A-League - VAR implemented from this weekend

[CapnBloodbeard]

So the Australian A-League has been running VAR trials (basically, VAR in attendance, but only to report on what they 'would' have done - no actual interaction with the referee for the last few weeks.

First match with it is coming up on Friday, with only a few weeks to go before our finals series (because we're Australians and we're weird like that).

And, in what I think is a very smart move, players will be booked for appealing to the referee to go to the VAR.

Given how stupidly lenient and inconsistent this league is on dissent and abuse, my personal suspicion is that it really means that if any player is stupid enough to mime the TV signal they're getting booked and nobody else will be, because as fans we don't know if the players are saying 'check the TV ref!'. So I doubt much will happen. but I think having no tolerance for players trying to force a review is the only way forwards - especially as we now have the scenario where a player can appeal to the referee and actually see the referee change his mind!

Not to mention it just looks unfair if a major decision is overturned after that team says 'ref, check the replay!'

Out of interest:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/video/football/a-league/a-leagues-new-var-in-action!616615

This clip shows what the VAR is looking at.
2 concerns:
1) Why spend so much time seeing if the ball went over the touch line when it's impossible to tell from this angle?
2) I suspect ball over goal line is going to come up a bit. We need a camera ON the goal line. These camera angles are horrendous at making this decision.

Also,
http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2017/04/04/explainer-how-video-ref-will-work-league
Not a lot of info there though.
http://www.a-league.com.au/article/...assistant-referees/1g3x9yaxih0dp1aaokfqi2uihy

 

[rainertheref]

EDIT: There's now a video - unsure if it's geo-blocked: http://www.foxsports.com.au/video/football/a-league/var-leads-to-sfc-penalty!617426

So presumably there'll be video of this at some point - but I've just watched my first game of football using the VAR. There have been other games of football this weekend, but I believe this is the first one where VAR has been used. This was Wellington Phoenix (my local team) vs Sydney FC. Result was a 1-1 draw.

Quick account of what happened, and my initial thoughts follow:

S take a corner. W & S player jump for the ball. In my initial view, it just looked like the Sydney player headed the ball down harmlessly. While a W player collected the ball and headed upfield, 5 S players surround the referee gesturing for handball, and miming the TV signal. Play continues for 20 seconds, stopping with a W player taking a shot on goal, but being called off-side.

Sydney players once again run at the ref - he waves everyone away, but is concentrating on his earpiece, blows his whistle, makes the TV signal and starts heading for the W penalty area.

The VAR's replay is then shown onscreen (including at the stadium - I was watching on TV). This shows that the W player jumps with hand raised, and the ball makes contact with his hand before the S player's head. Clear handball, although some have suggested it only happened because the S player had his hand on W player's shoulder. W coach believes this was the case.

I should point, the referee took no action against the S players who clearly ran at him and mimed the TV signal.

Not long after this, W player ran into S penalty area, and was on the receiving end of a hard but fair challenge, but one which could be seen as 'controversial'. Ref dealt with this in the normal way - point at the ball, made it clear he saw the challenge and it was fair.

There was another incident in the last play of the game, where the same W player went down in the box. TV replays showed he just stumbled, but W players ran at the referee, clearly asking for the VAR to be used (can't recall if they used the signal), as the ref blew the final whistle. Commentators (who seem to have some inside knowledge of what VAR is doing) mentioned that VAR had seen the incident and wasn't recommending it be looked at.

I've seen a fair bit of criticism of the system - obviously a lot of the people I see talking about this on social media are W fans, so perhaps expected to have issues with it. Criticisms have included the fact it took so long for the VAR to review the incident, that in reviewing the incident they didn't pick up the supposed foul on the defender, and that two incidents were "not reviewed" at the other end of the field. The W captain voiced this criticism. Criticism of the delay focused on the hypothetical scenario where the W attacker stayed onside and scored, but then the game was brought back for a penalty. A fellow referee described this potential outcome as 'anti-football'.

My own thoughts, in no particular order:

