cannot be used to determine the ball being in or out of play.)

The goal-line camera was used to make the decision, but television companies were left to guess over the evidence used to prove the ball was in play; FIFA should be providing guidance to inform fans.

A photograph from a camera level with the goal-line also appears to prove a small amount of the ball was overhanging the line. That would give the VAR the proof he needs to overturn the on-field decision and award a goal. But this image appeared on the Associated Press' picture service over an hour after the game. The evidence was not provided by FIFA, and that's one of the inherent problems of VAR -- communication with the fans.

Until this point we'd not seen any clear proof that the ball was touching the line when Mitoma cut it back to Tanaka -- even though it actually had on the goal-line camera; we just didn't know.

The lack of communication from FIFA over VAR overturns in this tournament has fully highlighted the disconnect between the system and the watching fans; there is never any clarity offered at any juncture. Unlike in the Premier League, where the VAR feed is shared to broadcasters throughout a review, FIFA controls the output. If VAR is to be truly accepted, this has to be vastly improved.

[Ravishing Rick Dude]

Cheers 4pool

[PaulF]

I am not sure that is true from the French. There was one in the Bundesliga when the team had to come back from the changing rooms for a pen.
Pretty sure United got a pen after the full time whistle v Brighton.

Since when did any rule apply to Manchester United?

[RedG13]

VAR review: For the VAR, Fernando Guerrero of Mexico, to overturn the decision of the assistant, he has to have definitive evidence that part of the ball is on the line. Importantly, this isn't just about the ball touching the ground. The curvature overhanging the line also counts, even if a very small part of the ball is doing so. (FIFA's new tracking technology cannot be used to determine the ball being in or out of play.)

The goal-line camera was used to make the decision, but television companies were left to guess over the evidence used to prove the ball was in play; FIFA should be providing guidance to inform fans.

A photograph from a camera level with the goal-line also appears to prove a small amount of the ball was overhanging the line. That would give the VAR the proof he needs to overturn the on-field decision and award a goal. But this image appeared on the Associated Press' picture service over an hour after the game. The evidence was not provided by FIFA, and that's one of the inherent problems of VAR -- communication with the fans.

Until this point we'd not seen any clear proof that the ball was touching the line when Mitoma cut it back to Tanaka -- even though it actually had on the goal-line camera; we just didn't know.

The lack of communication from FIFA over VAR overturns in this tournament has fully highlighted the disconnect between the system and the watching fans; there is never any clarity offered at any juncture. Unlike in the Premier League, where the VAR feed is shared to broadcasters throughout a review, FIFA controls the output. If VAR is to be truly accepted, this has to be vastly improved.

https://twitter.com/FIFAcom/status/1598702636450123777?t=wbo_YPJHOITbQK0BbFrLmA&s=19 Fifa now posted about it

[BoRed]

https://twitter.com/FIFAcom/status/1598702636450123777?t=wbo_YPJHOITbQK0BbFrLmA&s=19 Fifa now posted about it

Well that clears it up.

Don't get me wrong, I think they did get it right, but anyone can put a ball near a line and then film it from different angles . How about posting some actual footage that was used by VAR last night?

[farawayred]

Since when did any rule apply to Manchester United?

Not sure what you are on about, the PGMOL have always been strict to apply the rules uniformly across all teams.

[Machae]

I don't know with VAR anymore. Why wasn't Cavani pen reviewed? Much less have been given

[wenlock]

The ball was out. Can't understand the debate as the game is played and reffed at pitch level and always has been. that ball is only in if you are looking from a blimp and reffs have never used those. On any pitch anywhere in the world that would be given out.

A simple way to solve this is, if this was sand and that ball was dropped would its mark be inside or outside?

Just one more stupid decision but they come so thick and fast these days that people have started to accept the rubbish and look for a way to explain it away.

[RedG13]

Well that clears it up.

