That felt a bit like an "Umpire's call" type of decision in cricket, when the benefit goes to the official's original decision...
The difference with the cricket is that you have one decision made by an umpire and a second decision made by a computer.
With football and VAR, the first decision is made by the referee and the second decision is made by the referee. It was the referee's call was to change his own decision.
Not quite true, what about the third umpire with hotspot etc?
That felt a bit like an "Umpire's call" type of decision in cricket, when the benefit goes to the official's original decision...
The difference with the cricket is that you have one decision made by an umpire and a second decision made by a computer.
With football and VAR, the first decision is made by the referee and the second decision is made by the referee. It was the referee's call was to change his own decision.
The way the sports use the technology is different, but in both the aim is to eradicate the clear howler. The original decision not to award the penalty wasn't definitely wrong, it was probably/possibly wrong.
The question then is how many of these close penalty calls will the referee check each match? In this case the ball went out of play. What would have happened if Butland had picked the ball up and play continued?
On review of the VAR which they were checking for a foul it was a foul.
That felt a bit like an "Umpire's call" type of decision in cricket, when the benefit goes to the official's original decision...
The difference with the cricket is that you have one decision made by an umpire and a second decision made by a computer.
With football and VAR, the first decision is made by the referee and the second decision is made by the referee. It was the referee's call was to change his own decision.
The way the sports use the technology is different, but in both the aim is to eradicate the clear howler. The original decision not to award the penalty wasn't definitely wrong, it was probably/possibly wrong.
The question then is how many of these close penalty calls will the referee check each match? In this case the ball went out of play. What would have happened if Butland had picked the ball up and play continued?
that's a good point, If Butland had punted it up the park, Vardy chases on to it and leathers it in , would the ref then have the guts to rule out the goal and give a penalty?
That felt a bit like an "Umpire's call" type of decision in cricket, when the benefit goes to the official's original decision...
The difference with the cricket is that you have one decision made by an umpire and a second decision made by a computer.
With football and VAR, the first decision is made by the referee and the second decision is made by the referee. It was the referee's call was to change his own decision.
The way the sports use the technology is different, but in both the aim is to eradicate the clear howler. The original decision not to award the penalty wasn't definitely wrong, it was probably/possibly wrong.
The question then is how many of these close penalty calls will the referee check each match? In this case the ball went out of play. What would have happened if Butland had picked the ball up and play continued?
In real time it was not a clear decision. On replay it was a clear decision.
"Sorry Italy we can't give you this obvious penalty because it didn't look clear enough at the time. We know it's definitely a foul but we can't give you it, sorry."
To answer your question, I would presume play would be stopped and either the penalty awarded like in this case, or a drop ball if there was no foul. Not sure though.
That felt a bit like an "Umpire's call" type of decision in cricket, when the benefit goes to the official's original decision...
The difference with the cricket is that you have one decision made by an umpire and a second decision made by a computer.
With football and VAR, the first decision is made by the referee and the second decision is made by the referee. It was the referee's call was to change his own decision.
Not quite true, what about the third umpire with hotspot etc?
Well that's not necessarily a second opinion from a computer but it's still from an outside source. With VAR, it's the same referee viewing the footage as who adjudged the original decision. That makes a big difference.
That felt a bit like an "Umpire's call" type of decision in cricket, when the benefit goes to the official's original decision...
The difference with the cricket is that you have one decision made by an umpire and a second decision made by a computer.
With football and VAR, the first decision is made by the referee and the second decision is made by the referee. It was the referee's call was to change his own decision.
The way the sports use the technology is different, but in both the aim is to eradicate the clear howler. The original decision not to award the penalty wasn't definitely wrong, it was probably/possibly wrong.
The question then is how many of these close penalty calls will the referee check each match? In this case the ball went out of play. What would have happened if Butland had picked the ball up and play continued?
that's a good point, If Butland had punted it up the park, Vardy chases on to it and leathers it in , would the ref then have the guts to rule out the goal and give a penalty?
If play had continued, the referee wouldn't have been able to check the VAR screen until play stopped, which could be seconds or minutes later
For that matter, what would happen if Italy scored? Would they have to come back for the penalty, and presumably they wouldn't be allowed to then have two goals!
Odds on England being involved in a controversial VAR decision at the world cup?
I hope this world cup doesn't get ruined/taken over by VAR disputes, but given how much debate it has sparked so far, it is bound to play a bigger role/distraction than most would hope.
The thing is you can't have half a foul. Once the ref watches the pictures and sees Tarkowski stand on the other bloke's foot, is he meant to not give it just because it wasn't intentional? How much of his foot does he have stand on for it to be an "obvious" mistake?
Once you see a foul on replay, you have to award the penalty.
This is what all our CL sofa experts can't grasp, it was a foul....end of.
