This rubbish has to stop...
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
That isn't going to work more often than not, as the only common language between the referee and VAR will be English. I completely agree that the crowd and TV need to hear the discussion, but it does need to be in English.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I think that top refs should be able to communicate decisions in public. The key is to stick to the terminology in the laws with a minimum of extra nonsense: shows: <draws square with hands>, says: "in my opinion number 4 recklessly attempted to trip the opponent", shows <shows YC>, <points for DFK>.
This "in my opinion" is important with foul play decisions that the referee sees. For offside, there needs to be a clarification in the laws and the ref needs to instead say something different but consistent with other AR actions e.g. "the video assistant referee signals offside".
This "in my opinion" is important with foul play decisions that the referee sees. For offside, there needs to be a clarification in the laws and the ref needs to instead say something different but consistent with other AR actions e.g. "the video assistant referee signals offside".
What if you had a Mexican Referee with a Spanish VAR.....logic dictates they speak in Spanish. English is the one to fall back on though obviously but there needs to be more elasticity with the policy.
Be sensible, when's logic got anything to do with FIFA
FIFA have tried to ensure the referee retains control of all decisions and banned live replays. They need to abandon their current thinking and go down the Rugby Union route.
Show the incident on the big screen and allow the referee / VAR see it, make their decision and then get on with it. Look at the Lions v All Blacks dismissal of SBW. Referee saw VC so dismissed. Crowd alos show incident - no issues from any players or crowd.
The idiotic nature of FIFA, expecting things to run on 5 days training. As it has been said "fail to plan, plan to fail".
So only the top leagues will be supplying the referees for the World Cup next year, if they have to work with it every day. They will need to be the professional referees, which rules out a number of countries, as they are not full-time. The top leagues will have to have the money to pay for the technology at all matches, which rules out most countries - So English referees could be doing every match at 1/4 finals onwards (well England will have gone hoem by then!)
FIFA's inclusion policy for referees, so that they don't come from the same federation as the two teams will be under strain, unless they can get non-UEFA referees doing top matches in other leagues which has the technology.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4662070/VAR-s-wrong-FIFA-fix-it.html
I think the Daily Fail are basically agreeing with me!!
Well, you heard it here first!! 
I think the Daily Fail are basically agreeing with me!!
Well, you heard it here first!! In reality that is going to be very rare though. Look at the most recent Confederations Cup games ...
Final - Serbia, Slovenia, France and Portugal
3rd Place - Saudia, Gambia, Brazil, Burundi and Paraguay
Semi 2 - Argentina, Italy, Brazil, Portugal
Semi 1 - Iran, Saudi, Uzbekistan, USA
Across those games they've made a big enough mess of it when they are all speaking English, can you imagine how bad it would have been had they all been speaking in their native language .. ?
A requirement of being a FIFA match official is passing an English language exam, which I believe is quite difficult, so I really don't think language barriers have played any part here.
I don't know how well this will work, but this I think is relevant:
https://twitter.com/lovefutebol/status/880355765764202496
Basically suggesting that even if officials are communicating fluently in the same language, there can be cultural differences in how arguments are structured and how context is applied that can lead to misunderstandings when it comes to how certain two officials from different countries are about a recommendation.
And as I say, that's assuming officials are actually fluent, as opposed to simply being "good enough" to pass a tests.
https://twitter.com/lovefutebol/status/880355765764202496
Basically suggesting that even if officials are communicating fluently in the same language, there can be cultural differences in how arguments are structured and how context is applied that can lead to misunderstandings when it comes to how certain two officials from different countries are about a recommendation.
And as I say, that's assuming officials are actually fluent, as opposed to simply being "good enough" to pass a tests.
Last edited:
Just use fixed national teams, this isn't rocket science. It's what they normally do, last World Cup only had a few exceptions (especially regarding officials from Africa). Not sure why they went full-on multi-language and multi-cultural for the Confederations Cup. It's not even in the first place about language or culture, officials who're used to work together will simply do better.
And they should limit communication anyhow by transferring power to the VAR, who should just watch the images, make a decision and tell the on-field referee what to do. Leaving aside the obvious lack of experience, almost all problems with the system come from this obsession to keep the on-field referee in charge of everything.
And they should limit communication anyhow by transferring power to the VAR, who should just watch the images, make a decision and tell the on-field referee what to do. Leaving aside the obvious lack of experience, almost all problems with the system come from this obsession to keep the on-field referee in charge of everything.
Last edited:
That only works where nations have enough top level FIFA officials to operate in that way. For an example, a game being refereed by Milorad Mazic who is on the elite list. There are no other Serbian referees on the Elite list, not even any on the First Category list, so you'd be potentially be handing over a major decision in a World Cup or European Championship game to Vlado Glodjovic on the Second Category list, a referee who's highest level of experience is the Champions League qualifying stages (the likes of Zalgiris vs Astana ..!). That would be total madness.
I do agree that the referee shouldn't be involved in any replayed decision and should leave it just to the VAR, but that will need the communication to be done in English.
The outcome should in that case be that Mazic is out of the competition. Too bad for him, but that's life.
On a sidenote, they will really have to start with separate lists for on-field referees and VARs. This is a different job, you need specialization.