Don't get me wrong, I think they did get it right, but anyone can put a ball near a line and then film it from different angles . How about posting some actual footage that was used by VAR last night?

Yea Posting the Var graphic for what used for goal line tech would have been much better then filming it like that to show it then that

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

The ball was out. Can't understand the debate as the game is played and reffed at pitch level and always has been. that ball is only in if you are looking from a blimp and reffs have never used those. On any pitch anywhere in the world that would be given out.

A simple way to solve this is, if this was sand and that ball was dropped would its mark be inside or outside?

Just one more stupid decision but they come so thick and fast these days that people have started to accept the rubbish and look for a way to explain it away.

Corners don’t work that way. The curvature of the ball determines in or out. If you used the sand test all Trent’s corners would be out of the quadrant.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

The ball was out. Can't understand the debate as the game is played and reffed at pitch level and always has been. that ball is only in if you are looking from a blimp and reffs have never used those. On any pitch anywhere in the world that would be given out.

A simple way to solve this is, if this was sand and that ball was dropped would its mark be inside or outside?

Just one more stupid decision but they come so thick and fast these days that people have started to accept the rubbish and look for a way to explain it away.

It was in by the laws of the game. Thats just factual.

If you still disagree then you can't criticise the decision, you have to criticise the law.

[Barneylfc∗]

The ball was out. Can't understand the debate as the game is played and reffed at pitch level and always has been. that ball is only in if you are looking from a blimp and reffs have never used those. On any pitch anywhere in the world that would be given out.

A simple way to solve this is, if this was sand and that ball was dropped would its mark be inside or outside?

Just one more stupid decision but they come so thick and fast these days that people have started to accept the rubbish and look for a way to explain it away.

What the fuck is this shit 

One of the most stupid posts I've ever read on here, and that's saying something.

If you drop the ball in sand, would the mark be the same size as the ball? No, so what the fuck are you on about?

[rob1966]

Corners don’t work that way. The curvature of the ball determines in or out. If you used the sand test all Trent’s corners would be out of the quadrant.

And we'd have won the league in 2019

What the fuck is this shit 

One of the most stupid posts I've ever read on here, and that's saying something.

If you drop the ball in sand, would the mark be the same size as the ball? No, so what the fuck are you on about?

[Ghost Town]

I feel A E Houseman had this moment in mind when he wrote 'On Wenlock Edge the wood's in trouble'. He almost got it right. No mention of the sand test, mind

[wenlock]

It was in by the laws of the game. Thats just factual.

If you still disagree then you can't criticise the decision, you have to criticise the law.

I shall claim interpretation just like the refs do!

Never been a fan of the wording of a few rules as they leave too much wiggle room for refs. My gripe with that rule is that to me the whole of the ball is out if it is past the line and not touching it at the base. The way the rule is applied for the sake of cameras and birds eye views is with an optical take on the rule and not a physical take.

It's been a while since I played but there was never a debate that balls as far out as that had gone at pitch level. It's also the lack of consistency, how many times will VAR be used for this during the rest of the season in the league and cups? The championship? Non league? Sunday league, after all we all play with the same conditions and rules at all levels I thought.

Most other sports and situations in general I can think of people would judge it by where its mark is but footy exists in a different space time construct.

[Barneylfc∗]

I shall claim interpretation just like the refs do!

Never been a fan of the wording of a few rules as they leave too much wiggle room for refs. My gripe with that rule is that to me the whole of the ball is out if it is past the line and not touching it at the base. The way the rule is applied for the sake of cameras and birds eye views is with an optical take on the rule and not a physical take.

It's been a while since I played but there was never a debate that balls as far out as that had gone at pitch level. It's also the lack of consistency, how many times will VAR be used for this during the rest of the season in the league and cups? The championship? Non league? Sunday league, after all we all play with the same conditions and rules at all levels I thought.

Most other sports and situations in general I can think of people would judge it by where its mark is but footy exists in a different space time construct.