Says as a sofa expert....
You really don't get it do you ?
I get that it's an opinion rather than a fact and that you having a patronising attitude doesn't make your opinion right.
But it's fact because he stood on his foot, you did see that bit, tell me you did. Sorry if my patronising attitude offended you I do hope you sleep ok.
Fifa needs to look at the wording of the VAR protocol because in my opinion that is part of the problem- perhaps change the wording of it from "clear and obvious" to "any and all occasions as the ref sees fit"
How can anyone defend the decision to even LOOK at VAR in this instance as clear and obvious when not a single player (including the one fouled) appealed for the decision?
- Pellegrini looks a class player. Only 21 years old. - It was a penalty. - Sterling looked dangerous for once. - Butland ahead of Pickford for me. - Immobile should have had a hat-trick. - Although we had a lot of the ball, the score line flattered us.
The thing is you can't have half a foul. Once the ref watches the pictures and sees Tarkowski stand on the other bloke's foot, is he meant to not give it just because it wasn't intentional? How much of his foot does he have stand on for it to be an "obvious" mistake?
Once you see a foul on replay, you have to award the penalty.
This is what all our CL sofa experts can't grasp, it was a foul....end of.
Says as a sofa expert....
You really don't get it do you ?
I get that it's an opinion rather than a fact and that you having a patronising attitude doesn't make your opinion right.
But it's fact because he stood on his foot, you did see that bit, tell me you did. Sorry if my patronising attitude offended you I do hope you sleep ok.
Didn't offend me mate, just found it daft. It's an opinion thing not a 'getting' thing. Standing on someone's foot isn't always a foul. Otherwise next time someone jumps for a defensive header in the box I'm going to put my foot underneath theirs before they land.
Fifa needs to look at the wording of the VAR protocol because in my opinion that is part of the problem- perhaps change the wording of it from "clear and obvious" to "any and all occasions as the ref sees fit"
How can anyone defend the decision to even LOOK at VAR in this instance as clear and obvious when not a single player (including the one fouled) appealed for the decision?
But nothing is really clear and obvious until the replay? Frank Lampard's "goal" at the World Cup 2010? Not clear and obvious until replays were shown or the goal would've been given straight away. Should that not have been reviewed? No point looking.
Fifa needs to look at the wording of the VAR protocol because in my opinion that is part of the problem- perhaps change the wording of it from "clear and obvious" to "any and all occasions as the ref sees fit"
How can anyone defend the decision to even LOOK at VAR in this instance as clear and obvious when not a single player (including the one fouled) appealed for the decision?
But nothing is really clear and obvious until the replay? Frank Lampard's "goal" at the World Cup 2010? Not clear and obvious until replays were shown or the goal would've been given straight away. Should that not have been reviewed? No point looking.
Clear and obvious mistakes though. That wasn't one. I know you think it was a penalty but surely you don't think the ref dropped an absolutely terrible clanger by not giving it?
Fifa needs to look at the wording of the VAR protocol because in my opinion that is part of the problem- perhaps change the wording of it from "clear and obvious" to "any and all occasions as the ref sees fit"
How can anyone defend the decision to even LOOK at VAR in this instance as clear and obvious when not a single player (including the one fouled) appealed for the decision?
But nothing is really clear and obvious until the replay? Frank Lampard's "goal" at the World Cup 2010? Not clear and obvious until replays were shown or the goal would've been given straight away. Should that not have been reviewed? No point looking.
Clear and obvious mistakes though. That wasn't one. I know you think it was a penalty but surely you don't think the ref dropped an absolutely terrible clanger by not giving it?
No I don't think it was a terrible decision. You can't expect the referee to give those if he's not able to clearly see the incident.
The replay gave him the benefit of that and meant he was able to make the correct decision.
"Clear and obvious" seems to be the problem here.
It was clearly and obviously a foul. Was it a clear and obvious mistake? Should it matter what the original decision was when the correct decision is staring you in the face on replay?
Should the ref call for VAR on every close corner and throw in decision as well? VAR can help with those decisions too. There has to be a line where you don't call for VAR surely?
Fifa needs to look at the wording of the VAR protocol because in my opinion that is part of the problem- perhaps change the wording of it from "clear and obvious" to "any and all occasions as the ref sees fit"
How can anyone defend the decision to even LOOK at VAR in this instance as clear and obvious when not a single player (including the one fouled) appealed for the decision?
But nothing is really clear and obvious until the replay? Frank Lampard's "goal" at the World Cup 2010? Not clear and obvious until replays were shown or the goal would've been given straight away. Should that not have been reviewed? No point looking.
Clear and obvious mistakes though. That wasn't one. I know you think it was a penalty but surely you don't think the ref dropped an absolutely terrible clanger by not giving it?
