Germany v Chile VAR
- Thread starter LC
- Start date
Well, I did warn you LOL!!!
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Yeah I thought it was tragic. And then to not book the German subs who ran on the field when Can and Bravo got booked was also poor.
If Sanchez is angling for a move he is mighty impressive.
If Sanchez is angling for a move he is mighty impressive.
1.20" onwards..... Lets see how Collina polishes this turd!!!
Actually, is it even possible to book a player after a review (as referee did in this game)?
As VARs, according to the protocol, can only be used for "four match-changing decisions" (goals/penalties/direct red cards/mistaken identity). Would be strange and not logical if it wouldn't be possible (referee wouldn't be able to act even though he sees a bookable offence), but protocol doesn't seem to be clear. Could be that I'm missing something.
As VARs, according to the protocol, can only be used for "four match-changing decisions" (goals/penalties/direct red cards/mistaken identity). Would be strange and not logical if it wouldn't be possible (referee wouldn't be able to act even though he sees a bookable offence), but protocol doesn't seem to be clear. Could be that I'm missing something.
I would tend to agree, but I do suspect the VAR technology is contributing to the refereeing errors. These are top class referees making incredibly bad mistakes, and it looks to me like their confidence is shot to pieces.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
In the Can incident I would have liked to see the Chile player given a second yellow for clapping. That would have been an easy sell for me anyway.
The worst thing about VARs is that, rather then help, they have piled more pressure and analysis on refs
The worst thing about VARs is that, rather then help, they have piled more pressure and analysis on refs
A Freethinker
RefChat Addict
How and under what LOTG is a forearm smash a caution? Can someone please explain the decision, the VAR has been a disaster and should have been tested away form a high profile tournament out iron out any problems.
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Didn't see the game, but my boss mentioned this incident and just seen the video...
Ref appeared to have a clear unobstructed view without the need for the video. Blatant elbow to the face, red all day long!
Ref appeared to have a clear unobstructed view without the need for the video. Blatant elbow to the face, red all day long!
Well, first off what level of force is a "smash"?
A strike with the forearm can be in varying levels of force, trivial, careless, reckless, or excessive force. As we all know, the first isn't a foul, then it's a foul, then a caution, then a sending off.
So... if a forearm strike is merely considered reckless... then it's a caution.
Now, in this incident? That, to me and most other people, is an elbow with excessive force. Somehow the referee missed it initially and on the replay somehow felt that it was merely reckless and negligible (since non-negligible strikes to the face/head are considered sending off offences).
The fan boys will always be fan boys of the FA line, but this need changing, take the on field referees out of the decision,
1] referee sees something he’s not sure about, he makes a square in the air, bloke(s) has a look and reports back quickly, none of this running 50+ yards to see for himself debacle. None of this all the players chasing the ref for his decision. If they do YC straight away, maybe captains only and limited to one captains call per half.
2] referee misses something and it’s seen by the VAR, off the ball, or sneaky, he has the ability to go and dispense justice without interrupting normal play. If that’s not possible then he makes like an x and a review panel can look over things and do it on a Monday with a panel reviewing more serious incidents like diving and the naughty stuff. Players will get the message very quickly if they are banned more often.
No one wants 3 hour games, no one wants VAR every 30 seconds, use the technology wisely and most importantly competently. To VAR something and still get it wrong is making this all look very silly...
1] referee sees something he’s not sure about, he makes a square in the air, bloke(s) has a look and reports back quickly, none of this running 50+ yards to see for himself debacle. None of this all the players chasing the ref for his decision. If they do YC straight away, maybe captains only and limited to one captains call per half.
2] referee misses something and it’s seen by the VAR, off the ball, or sneaky, he has the ability to go and dispense justice without interrupting normal play. If that’s not possible then he makes like an x and a review panel can look over things and do it on a Monday with a panel reviewing more serious incidents like diving and the naughty stuff. Players will get the message very quickly if they are banned more often.
No one wants 3 hour games, no one wants VAR every 30 seconds, use the technology wisely and most importantly competently. To VAR something and still get it wrong is making this all look very silly...
Think that's another argument against (are there any in favour?) pitchside review: the on-field referee basically has to judge his own (non-)decision. Which is in some cases a recipe for disaster, of course.Ref appeared to have a clear unobstructed view without the need for the video. Blatant elbow to the face, red all day long!
In this case, the on-field referee had to admit he didn't see a clear red card offence (despite being well-positioned). Referees are human, admitting you have messed up isn't easy. And even less when the whole world (including your kids, and your mom) is watching. And even less when you're not used to having to do it (think for the next generation of referees it would be easier, although pitchside review will hopefully have disappeared by then).
Last edited:
A Freethinker
RefChat Addict
A strike with the foreman is - a strike with the forearm it is a clear deliberate act of violent contact end of story! No varying degrees its a strike with the forearm!
How he's looked at that at least twice and still gone yellow makes my head shake. I understand him missing it in normal play, **** happens, but the whole point of VAR is to help referees and players to some degree! To get the other angles and still bury his head in the sand is beyond me.
We all mess up, to get a second chance to have a slow mo, reverse angle, any angle he wants and still not understand the LOTG seems like he should be reffing a bit lower down the pyramid, if he's the best of the best then I wasn't doing such a bad job!
We all mess up, to get a second chance to have a slow mo, reverse angle, any angle he wants and still not understand the LOTG seems like he should be reffing a bit lower down the pyramid, if he's the best of the best then I wasn't doing such a bad job!
THIS strike with the forearm is clearly violent conduct.
Not all strikes with a forearm are violent conduct.
That's why the Laws list differing levels of force which tell us what sanction to give. That's why the Laws do not say "any strike with the forearm is a sending off."
Point being, there's a set of Laws that we, as referees, are proscribed. There are words in those Laws that we, as referees, should use.
Using words like "smash" and such doesn't help describe why an incident is (or should be) a sending off. Using appropriate terminology does.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Alex, find myself agreeing with your opinion nine times out of ten. However, this is the one time in ten
The dictionary definition of a strike is "hit forcibly and deliberately with one's hand or a weapon"
This, I think, explains why for many on here, a strike with a forearm will inevitably by VC .. because by its very definition it is excessive force.
I can strike you (by IFAB LotG definition) lightly in the chest with my forearm as I'm putting it out to balance myself. That would be likely trifiling (as in, not a foul), and potentially even careless. But violent conduct?
[Remember that a strike by IFAB LotG definition is (essentially) to make contact with someone with arms, hands, head, etc. (As in, something that doesn't fall under charging, kicking, etc).]
Again, in this case, yes, it was a strike with non-negligible force in the face, head, and neck area. Which, by the LotG is clearly deemed to be a sending off.
But my example just above? Would you send off for that because it is a "strike with a forearm"?
All I'm trying to drive at here is that we all NEED to be careful with how we phrase things and generalize some things...