Overall a good briefing. Many reasonable and sensible responses and some good clarifications. As expected, VAR dominated the discussions. Despite enjoying many of the responses I wasn't happy with a few things.
A very interesting interpretation of deliberate handball by Collina too.
Its now clear to me that VAR has easily improved the decision making overall. While it has not corrected all the wrongs, it has corrected many wrongs (some of those being subjective).
While they were happy to discuss the specific incident where VAR had positive impact, when asked about incidents which is widely known as negative (Switzerland pen or Kane pen...) they danced around a proper response. A simple admission of that they got it wrong would have given them more credibility.
From the VAR figures Collina gave:
- 335 incidents checked
- 17 reviews,
- 14 decisions changed
- Referee accuracy without VAR 95%
- Referee accuracy with VAR 99.3%
Firstly, I find the figure 99.3% very peculiar. 333 (out of 335) accurate decisions would give 99.40% accuracy, 332 would give 99.1%. You can't have a decision 2/3rd correct. So 99.3% seem somewhat arbitrary.
According to their stats, at worst, there were only 3 VAR missed incidents or mistakes (0.07%). This is clearly wrong for me because i can think of at least 4 of or 5 of the top of my head.
Lastly, listening to the briefing and the examples of the VAR reviews, it seams that "clear and obvious error" is much less important than getting the KMI correct, even if through wrong process. I really don't have an issues with this.