No I don't think it was a terrible decision. You can't expect the referee to give those if he's not able to clearly see the incident.
The replay gave him the benefit of that and meant he was able to make the correct decision.
"Clear and obvious" seems to be the problem here.
It was clearly and obviously a foul. Was it a clear and obvious mistake? Should it matter what the original decision was when the correct decision is staring you in the face on replay?
Leaving aside the 'correct decision' bit which we'll have to disagree on, where do you draw the line under your scenario? The ref's could look at 20 decisions a game to get the 'benefit' of the replay and the right decision, shoving in the box every time, players will go down easily etc. It needs to be used, but used sparingly. Maybe an 'x' challenges each system like in tennis and cricket, you keep it if proven right.
Should the ref call for VAR on every close corner and throw in decision as well? VAR can help with those decisions too. There has to be a line where you don't call for VAR surely?
Reviewable decisions Match officials make hundreds of decisions in every match, including decisions that an offence has not occurred. It would be impossible, without completely changing football, to review every decision. Thus, the experiment limits the use of VARs to four categories of match-changing decisions/incidents: • Goals • Penalty/ no penalty decisions • Direct red cards (not 2nd yellow cards) • Mistaken identity In all these situations, the VAR is only used after the referee has made a decision (including allowing play to continue), or if a serious incident is ‘missed’ i.e. not seen by the match officials.
Should the ref call for VAR on every close corner and throw in decision as well? VAR can help with those decisions too. There has to be a line where you don't call for VAR surely?
Reviewable decisions Match officials make hundreds of decisions in every match, including decisions that an offence has not occurred. It would be impossible, without completely changing football, to review every decision. Thus, the experiment limits the use of VARs to four categories of match-changing decisions/incidents: • Goals • Penalty/ no penalty decisions • Direct red cards (not 2nd yellow cards) • Mistaken identity In all these situations, the VAR is only used after the referee has made a decision (including allowing play to continue), or if a serious incident is ‘missed’ i.e. not seen by the match officials.
So on one hand the tweet you quoted says don't limit VAR decisions but the actual protocol says to limit VAR decisions. Which is my entire point the wording of the protocol is wrong and 100% of the issue here.
So on one hand the tweet you quoted says don't limit VAR decisions but the actual protocol says to limit VAR decisions. Which is my entire point the wording of the protocol is wrong and 100% of the issue here.
You're conflating the two different limits. You're saying unlimited reviews on everything. The tweet was saying unlimited reviews under the current guidelines (thus limited to goals, penalties, red cards, mistaken identity).
I was conflating to make a point, the wording "clear and obvious" is arbitrary because everyone's idea of clear and obvious is going to be different - once again I say, the issue is in the wording of the protocol - they need to remove the clear and obvious part and call it like it is which is down to the refs discretion as that is how VAR is being used in this trial.
Comments
"Sorry Italy we can't give you this obvious penalty because it didn't look clear enough at the time. We know it's definitely a foul but we can't give you it, sorry."
To answer your question, I would presume play would be stopped and either the penalty awarded like in this case, or a drop ball if there was no foul. Not sure though.
For that matter, what would happen if Italy scored? Would they have to come back for the penalty, and presumably they wouldn't be allowed to then have two goals!
I hope this world cup doesn't get ruined/taken over by VAR disputes, but given how much debate it has sparked so far, it is bound to play a bigger role/distraction than most would hope.
Sorry if my patronising attitude offended you I do hope you sleep ok.
How can anyone defend the decision to even LOOK at VAR in this instance as clear and obvious when not a single player (including the one fouled) appealed for the decision?
- Pellegrini looks a class player. Only 21 years old.
- It was a penalty.
- Sterling looked dangerous for once.
- Butland ahead of Pickford for me.
- Immobile should have had a hat-trick.
- Although we had a lot of the ball, the score line flattered us.
So is your basis for reviewing something now that the referee must be surrounded by players before reviewing a decision?
The replay gave him the benefit of that and meant he was able to make the correct decision.
"Clear and obvious" seems to be the problem here.
It was clearly and obviously a foul. Was it a clear and obvious mistake? Should it matter what the original decision was when the correct decision is staring you in the face on replay?
Match officials make hundreds of decisions in every match, including decisions that an offence has not occurred. It would be impossible, without completely changing football, to review every decision. Thus, the experiment limits the use of VARs to four categories of match-changing decisions/incidents:
• Goals
• Penalty/ no penalty decisions
• Direct red cards (not 2nd yellow cards)
• Mistaken identity
In all these situations, the VAR is only used after the referee has made a decision (including allowing play to continue), or if a serious incident is ‘missed’ i.e. not seen by the match officials.
https://www.knvb.nl/downloads/bestand/9844/var-handbook-v8_final