VAR controversy - Simulation or trip?

[Hoosier Ref]

Some of you guys with the simulation calls on here on unreal. Go sprint at full speed and then step or clip something that you weren't expecting to and see if you can stay on your feet. I bet if we filmed it in slow motion, it would look like a dive.

This is clearly a foul and a red for DOGSO.

The video quality is poor which makes this tougher. Simulation at the high levels is ridiculous BUT running at speed (and he appear quite quick) altering his pace while dribbling... the keeper is nowhere near playing that ball and deliberately sticks his leg into the path of the onrushing attacker who comes down on his leg. I get that his is varying is stride but this is a trip in my book all day. Not sure why he didn't call DOGSO immediately unless he wasn't sure about the angle of the play. I agree with cwyeary... even a slight clip of the feet can get you all tangled up quickly. Landing on someone else is a great way to do an ankle. Hard to tell if the change in his stride (which he had done twice with his dribble and his cut to beat the keeper) was intended to initiate contact. At that speed he would have insane reaction time plus be an idiot as it was a clear touch in goal. RC for me.

 

[Deleted member 3014]

You could be right but for me it looks like he is confused (or at least changes his mind, he also took the red out with yellow). He momentarily shows the yellow to the keeper then bring it down, jesters no and then points to the striker.


Contact does not necessarily rule out simulation. For me although the keeper contributes to the very small amount of contact, it is instigated by the striker. He took a short step and moved his foot downward towards the keepers foot to make sure of it. What I can see as the point of contact is the striker's studs on top of the keeper's shin/calf.

View attachment 1763
View attachment 1764

The silly thing is, he could have stayed on his foot, slotted in the goal and win the game 2-1 instead of ending up with 1 all draw. I think the diving instinct automatically took over

Only the striker will know but for me he’s tried to stay on his feet the sole of his foot is about to hit the ground & continue with his stride, I’ve never seen someone step on someone to perform simulation, he hasn’t thrown himself into contact his body doesn’t look unnatural as he goes down.

I think the reason the ref got slightly confused with card colour is according to the commentary he’d already booked the other keeper during the game & was making sure he was getting it right, regardless it was last man and he should have gone anyway, var did get it right so I guess justice was done.

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
My take on it is that there was two movements here by the goalkeeper. The first one he plants his foot which is fine and as the ball goes past him he stretches his leg out again. That double movement into the path of the attacker makes it a foul for me. The attacker does not change his angle of run, is looking at the ball and the goalkeepers second movement is what is key. The GK pulls his leg back in after the contact with the outstretched arms of looking like trying to avoid contact. I don't buy this hands up, never touched him routine by GKs as in real time it can look like the keepers try to avoid the opponents. Video shows a different story here with a clear second movement into the path of the attacker.
I also believe that the referee should not have produced any card and gone to VAR. he knew in his own mind there was sufficient doubt as to what happened. Looks like he is waving the yellow card at the keeper then motions it for the player on the ground for simulation. The GKs team know full well that it was a foul and a red card with no reaction other then sorting out who was going into goal.

 

[Murri O]

Note the player in white (Perth) calling for the VAR to be used. (24 second mark). To great fanfare in the A-League it was announced that any player requesting a VAR check was supposed to be given a yellow. No ifs, no buts.

That lasted about 2 games and now it's open slather.

Anyway for what it's worth, at full speed, at first glance. DOGSO therefore red. (But yeah, jump the leg and he could have scored it.)

 

[RustyRef]

For me you have to ask what the keeper was doing. He's not going for the ball as it is miles away, his only intention is to take the attacker out. He succeeded, and whether the attacker could have possibly avoided him or not I just don't see that as especially important. Not giving a free kick here and binning the keeper is, in my opinion, letting him get away with a clear case of cheating, and much more clear than any act of simulation shown by the striker.

 

[one]

I also believe that the referee should not have produced any card and gone to VAR.

Except that the VAR protocol stresses, more than once, that the referee has to make a decision before going for a review. This would have no doubt been a card, only the color and the player is in debate.

 

[Goldfish]

Except that the VAR protocol stresses, more than once, that the referee has to make a decision before going for a review. This would have no doubt been a card, only the color and the player is in debate.

Okay that is fine. But sure that then can be the foul. Perhaps should have gone with the foul and rescinded it under review. It look more like a foul than simulation

 

[Mintyref]

I'm low on medication..... I'm agreeing with Padfoot again....

What are you short of, I could lend you some of mine, I still have enough to disagree with our normally astute colleague.......

 

[one]

Okay that is fine. But sure that then can be the foul. Perhaps should have gone with the foul and rescinded it under review. It look more like a foul than simulation

So you are saying the decision will be a foul and no card? If a foul and any card that all is fine but not producing any cards despite knowing it has to be card either way (SPA, DOGSO or simulation) by thinking "I will decide no card and let the VAR decide the color" will cause issues. The problem with that practice is that if there is a review technical issue such as no video feed (or the camera was blocked by a giant flag like it was in Belgium I think) the original no card decision will stand. The clause of "referee must always make a decision" was precisely for cases of VAR review issues.

 

[Murri O]

The discussion in this thread is exactly why the VAR is a joke. 20 people, half a dozen opinions. (Most of them perfectly valid.)

All they have done is move the controversy from the bloke in the middle to the bloke in the box. They've fixed nothing and damaged the essence of football irrevocably.

If it must be used it should only be used for objective factual instances. In or out of the penalty box, misidentified players, offside, over the line. Anything subjective should be a no go area.