It really doesn't matter how you interpret the rule, or what the rule is in other sports. It is a fact, an undeniable fact, that the whole of the ball didn't cross the line.

That's always been the way it is in football for as long as I've been watching it and probably a lot longer before that.

[rob1966]

I shall claim interpretation just like the refs do!

Never been a fan of the wording of a few rules as they leave too much wiggle room for refs. My gripe with that rule is that to me the whole of the ball is out if it is past the line and not touching it at the base. The way the rule is applied for the sake of cameras and birds eye views is with an optical take on the rule and not a physical take.

It's been a while since I played but there was never a debate that balls as far out as that had gone at pitch level. It's also the lack of consistency, how many times will VAR be used for this during the rest of the season in the league and cups? The championship? Non league? Sunday league, after all we all play with the same conditions and rules at all levels I thought.

Most other sports and situations in general I can think of people would judge it by where its mark is but footy exists in a different space time construct.

There is a reason why they use the whole of the ball and that is because a ball deforms when it contacts a solid surface, it never retains its shape on impact

[thaddeus]

Well that clears it up.

Don't get me wrong, I think they did get it right, but anyone can put a ball near a line and then film it from different angles . How about posting some actual footage that was used by VAR last night?

Far be it for me it defend FIFA but the previous Tweet to the one linked shows the actual footage: https://twitter.com/FIFAcom/status/1598702362243104768

With a reasonable best guess at the cameras being used I don't think there'd be any better footage available.  From that footage the balls looks to be just in.  It's hard to say but I expect it was more in than the John Stones goal-line clearance against us but without the technology to confirm it.

It was an amazing cross in the circumstances!

[BoRed]

Far be it for me it defend FIFA but the previous Tweet to the one linked shows the actual footage: https://twitter.com/FIFAcom/status/1598702362243104768

Thanks, I never bothered to look up.

[kaz1983]

When the tech is available it's very hard to resist the urge to use it. If you can do something, you should do something. We very much struggle to resist it's pull. Applied to VAR, it'll be very hard to resist the ever encroaching reliance upon it unless you make it very black and white when it can be referred too, and even then the temptation will be to continually expand the situations it's allowed to make interventions. Just because you could use a bit of tech, doesn't mean you should. A lesson humans won't learn.   

That's why the way it's used in cricket works. No matter how many situations it can be used in - there is a limited amount of referrals that can be made, therefore it's black and white in that regard.

[Knight]

That's why the way it's used in cricket works. No matter how many situations it can be used in - there is a limited amount of referrals that can be made, therefore it's black and white in that regard.

Yes limited referrals is very good. Also in cricket there’s a preference or bias towards the umpire’s original call when it’s marginal. And that bias is black and white - no one is having to decide in the moment if it's umpire's call. Then there’s the question of ultra edge which, a bit like goal like tech, sticks in its lane. Basically in cricket it works brilliantly.

[Ghost Town]

That's why the way it's used in cricket works. No matter how many situations it can be used in - there is a limited amount of referrals that can be made, therefore it's black and white in that regard.

Except that the whole referals things is dumb. The aim should be for the correct decsion to be made in every case, and everything should be arranged to maximise that happening. Any kind of arbitary limits militate against that.

[Knight]

Except that the whole referals things is dumb. The aim should be for the correct decsion to be made in every case, and everything should be arranged to maximise that happening. Any kind of arbitary limits militate against that.

I don't think this is right. Not least because so many decisions can't easily be reduced to 'correct', certainly in football. And the logic of this leads to a turgid mess in practice because you have to stop and bring in technology all the time to make sure every single decision is 'correct'.

And of course it assumes the technology is going to be 'correct' instead of the umpire. Sometimes that's right (edges for example) but why do we prefer technology for ball tracking over the sense of an umpire? In football why do we think that slowing a game down and looking at a tackle from loads of angles over and over again is likely to lead to a 'correct' decision over and against a referee's? It does sometimes yes, but sometimes it results in stuff being given that is bizarre. Technolology like this doesn't provide a purely objective and rational insight into the world, it interprets and reshapes.

