Unusual situation introduced by VAR

[APurpleChair]

There was an incident in yesterday's TH v CHE game where a player ran through and was fouled just on the edge of the penalty area.
The player had run from an offside position but this was NOT flagged by the assistant.
The referee awarded a free kick.
This was then reviewed by VAR to check if the foul was inside or outside the penalty area.

Once it was decided that it was outside, play continued with a free kick.
If the foul had been inside the box, VAR would then have rewound and discovered that the player was offside, and would have awarded an indirect free-kick for this to the defending side.

In this situation, it would actually have been beneficial for the defender to concede a penalty rather than a free kick!

I know that defenders cannot deliberately use this to their advantage (as they cannot be sure of the offside) but it seems like a strange anomoly introduced by the current VAR rules.

 

[JamesL]

Not sure on this they; would have checked it all.
Remember it has been introduced that if a PIOP (player in offside position) is fouled before committing an offside offence then a direct free kick is awarded to the fouled player.
I can't remember the exact sequence of events so you might still be right but I would expect that VAR would have, or should have covered all bases.

 

[APurpleChair]

Not sure on this they; would have checked it all.
Remember it has been introduced that if a PIOP (player in offside position) is fouled before committing an offside offence then a direct free kick is awarded to the fouled player.
I can't remember the exact sequence of events so you might still be right but I would expect that VAR would have, or should have covered all bases.

OK then, I can clarify that the PIOP received possession of the ball before being fouled. So an offside offence was committed (albeit not seen by the assistant)

 

[wazztie16]

OK then, I can clarify that the PIOP received possession of the ball before being fouled. So an offside offence was committed (albeit not seen by the assistant)

I thought I was going mad watching it in real time, the player interfered with play /gained possession /whatever before the foul, so I was baffled as to why there was a check for the foul.

I think I don't really quite fully understand the whole VAR though, there's things it looks for, doesn't look for, should look for, shouldn't look for etc.

But my thinking was OS before foul, so why were they looking at the foul?

 

[onthebrink]

I thought I was going mad watching it in real time, the player interfered with play /gained possession /whatever before the foul, so I was baffled as to why there was a check for the foul.

I think I don't really quite fully understand the whole VAR though, there's things it looks for, doesn't look for, should look for, shouldn't look for etc.

But my thinking was OS before foul, so why were they looking at the foul?

As mentioned, if it had been a foul inside the area they'd have gone back for offside.

As the foul was outside the area and not a penalty/red card etc VAR couldn't get involved.

Equally, if the offside player had scored the goal would have been disallowed by VAR, but if he'd had a shot saved and it had gone behind for a corner then VAR would not have been able to get involved.

 

[Big Cat]

There was an incident in yesterday's TH v CHE game where a player ran through and was fouled just on the edge of the penalty area.
The player had run from an offside position but this was NOT flagged by the assistant.
The referee awarded a free kick.
This was then reviewed by VAR to check if the foul was inside or outside the penalty area.

Once it was decided that it was outside, play continued with a free kick.
If the foul had been inside the box, VAR would then have rewound and discovered that the player was offside, and would have awarded an indirect free-kick for this to the defending side.

In this situation, it would actually have been beneficial for the defender to concede a penalty rather than a free kick!

I know that defenders cannot deliberately use this to their advantage (as they cannot be sure of the offside) but it seems like a strange anomoly introduced by the current VAR rules.

I read the incident exactly the same as you. Paradoxical VAR nonesense

 

[JamesL]

OK then, I can clarify that the PIOP received possession of the ball before being fouled. So an offside offence was committed (albeit not seen by the assistant)

In that case then. Your point is correct.
They wouldn't be able to intervene once its decided as outside as it is no longer classed a serious missed incident.
There is a chance that if it had been inside they would have looked at the offside.

 

[Grayson]

It's all total b*llocks

 

[one]

There really is no real solution here. What was done in the OP is as good as any. If you were to punish the offside instead of giving a free kick for the foul, then what if there was a missed foul just before the offside, how far back do you go?

Even without VAR the lotg has paradoxical situations. A defender's (impossible) deliberate play (narrowly) deflects the ball to an offside player. It is only not offside because the defender tried to play it.

 

[RustyRef]

In that case then. Your point is correct.
They wouldn't be able to intervene once its decided as outside as it is no longer classed a serious missed incident.
There is a chance that if it had been inside they would have looked at the offside.

there’s not just a chance, he was a mile off and the penalty would definitely have been overturned. But as it was only a free kick they weren’t allowed to consider the offside offence.

 

[WiisardNic]

It's one of those things I guess we all need to know the process of the VAR for. Should they just theoretically check the whole play whenever they are called in? Or just look for a certain thing.

Another sport (and another country), but one thing that I like that has been done in the NRL Rugby League competition in Australia with their Video Referee, is the referee HAS to make an onfield decision, and also tell the video ref exactly what to look at, and if something else happens (I.e, the referee is looking at offside, but there ends up being a forward pass instead), it's as officiated on the field.
Big difference in this though is the referee goes to the video referee, not the other way around as it seems to be with the VAR for us.

 

[Nij]

It's one of those things I guess we all need to know the process of the VAR for. Should they just theoretically check the whole play whenever they are called in? Or just look for a certain thing.

Another sport (and another country), but one thing that I like that has been done in the NRL Rugby League competition in Australia with their Video Referee, is the referee HAS to make an onfield decision, and also tell the video ref exactly what to look at, and if something else happens (I.e, the referee is looking at offside, but there ends up being a forward pass instead), it's as officiated on the field.
Big difference in this though is the referee goes to the video referee, not the other way around as it seems to be with the VAR for us.

Your description of the NRL Bunker process is not accurate.
The onfield officials must make a 'Live' decision, true, but they do not need to request a check of any specific event or potential breach.
If and when the Bunker find a breach of rules by the try-scoring team (or can conclude no breach occurred and the ball was grounded) they announce this, and uphold or overturn the decision accordingly.
In your example, the Bunker will replay the tape from the last play of the ball and describe each event in sequence. If they see the player is onside, they will say so ("all chasers are onside at the kick" or something similar") but when the forward pass occurs, they will say so, and announce "we have a decision" then instruct the onfield officials to disallow the try.

 

[socal lurker]

Another sport (and another country), but one thing that I like that has been done in the NRL Rugby League competition in Australia with their Video Referee, is the referee HAS to make an onfield decision, . . .

This part is true in soccer as well. VAR does not make the initial decision. (With the exception, at least in the WC, of GK movement on PKs.)

 

[scouseref]

This is the type of situation that really makes me doubt weather the use of VAR is a good idea. How can we implement a different set of rules for different areas of the same playing field. Surely every decision we make as a referee has the potential to be a goalscoring opportunity, albeit with decreasing probability the further away from goal we make that decision. Therefore imho either every decision needs to be reviewed or no decision gets reviewed. Also not only do the rules change depending where about on the pitch you are but with handball we also have a different set of rules dependant on what position you are playing.