The Ref Stop

France v England, Penalty 46th minute

arbitre

arbitre

Active Member
Ok, no problem with the penalty, one of those unintentional fouls.

Red Card, as clearly not a genuine attempt to play or challenge for the ball. That said, thought it was a harsh red card.
 
Last edited:
The Ref Stop
arbitre said:
Ok, no problem with the penalty, one of those unintentional fouls.

Red Card, not sure on that. New rules surely mean it should only have been a yellow?
Click to expand...
Ref was going to give a yellow and then put it back away and got the red out. Must have been told by the VR. IMO, DOGSO? Yes. Makes an attempt to play the ball? No. Correct call for me!
 
Much better use of VAR there. By that I don't mean the referees use, I mean the overall process. 30 seconds and bang correct decision arrived at.

Interestingly had the var ruled no pen what happens then?
 
Red. Could be seen as harsh, but the laws are clear on this.

Such a better use of the VAR, that's how it should be. The 4th official is qualified to referee the game in the event of the match referee becoming injured... he/she is more than competent to make the correct call.
 
It all seemed a bit political to me, almost a case of "look what we have, let's show how we can use it in a friendly". The decision is correct, of that there is no doubt, but I would ask a different question. Would Varane have been sent off, even if the referee was 90% certain of his decision, in a friendly that wasn't using video replays? Not a chance in my opinion, as there is usually an unwritten rule that you need to commit the most blatant of blatant DOGSO to get sent off in a friendly.

To also show where it is still a grey area, Sterling definitely looked like he was clipped in the area in the first half. The defender got nothing of the ball, there was contact with Sterling's leg, and to me there was more than a shout for a penalty. What initiates the video decision here though? If the referee doesn't ask for help and they don't offer him any the whole process is flawed if the media review it after the game and show it should be a penalty. Even more so if video evidence has been used for another big decision in the game.

For me it is still flawed and needs work.
 
DB said:
Red. Could be seen as harsh, but the laws are clear on this.

Such a better use of the VAR, that's how it should be. The 4th official is qualified to referee the game in the event of the match referee becoming injured... he/she is more than competent to make the correct call.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with 4th official, it is two FIFA referees sitting in the crowd with access to video. Presumably there are two so that there can be a majority decision.
 
RustyRef said:
Nothing to do with 4th official, it is two FIFA referees sitting in the crowd with access to video. Presumably there are two so that there can be a majority decision.
Click to expand...

My point was based on the fact there is a fourth official there, closer to the screen. Instead of the referee running off the field to review an incident, let the fourth official do it, actually give him/her some purpose!!

The only part I believe is flawed is when the referee runs off the field. In pretty much every other single instance that a VAR has been used, it has been spot on. I even saw one this week where a red was overturned by the VAR. Foul committed and defender sent off. VAR intervened, referee reviewed and rescinded the red card and awarded the previously sent off defender with a free kick.

My opinion is that the critics are those that are flawed because out of one hundred times where it would be used, ninety-nine times it will be absolutely correct. It is a much more accurate way to achieve the correctt decision on the day. The only thing that I believe requires work is the process - the fourth official makes decisions instead of the referee running off.

@Darius I forgot the laws change for friendlies... Hook, line and sinker here! Imagine the outrage on here if he didn't send him off!
 
Last edited:
RustyRef said:
It all seemed a bit political to me, almost a case of "look what we have, let's show how we can use it in a friendly". The decision is correct, of that there is no doubt, but I would ask a different question. Would Varane have been sent off, even if the referee was 90% certain of his decision, in a friendly that wasn't using video replays? Not a chance in my opinion, as there is usually an unwritten rule that you need to commit the most blatant of blatant DOGSO to get sent off in a friendly.

To also show where it is still a grey area, Sterling definitely looked like he was clipped in the area in the first half. The defender got nothing of the ball, there was contact with Sterling's leg, and to me there was more than a shout for a penalty. What initiates the video decision here though? If the referee doesn't ask for help and they don't offer him any the whole process is flawed if the media review it after the game and show it should be a penalty. Even more so if video evidence has been used for another big decision in the game.

For me it is still flawed and needs work.
Click to expand...
I said as much to my friend. I said that any other game that would be a yellow. But as the VAR needs "testing" they kind of had to go and use it and then deliver the correct decision. It didnt really need a var review did it - was a reasonably straight forward decision.
It is still flawed though as you say but that was a damn sight better than trotting off to the side of the pitch.
 
All the replies I can find are inconclusive on whether there was even contact. Looks like a dive!

Was there an angle at the time that showed the contact?
(It's a red if there was contact in this and any other game)
 
Clearly contact, and no argument with the decision. The contact appeared totally accidental though, and maybe in a friendly without VAR might not have brought any cards (Darius), or only yellow!!!!!
 
Some players already seem to have difficulties to understand the laws, so you don't want to confuse them even more by using different criteria for official games and friendlies (certainly a top-level one like France-England, and certainly regarding such a clear action). Consistency is important.
 
Last edited:
Once there was a VAR on this game there was no other option but a send-off. If there was no send off we will be arguing (and there will be many headlines) that they couldn't get it right even with the benefit of slow motion replays from different angles.

There should be no VARs in friendlies. If there was no VAR in this game, it would have then been a yellow card with very little controversy.
 
arbitre said:
The contact appeared totally accidental though
Click to expand...
Accidental (what we sometimes class as "careless" is still a foul. And if the referee doesn't think that there's a genuine attempt to play or opportunity to do so... then... it's still red in the new system.

one said:
There should be no VARs in friendlies.
Click to expand...
So, when are VARs supposed to practice/train in a live-game situation? In a game that actually has meaning?

No, that's what friendlies are for -- an opportunity to test things, trial methods, etc in an environment that, grand scheme of things, doesn't affect competitive play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DB
AlexF said:
Accidental (what we sometimes class as "careless" is still a foul. And if the referee doesn't think that there's a genuine attempt to play or opportunity to do so... then... it's still red in the new system.


So, when are VARs supposed to practice/train in a live-game situation? In a game that actually has meaning?

No, that's what friendlies are for -- an opportunity to test things, trial methods, etc in an environment that, grand scheme of things, doesn't affect competitive play.
Click to expand...
I see your point. If this was a practice run for VARs then fair enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top