Well, that was at the other end so I wasn't as well placed as for the Aguero one. (My son next to me thought he was well off, I had my doubts and was ready to cheer when VAR was used.) In any case, is it just saying the AR was wrong to flag then, or that Hazard was onside? - which he wasn't if this is what they mean:
Che V City
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
Well, that was at the other end so I wasn't as well placed as for the Aguero one. (My son next to me thought he was well off, I had my doubts and was ready to cheer when VAR was used.) In any case, is it just saying the AR was wrong to flag then, or that Hazard was onside? - which he wasn't if this is what they mean:
Agree! There was a good discussion in our block wondering why the AR flagged hazard, not complaining like!
Aguero looked so far off in real time I didn't bother celebrating, then the longer the review went on the more I wondered if it would actually get given!
I felt that both tackles were such blatant SPA and not far off reckless, that it's a departure from the LOTG to turn a blind eye
More Church of Scientology teachings no doubt
one
RefChat Addict
Agree with the rest of your post but not this. Advantage means they are better off playing on than a free kick. They could still have a less promising attack. For example a three on two is now a three on three but still a promising attack.
He probably didn't want to influence the court proceedings for the assault case
I can understand the argument that a single promising attack cannot be stopped twice, therefore resulting in a YC
However the Law is clear; commits a foul which interferes with or stops a promising attack
A blatant foul (not a million miles from reckless on both occasions) has been committed twice to interfere with the promising attack, so the player is guilty on two counts
Therefore, I'm asserting that avoiding two YCs is making the Law up (possibly according to some 'privileged teachings')
Happy to be corrected on this, but only in Law
However the Law is clear; commits a foul which interferes with or stops a promising attack
A blatant foul (not a million miles from reckless on both occasions) has been committed twice to interfere with the promising attack, so the player is guilty on two counts
Therefore, I'm asserting that avoiding two YCs is making the Law up (possibly according to some 'privileged teachings')
Happy to be corrected on this, but only in Law
Last edited:
The missed card in the first second would have beaten Vinny Jones’s tackle on Peter Reid by a few seconds!
So what happens if the AR doesn't flag and a defender fouls the attacker (after he plays the ball and is then offside) who would have been given offside if there was no VAR?
I'm struggling understanding that question to be honest.
I think I get it...
Player offside but, since VAR is in operation, AR keeps flag down.
Player takes possession and is the fouled.
AR or VAR finds the player is offside.
Outcome in this situation is offside plus red or yellow if the severity of the foul warrants it. Dogso not applicable
I get you. The restart would presumably be for the offside, with any further issues dealt with as appropriate.
I wonder if it would be better to give more specific advice to the ARs, ie keep the flag down if you believe the attacker is 2 metres or less in front of the second to last defender? Just a thought, I'm not sure how well it would work if at all
The specific advice is "if it appears to be close, DO NOT flag".
Not sure how much more specific the advice needs to be to be honest.
The AR is supposed to await the outcome, or at the very least delay. Once play breaks down he then signals offside. In this case, I think it should have stayed down and gone to VAR for a recount.
Thank god City won, or else this would have turned into another FIFA cards thread.....!!! 
I agree, but there's been several occasions where the advice hasn't been adhered to, I'm just offering an alternative solution as the current one isn't working as good as we'd hope at the moment. I'm sure it will improve in time
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Not quite. The instructions are to delay the flag if there is a scoring opportunity and VAR is being used. I believe they are also instructed to say "delay, delay delay" into the mic so the ref knows the AR thinks it is off. Once the scoring opportunity is passed, they are supposed to flag if they believed it was OS--there is ALWAYS supposed to be a decision on the field.
I'm probably in the minority but the reason that video replays work so well in cricket is because the decisions are made by an off the field official. As a cricket fan, I did find it weird watching the referee run the the monitor during the world cup. It seemed a waste of time to me.
Because there’s more black and white behind the rules of cricket rather than in football where a lot of the decisions are up for debate.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Under the LOTG, all decisions are "made" by the referee. Assistant's simply provide advice/assistance. So having a judgment call made from the booth would be a radical departure from the concept of one referee. While soccer's implementation of VR is conservative in some ways, it is also a bit different from what most sports permit to be reviewed (I can't speak to cricket)--most review black/white issues like who touched the ball last before it went out of play or did the tennis ball hit the line. Soccer is using it to review the most subjective of calls (PK fouls or fouls in the attack), which makes it hard to have consistency on the field if a different person is making that decision.
That said, I would not be troubled if the R had discretion. for example if the R called handling and the review showed the ball only hit the chest, that isn't really a judgment, but a fact, and I'd be fine if the R could simply take that information and use it to make his decision. (I believe that is how most implementations are handling OS--field review is only necessary for subjective judgments, so R does not need to review for OSP.)
one
RefChat Addict
I think the condition of the being within the penalty area is just poor wording. The main aim is if major error can be prevented by delaying the flag/whistle, then do so. So the main conditions are "real doubt in offside" and "about to score".