Big Brothers gonna get ye!

[Sheffields Finest]

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-course-over-new-world-cup-disciplinary-rules

Retrospective action during games! That’s a potential game changer ... wise or foolish?

 

[cwyeary]

This is just apart of the string of articles in the past couple days talking about retrospective action with VAR.

However, all it is referring to is the ability for VAR to punish violent conduct that was unseen by the match officials even after play has restarted. This is nothing new and has been apart of the LOTG for quite some time. It was the reason Zidane was able to be sent off in 2006.

This is just typical British tabloid sensationalism.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

I don’t recall one VAR incident so far when a player has been sent off retrospectively after play has restarted??? When did this ever get brought in? I’ve seen players charged after but not during! Please give us some examples...

 

[cwyeary]

I don’t recall one VAR incident so far when a player has been sent off retrospectively after play has restarted??? When did this ever get brought in? I’ve seen players charged after but not during! Pleas give us some examples...

Because it's never happened as far as I know. It's nothing new. The modern LOTG have always allowed the other match officials to bring violent conduct to the attention of the referee and allow the referee to punish the offender even if play has restarted. It was simply made clear that this also applies to VAR. It's only in the LOTG as a "just in case violent conduct is missed and play quickly restarts it can still be punished". It's why the article is so sensationalist. It makes it sound like every match will have VAR punishing something from 10 minutes prior.

 

[one]

 

[Sheffields Finest]

I actually agree that red card violent offences should be retro punished, however, it always looks very messy especially if the crowd has no idea what’s going on!!

 

[cwyeary]

Fine. That's a VAR issue. The point is the Guardian article is completely full of ****. As are about ten other articles written by UK media outlets in the past couple of days.

 

[one]

The point is the Guardian article is completely full of ****

No so sure about that. Probably better described if you said they are misrepresenting the facts. Or as you said earlier sensationalising it. Had they changed the title of the article to "England players given crash course over how VAR works" it would have been a lot more accurate but would not have sounded as good.

 

[Hoosier Ref]

Here are my thoughts. I think VAR should be tweaked a bit. I'm still not decided on VAR in its current form as I think it gets misused.

1. Penalty decisions - I think seeing multiple replays and slow motion should not occur. Let the CR see a different angle at real game speed only once or twice for a penalty call. If we allow multiple views and reviews plus slowing it down then we are applying a significantly different ITOOP criteria than anywhere else. I get that these are game critical decisions but if you couldn't tell at full speed in two views from a better angle then I don't think you should call it. I think in the PA or out of the PA is the best usage here. I think the VAR should not be using slow motion and have their review limited to 1 or 2 views of a specific replay. If the naked eye couldn't spot it then so be it.
2. VC unseen by referees - absolutely
3. Misidentified culprits - certainly

Retroactive discipline -
1. I think any VC unseen should be fair game.
2. I think clear dives in general should be penalized after the game. To do these in game would involve a LOT of video review in real time and involve a high degree of subjectivity. I think a review post game without the time constraint would allow for much more certainty and avoid discipline for players who didn't actually dive. I do think that a clear dive should be punished harshly if missed in game. Make them sit the next game. Diving is an issue and seriously detracts from our game. Make the punishment harsh and it will curtail the conduct.

 

[cwyeary]

To be fair the LOTG already cover a decent chunk of your first point. Obviously it doesn't limit the number of replays but it does mention using slow motion.

"The referee can request different cameras angles/replay speeds but, in general, slow motion replays should only be used for facts e.g. position of offence/player, point of contact for physical offences and handball, ball out of play (including goal/no goal); normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’ of an offence or to decide if a handball was ‘deliberate’"

 

[Hoosier Ref]

I haven't read the protocols in a while but my point being if you can't decide in one or two views at normal speed if it was a foul then it probably shouldn't be called. I think both the VAR and the CR should be limited in the same fashion

 

[one]

I haven't read the protocols in a while but my point being if you can't decide in one or two views at normal speed if it was a foul then it probably shouldn't be called. I think both the VAR and the CR should be limited in the same fashion

You have a good point and I am sure that is the way IFAB intends it as well with number of time it has emphasise on "clear" and the new lotg on "clear and obvious". The problem is not with the protocol (not on this point anyway), it with training and over officious officials. VAR who unintentionally take over the referee's job from behind the screen and CRs who have a new toy and persist on using it to 'improve' their decision even if it doesn't need improving.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Bad example, but what if Ramos was just about to leave the pitch to pick up his CL winners medal and was shown a red card for the cheeky elbow on Karius, let’s say there was no screens in the ground... not sure what minute that incident was but it may take a long time to have spotted that in any half of football. Messy!

 

[one]

Surly a bit of common sense there. What is the point of showing a red card on a retrospective after the game is finished? Let the authorities manage that retrospetively.

Any other case, the only way this could happen is the game is restarted while a check is happening or if a check is taking a 'long time' which in practice wont be any more than a few minutes after the incident. VARs must stay current with play and checks. They would have to check the current play as it is happening and they wont have the luxury of "well nothing is happening at the moment so lets go and check something that happened 10 minutes ago". The only possible exception I can think of is half time when the referee might say let's have another look at the incident at 20th.