So would Atkinson then in that case as he's the only English elite referee left.
They all speak very good English - the problem isn't with their listening and speaking, rather it is with their peepers it appears. Especially as some of the biggest mistakes came when the referee came to have a look at the video themselves and still got it totally wrong.
Murri O
Well-Known Member
https://twitter.com/FOXSportsnl/status/893884709826170880/video/1
Hmmmm. Ref waves play on 'no pen', team counters and scores, ref reviews initial instance, disallows just scored goal and awards original pen.
I'm assuming there has to be a stoppage in play before the ref can go to a review.
Was only a matter of time before something like this happened.
http://forum.insidesport.com.au/Lin...o/news-story/20fa2d2e998b0dfdb58428785063113b
Link here for those who can't access the twitter video. https://www.foxsports.com.au/footba...o/news-story/20fa2d2e998b0dfdb58428785063113b
Comments?
Hmmmm. Ref waves play on 'no pen', team counters and scores, ref reviews initial instance, disallows just scored goal and awards original pen.
I'm assuming there has to be a stoppage in play before the ref can go to a review.
Was only a matter of time before something like this happened.
http://forum.insidesport.com.au/Lin...o/news-story/20fa2d2e998b0dfdb58428785063113b
Link here for those who can't access the twitter video. https://www.foxsports.com.au/footba...o/news-story/20fa2d2e998b0dfdb58428785063113b
Comments?
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
meh. Exact same thing could always happen with AR's
Paul March
Well-Known Member
Correct use of the system.
Though the ref should have seen the penalty. If I missed that sort of kmi I would be looking at the trap door.
This does highlight a growing concern that refs will manage incidents in the knowledge that it can be reviewed . In this incident no real harm occurred, however what if rather than their being a goal there had been some sfp or a dogso.
Though the ref should have seen the penalty. If I missed that sort of kmi I would be looking at the trap door.
This does highlight a growing concern that refs will manage incidents in the knowledge that it can be reviewed . In this incident no real harm occurred, however what if rather than their being a goal there had been some sfp or a dogso.
I still think we're being let down by the old-fashioned insistence that the referee has to be the only one who ever gets to make a decision. In this incident, the VAR has looked at a replay and clearly thinks it's worth the referee taking a look. To do that, you'd have to think he's fairly sure that the referee has missed a penalty - imagine the uproar if the referee had taken 2 minutes out of the game to look at a clip and then upheld the original decision anyway! So the VAR code must surely suggest it's only appropriate to intervene if there's a high chance of it changing a decision?
Anyway, I don't understand why when the referee has so clearly missed an obvious penalty, why the VAR can't simply tell him this and have him stop play and go back to the penalty. In this case, that decision could have been reached before the counter-attacking goal was scored, massively reducing the controversy involved. It would have been quicker, looked neater and would have stopped the opposing team being frustrated by the fact their goal had been "cancelled out".
It was such an obvious wrong call (as suggested by @Paul March ) that if a referee watching in the booth can't be trusted to overrule the on-field referee, I don't know what the point is of getting a qualified referee to sit there.
Anyway, I don't understand why when the referee has so clearly missed an obvious penalty, why the VAR can't simply tell him this and have him stop play and go back to the penalty. In this case, that decision could have been reached before the counter-attacking goal was scored, massively reducing the controversy involved. It would have been quicker, looked neater and would have stopped the opposing team being frustrated by the fact their goal had been "cancelled out".
It was such an obvious wrong call (as suggested by @Paul March ) that if a referee watching in the booth can't be trusted to overrule the on-field referee, I don't know what the point is of getting a qualified referee to sit there.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Again, GS, I am with you.
As I wrote on other thread, why can't the VAR be treated like the AR and be able to signal for incidents/offences that the referee has not seen or cannot see. All the dicking about withe the ref looking at a screen is a waste of time.
Surely the VAR should be able to buzz/intercom just like the AR. Then the ref can stop the game, use the square signal to indicate they are getting advice from the VAR, and then signal the decision based on the VAR's advice.
Yes, it will take the VAR a few seconds to rewind and replay an incident. Yes, if there is a break in play after an incident the VAR should tell the ref to wait for the review to be over. There could be a different signal for that, though it is no different from the ref waiting for an AR to be in position after a sub... of course that's obvious on the field... so how about a "I'm listening to my team" signal from the ref to show the world he/she is waiting...?
No more looking at tellies on the sideline!
Completely agree. If an assistant signals for a penalty referees will hardly ever overrule him, so why does the referee need to look at a video to validate that the advice being given to him by a VAR is correct? Especially as the VAR will almost certainly be a higher level referee than the assistant. It just makes no sense, and sooner rather than later the referee will be struck by an object as he looks at the pitch side monitor.
Whether the referee asks for advice or the VAR tells him he has missed something, they need to have conviction in the advice being given out by the VAR.
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
What an absolute mess! As has been said in this and other threads, the nonsense of the match referee running to the sidelines has to stop. If referees accept the word of AR/AARs, then why not that of their qualified tv assistant? Cricket umpires and rugby referees accept the advice of their tv official, football needs to follow suit, if anything to speed up the process as much as anything.