[El Lobo]

Cricket also isn’t subjective, really. Is it a no ball and then does the technology say it’s hitting the stumps or not.

[Iska]

The aim should be for the correct decsion to be made in every case

No, this is wrong. The aim should be what is best for the game. There has to be a balance between accuracy and other factors, like flow of the game, relationship to officials, limits on certainty, scalability, etc.

It’s common and tempting to identify one factor and say everything should be devoted to it, but it kills systems, and everything exists as part of a complex system.  You start down that road and after a while you lose sight of the point of what the whole thing is for.  I certainly see it in my line of work - things hopelessly gummed up, nobody can make a decision, enormous extra costs in second-order effects, lawyers all over everything, new entrants don’t even know the point of the system in the first place.  I imagine plenty of businesses are the same.

[Ghost Town]

So you're OK with a situation where a decision is clearly wrong and could be fixed, but dang, all our referals are used up so there's nothing we can do.

It becomes a test of when to use referrals: a very different thing

And that's just one example.

If we want a sport to be a sport then the rules have to be applied evenly with every effort made to ensure decisions are correct according to those rules. Yes, in practice that perfection can never be attained, but to deliberately and artifically and willfully add limits that will by their nature mean that decisions which could have been correct or corrected, absent those limits, end up not being so, turns the game into something else other than an evenly officiated sport.

[Ghost Town]

I don't think this is right. Not least because so many decisions can't easily be reduced to 'correct', certainly in football. And the logic of this leads to a turgid mess in practice because you have to stop and bring in technology all the time to make sure every single decision is 'correct'.

And of course it assumes the technology is going to be 'correct' instead of the umpire. Sometimes that's right (edges for example) but why do we prefer technology for ball tracking over the sense of an umpire? In football why do we think that slowing a game down and looking at a tackle from loads of angles over and over again is likely to lead to a 'correct' decision over and against a referee's? It does sometimes yes, but sometimes it results in stuff being given that is bizarre. Technolology like this doesn't provide a purely objective and rational insight into the world, it interprets and reshapes.

That's not really what I'm talking about. What I mean is that officials need to officate according to the rules of the sport and to always be officiating to the best of their abilities. Not based on whether a team has 'referrals' left or not.

We've seen already with VAR how officials are ducking decisions and leaving it to VAR. That is also a problem. But add referrals to that as well and we're turning football into something very different to what it should be.

[Ghost Town]

And that's before we even consider how some managers might use 'referrals' cynically (no idea if that happens in cricket, I no longer have time to watch it).

[Iska]

to deliberately and artifically and willfully add limits that will by their nature mean that decisions which could have been correct or corrected, absent those limits, end up not being so, turns the game into something else other than an evenly officiated sport.

I fundamentally and completely disagree with you.  You fix limits you can live with and play within those limits, and adapt everything else to that.  It’s almost a philosophical point, about how to live in a world that never can be perfect.  Seeking perfection is a fool’s errand.

[4pool]

It matters not.

The media will find some way to claim a call is wrong, a team will lose, and the outcry will be to change the rules/VAR to make sure things aren't missed.

It will get to the point where VAR will Ref the match.

[farawayred]

It matters not.

The media will find some way to claim a call is wrong, a team will lose, and the outcry will be to change the rules/VAR to make sure things aren't missed.

It will get to the point where VAR will Ref the match.

I'd argue that it will get to the point where VAR will join Golden Goal and Silver Goal in the bin.

[thejbs]

I'd argue that it will get to the point where VAR will join Golden Goal and Silver Goal in the bin.

Not a chance. Those things were whims and easily dropped. Millions has been spent on the VAR infrastructure. It’ll be refined and (hopefully) improved, but it’s not going anywhere.