1. I'm not entirely convinced VAR is a good idea. Now that we're trialling it, I think it is inevitable and here to stay.
2. In this game, the VAR got the three relevant calls right. There was a handball, and the other two incidents were not fouls.
3. I am unsure if it's within the VAR's remit to review potential attacking fouls occurring right before or contributing to a penalty decision. In this case I'm unsure if the VAR considered the possibility of a S foul or was only checking to see if handball occurred. The attacking foul was not a clear-cut decision.
4. The criticism of the delay makes no sense to me. I assume if a decision is very clear, the VAR may be able to recommend the referee stop the game immediately for a review. But to do so for every review would be silly IMHO. What actually happened is the play was stopped and the review occurred as soon as there was a stoppage in play.
5. Criticism of the lack of review for the other two incidents shows a lack of understanding of how the system works. People are used to the systems used in rugby and cricket, where the VAR equivalent only comes into play when the referee asks them for assistance. In both of these incidents, it would clearly only take one quick look for the VAR to see no foul - there is no need for the referee to stop play and a formal review to occur in these situations.
6. In my opinion the system worked as intended in this game. To stop play earlier would have been anti-football. If a W goal had been scored it would have been controversial for that to be ruled out, but that is in fact a logical conclusion - an earlier foul has occurred, so of course the goal does not stand.
7. One aspect of the system did NOT work, and has the potential to be a very slippery slope if not dealt with quickly. Despite having the very important weapon of the yellow card sanction for VAR appeals, the referee did not use it, and he was surrounded three times by groups of players calling for a review. These cautions should have been instant, and they should be consistent in future. Otherwise this kind of appealing and surrounding the referee is going to be constant.

 

[kiwi villan]

I was at the game tonight and i have to say the experience i had was different to the tv viewers. Your description of events with the benefit of tv is undoubtedly correct but what we saw live was the referee favourably react to sydneys request (surrounding of the ref!) for a tv review but ignore the two wellington requests (also surrounding of the ref) - altho I have to say in all honesty i did not think any of the appeals were a pen including the one given by the var. It did seem to take a long time from the handball to the penalty award - maybe 4 minutes? And if wellington had scored with their shot on goal only to have it ruled out all hell would have broken out!

I think what this showed tonight was the movement of football to be even more of a tv audience sport rather than live crowds.

By the way the referee took a great deal of abuse at the end of the game because of this, and kiwi football fans are much more reserved than those at the average english game.

 

[EnglishReferee]

Just seen the video of it. Agreed they came to the right conclusion but what would of happened had they gone up the other end and scored on that counter?

 

[Peter Grove]

Just seen the video of it. Agreed they came to the right conclusion but what would of happened had they gone up the other end and scored on that counter?

As @rainertheref pointed out, the goal would be disallowed once it emerged that the team scoring the goal had committed an offence. The provisions of Law 10 would apply - a goal can only be scored, '"provided that no offence or infringement of the Laws of the Game has been committed by the team scoring the goal."

As he further mentioned, it would be controversial, at least to start with, but I imagine people would get used to it once it happened a few times.

 

[EnglishReferee]

As @rainertheref pointed out, the goal would be disallowed once it emerged that the team scoring the goal had committed an offence. The provisions of Law 10 would apply - a goal can only be scored, '"provided that no offence or infringement of the Laws of the Game has been committed by the team scoring the goal."

As he further mentioned, it would be controversial, at least to start with, but I imagine people would get used to it once it happened a few times.

Ok cheers Peter. Still for me the incident needs to be dealt with asap. Then if not awarded opposition IDFK.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

EDIT: There's now a video - unsure if it's geo-blocked: http://www.foxsports.com.au/video/football/a-league/var-leads-to-sfc-penalty!617426
.

https://streamable.com/bmdg1
That should help.
It took 15s from incident to natural stoppage, and another minute to make a decision. It appears this may be one where the VAR got in the referee's ear, but it's unclear.
Either way, having 2 players spring up, get in the referee's face as he's trying to run and mime the VAR signal looks really, really bad and undermines the entire process. HAL referees have already come out and said they're going to be soft on this - they said 'we know it's supposed to be zero tolerance, but we'll apply common sense', and our refs are already too lenient on dissent. Really, running up to the ref like that should net card each, VAR or no VAR. So that was really disappointing.
And for me, the completely wrong decision was made. There was a clear push in the back by the attacker - can't believe the VAR missed this, or at least didn't think it put any doubt over the decision.

3. I am unsure if it's within the VAR's remit to review potential attacking fouls occurring right before or contributing to a penalty decision. In this case I'm unsure if the VAR considered the possibility of a S foul or was only checking to see if handball occurred. The attacking foul was not a clear-cut decision.
.

You can't make a penalty decision without considering opposing fouls before hand though. So I think this was just missed - the VAR probably didn't even think about it. Which is very, very poor.
Personally I think the only reason there was handling was because of the foul - which would make the handling accidental anyway (arms go up as you're being pushed in the back).
You can see the back arch from the push and a sudden shift in mid-air momentum.

Just seen the video of it. Agreed they came to the right conclusion but what would of happened had they gone up the other end and scored on that counter?

Exactly the same as if you were refereeing, saw a goal, turned around and saw your AR with the flag raised at the other end of the field because the keeper decked the striker behind your back before the goal was scored.