Big Brothers gonna get ye!

[one]

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.

The Esse incident was not about the camera angles. Had today's VAR protocol been used it would have been picked up immediately. Every close up angle would have shown the shirt pull if the replay started two seconds earlier than when the broadcasters chose to start the replay. It was clever editing by broadcasters to create a story for their own benefit. Just look at the close up replays in the article's youtube clip (at 2.02 and again at 2.08), they all start immediately after the shirt pull (deliberately editing out the shirt pull). They only released the shirt pull clip (at 2.012) after a newspaper/website published a photo of it the next morning.

Had VAR been used they would have asked for the replay to be wound back to before the shirt pull.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

The Esse incident was not about the camera angles. Had today's VAR protocol been used it would have been picked up immediately. Every close up angle would have shown the shirt pull if the replay started two seconds earlier than when the broadcasters chose to start the replay. It was clever editing by broadcasters to create a story for their own benefit. Just look at the close up replays in the article's youtube clip (at 2.02 and again at 2.08), they all start immediately after the shirt pull (deliberately editing out the shirt pull). They only released the shirt pull clip (at 2.012) after a newspaper published a photo of it the next morning.

Had VAR been used they would have asked for the replay to be wound back to before the shirt pull.

For me, and ok thats a utopia example, is, let the referee referee

 

[Peter Grove]

The Esse incident was not about the camera angles. Had today's VAR protocol been used it would have been picked up immediately.

According to his version of events, it was. The way he tells it, none of the camera angles used on TV at the time showed the foul, it was only visible on a different camera angle that emerged later.

Be that as it may, we have all still seen sets of replays in modern games where the first two replays (or sometimes more) are inconclusive, and it's only a subsequent replay from a different angle that shows there was an absolutely clear offence. So limiting the referee/VAR to only two replays could still prove problematic.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

According to his version of events, it was. The way he tells it, none of the camera angles used on TV at the time showed the foul, it was only visible on a different camera angle that emerged later.

Be that as it may, we have all still seen sets of replays in modern games where the first two replays (or sometimes more) are inconclusive, and it's only a subsequent replay from a different angle that shows there was an absolutely clear offence. So limiting the referee/VAR to only two replays could still prove problematic.

Excellent example of the faults of VAR, loads of TV cameras missed it, all the ones on the night.... But like most things, you cant get away with anything these days, cameras are everywhere!!

 

[Hoosier Ref]

According to his version of events, it was. The way he tells it, none of the camera angles used on TV at the time showed the foul, it was only visible on a different camera angle that emerged later.

Be that as it may, we have all still seen sets of replays in modern games where the first two replays (or sometimes more) are inconclusive, and it's only a subsequent replay from a different angle that shows there was an absolutely clear offence. So limiting the referee/VAR to only two replays could still prove problematic.

You are misinterpreting my suggestion. Guess I didn't state it clearly. 2 or 3 views of a single angle. So if there are 5 angles, then 2 or 3 views of each at real speed. I am not suggesting excluding angles that could be beneficial. Just limiting how many times you can keep watching a single angle to make a decision. Eliminating slow motion as well

 

[one]

In reality the process should work quite well if followed correctly. With so many cameras, the VAR doesn't actually choose the angles to look at from the all the feeds. Not even the AVARs do. There are operators whose job is to choose and provide the best angles to VAR/AVAR. In fact according to FIFA, in the world cup there will be 4 replay operators. Given that there are up to 37 camera angles, it would be impossible for VAR to check all of them live. From what I know VAR looks at the best five angles (provided to him by replay operators), one on a main screen and 4 on a split screen.

I agree with @Hoosier Ref that the 'checks' on play incidents shouldn't need any more than a couple of replays of the 5 best angles to dismiss it. However once it goes to a 'review' then there must be something there and depending on the incident there may need to be more replays or speeds of replay. Slow motion is essential to some factual decisions like offside or point of contact (handball). Some cases like a mass confrontation could get quite tricky.

For better or worse, the protocol gives the VAR team as much time as they want to get the decision correct and there is no 'time pressure'.

 

[JamesL]

According to his version of events, it was. The way he tells it, none of the camera angles used on TV at the time showed the foul, it was only visible on a different camera angle that emerged later.

Be that as it may, we have all still seen sets of replays in modern games where the first two replays (or sometimes more) are inconclusive, and it's only a subsequent replay from a different angle that shows there was an absolutely clear offence. So limiting the referee/VAR to only two replays could still prove problematic.

A good example - Jones on Hazard, FA Cup.. first couple used were not conclusive until the reverse angle it was clear as day.

 

[Peter Grove]

You are misinterpreting my suggestion. Guess I didn't state it clearly. 2 or 3 views of a single angle. So if there are 5 angles, then 2 or 3 views of each at real speed. I am not suggesting excluding angles that could be beneficial. Just limiting how many times you can keep watching a single angle to make a decision. Eliminating slow motion as well

Well, the post I was replying to said:

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.

So if what you actually meant was "2 or 3 views of up to 5 different angles" then I'd agree that that wasn't too clear from your post. Also, as @one pointed out, the protocol already advises that slow motion should not be used to review the "intensity" of physical fouls. It also says that the review process should be completed "as efficiently/quickly as possible" (while adding that "accuracy is more important than speed.")

So in the end I'd say that what you're suggesting is not really all that different from what the protocol says. However, the point about accuracy being more important than speed I think is well taken - once you've decided to use the VAR system you have to do it properly and make sure you don't miss looking at the decisive footage by being too hasty. Again, everyone has access to all the same footage so imagine the situation if the referee rushed the process and missed something that is then seen by all the television viewers, commentators and pundits.