EDIT: UEFA in fact did look at the Ramos-Karius incident retrospectively and decided not to take any actions.

 

[Peter Grove]

I haven't read the protocols in a while but my point being if you can't decide in one or two views at normal speed if it was a foul then it probably shouldn't be called. I think both the VAR and the CR should be limited in the same fashion

The trouble with that is the foul may only be truly visible from one specific angle and there's no way to guarantee that you're going to get that particular angle from the first two you look at. An example of this would be the Esse Baharmast penalty decision in the 1998 World Cup. Several video replays televised at the time showed no foul, but another replay from a different angle emerged later, showing a clear pull on Tore Andre Flo's shirt. At the time, Baharmast was on the end of much criticism, including in the post-match TV analyses, with some media outlets accusing him of giving an 'imaginary penalty' despite the fact that he had made what was eventually shown to be the right call.

Imagine that a) this had been a game played with VAR in place, b) the referee had not been in the optimum position to see the foul and c) using VAR he had looked at only the first two replays which showed no foul. He would then not have given the penalty which would have changed the course of the game and the tournament, whereas one of the other subsequent replays would have revealed the clear and obvious shirt pull that had actually occurred.

Esse Baharmast 1998 penalty decision

The linked article talks about 16 cameras not seeing the foul. I'm not sure that's quite true as the embedded YouTube video has an angle that clearly shows it - but certainly none of the replays televised at the time or even immediately after the game, revealed the incident and the angle that did show it didn't emerge till later.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

So now it’s confirmed concussion are the UEFA bosses going to review their review on the Ramos assault? Just for reviewing sake!

 

[MrPerfectNot]

Just a quick aside - Esse is a frequent mentor, teacher and informal assessor at many of our local tournaments - good guy and great experiences, he is very good at reducing game situations to the key decision points. He'll be in Russia working with referees this year's WC.

 

[Nalbi]

So now it’s confirmed concussion are the UEFA bosses going to review their review on the Ramos assault? Just for reviewing sake!

Apparently the official response is no as a review did indeed take place and was deemed as not an intentional foul as ramos was originally being pushed by a liverpool defender (i'm thinking it was Van Dijk?)

 

[Hoosier Ref]

The trouble with that is the foul may only be truly visible from one specific angle and there's no way to guarantee that you're going to get that particular angle from the first two you look at. An example of this would be the Esse Baharmast penalty decision in the 1998 World Cup. Several video replays televised at the time showed no foul, but another replay from a different angle emerged later, showing a clear pull on Tore Andre Flo's shirt. At the time, Baharmast was on the end of much criticism, including in the post-match TV analyses, with some media outlets accusing him of giving an 'imaginary penalty' despite the fact that he had made what was eventually shown to be the right call.

Imagine that a) this had been a game played with VAR in place, b) the referee had not been in the optimum position to see the foul and c) using VAR he had looked at only the first two replays which showed no foul. He would then not have given the penalty which would have changed the course of the game and the tournament, whereas one of the other subsequent replays would have revealed the clear and obvious shirt pull that had actually occurred.

Esse Baharmast 1998 penalty decision

The linked article talks about 16 cameras not seeing the foul. I'm not sure that's quite true as the embedded YouTube video has an angle that clearly shows it - but certainly none of the replays televised at the time or even immediately after the game, revealed the incident and the angle that did show it didn't emerge till later.

I'm not saying dont view the other angles. I'm just saying at game speed and limit the number of views from each angle. There are not many plays at this level where if you watched every angle, repeatedly and in slow motion that you cant see something that constitutes a foul (holding, pushes, little kicks, pulls, etc ) I think if you thought you saw something at real speed on a car, one or two more views at most. If you cant make a decision at that point then so be it. Var should only essentially place the cr virtually in a better spot via the replay. Refereeing should not devolve into technology overwhelming and slowing the game. We dont want to become American football.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

The trouble with that is the foul may only be truly visible from one specific angle and there's no way to guarantee that you're going to get that particular angle from the first two you look at. An example of this would be the Esse Baharmast penalty decision in the 1998 World Cup. Several video replays televised at the time showed no foul, but another replay from a different angle emerged later, showing a clear pull on Tore Andre Flo's shirt. At the time, Baharmast was on the end of much criticism, including in the post-match TV analyses, with some media outlets accusing him of giving an 'imaginary penalty' despite the fact that he had made what was eventually shown to be the right call.

Imagine that a) this had been a game played with VAR in place, b) the referee had not been in the optimum position to see the foul and c) using VAR he had looked at only the first two replays which showed no foul. He would then not have given the penalty which would have changed the course of the game and the tournament, whereas one of the other subsequent replays would have revealed the clear and obvious shirt pull that had actually occurred.

Esse Baharmast 1998 penalty decision

The linked article talks about 16 cameras not seeing the foul. I'm not sure that's quite true as the embedded YouTube video has an angle that clearly shows it - but certainly none of the replays televised at the time or even immediately after the game, revealed the incident and the angle that did show it didn't emerge till later.

Esse call is a lesson and a strong message to us all. You see it, you give it.
It was heartening to hear in times to come he was praised for his decision.