In fact I would set a time limit for review at 10-20 seconds. If you need more than 20 seconds to review an incident then that incident wasn't obvious enough for the VAR to get involved. A timer should go off and automatically it reverts to the ref's original call.

Far out. Why is it left to us plebs to fix these issues.

 

[one]

The discussion in this thread is exactly why the VAR is a joke. 20 people, half a dozen opinions. (Most of them perfectly valid.)

All they have done is move the controversy from the bloke in the middle to the bloke in the box. They've fixed nothing and damaged the essence of football irrevocably.

If it must be used it should only be used for objective factual instances. In or out of the penalty box, misidentified players, offside, over the line. Anything subjective should be a no go area.

In fact I would set a time limit for review at 10-20 seconds. If you need more than 20 seconds to review an incident then that incident wasn't obvious enough for the VAR to get involved. A timer should go off and automatically it reverts to the ref's original call.

Far out. Why is it left to us plebs to fix these issues.

And what would you consider as an acceptable technology margin of error for a factual decision like offside or in/out. What would you do if review shows the decision was wrong but only just within that margin of error? Either way it will be controversial and an unsure final decision.

I'd say just leave it out altogether until its completely ready and you can achieve a true (not made up) 99% or more accuracy without killing the passion and the emotions in the game.

 

[Murri O]

And what would you consider as an acceptable technology margin of error for a factual decision like offside or in/out. What would you do if review shows the decision was wrong but only just within that margin of error? Either way it will be controversial and an unsure final decision.

I'd say just leave it out altogether until its completely ready and you can achieve a true (not made up) 99% or more accuracy without killing the passion and the emotions in the game.

Acceptable margin of error is 10 seconds for upstairs to review it. If they can't tell the decision stands.

They bring the replays up within the games on telly more or less immediately so there's no excuse.

And it's supposed to be for 'CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERRORS' right? If you can't pick it up in 10 seconds it wasn't clear nor obvious.

Like I said, I'd bin the whole thing.

 

[Goldfish]

So you are saying the decision will be a foul and no card? If a foul and any card that all is fine but not producing any cards despite knowing it has to be card either way (SPA, DOGSO or simulation) by thinking "I will decide no card and let the VAR decide the color" will cause issues. The problem with that practice is that if there is a review technical issue such as no video feed (or the camera was blocked by a giant flag like it was in Belgium I think) the original no card decision will stand. The clause of "referee must always make a decision" was precisely for cases of VAR review issues.

Hi
The most obvious foul in the example was the goalkeeper trip not the simulation. That foul should have been the call with either a red or a yellow card. On review the ref could have confirmed his call or went with yellow for the simulation.
Anyway I don't not see a problem with no card just the foul. The ref knew it was either simulation or a foul so he is always going to have to stop the game either way. What must not happen is that the game is stopped for no apparent reason with no decision and that is to prevent the game not continuing and coming back to a DB.

 

[RustyRef]

And it's supposed to be for 'CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERRORS' right? If you can't pick it up in 10 seconds it wasn't clear nor obvious.

No it isn't, that is an often quoted myth. That only applies when the VAR thinks the referee has goofed and wants to get involved. If the referee asks for help, or after a goal has been scored, it doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error and rather then comes black or white, hence the incredibly tight offside call recently.

 

[GraemeS]

No it isn't, that is an often quoted myth. That only applies when the VAR thinks the referee has goofed and wants to get involved. If the referee asks for help, or after a goal has been scored, it doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error and rather then comes black or white, hence the incredibly tight offside call recently.

Well in that case, I'd suggest this is another way in which the current implementation of VAR is flawed.

Why not borrow from other sports that have managed to implement technology successfully? Cricket has the default stance of "the on-field decision is correct until proven otherwise" - and I don't see why that can't be applied to football as well. Stop letting the VAR's strictness be a factor and leave the on-field referee to make the decision unless there's a clear factual error.

 

[one]

No it isn't, that is an often quoted myth. That only applies when the VAR thinks the referee has goofed and wants to get involved. If the referee asks for help, or after a goal has been scored, it doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error and rather then comes black or white, hence the incredibly tight offside call recently.

I suggest its the other way around. There is nothing in the protocol saying the referee can 'ask for help'. But every indication in multiple places that only clear errors can be reviewed.

It is a misunderstanding that the referee can ask for reviews every time they are not sure about something on a KMI. This was done in a recent FA cup when there was way too many stoppages many of which were not allowed under the VAR protocol.

Obviously factual decisions (offside, ball in out, position of offence...) are a lot easier to determine if they are clear errors and are be done by VAR as the game runs.




In the early days of VAR in Australia, misapplication of VAR (using it when it was not supposed to be used) caused a lot of problems.

 

[Murri O]

No it isn't, that is an often quoted myth. That only applies when the VAR thinks the referee has goofed and wants to get involved. If the referee asks for help, or after a goal has been scored, it doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error and rather then comes black or white, hence the incredibly tight offside call recently.

Direct from the ivory tower itself.

http://theifab.com/news/historic-step-for-greater-fairness-in-football

The philosophy of VARs is ‘minimum interference – maximum benefit’ which aims to reduce unfairness caused by ‘clear and obvious errors’ or ‘serious missed incidents’ in relation to:

1. Goal / no goal
2. Penalty / no penalty
3. Direct red card (not 2nd yellow card/caution)
4. Mistaken identity (when the referee cautions or sends off the wrong player of the offending team)

 

[Peter Grove]

No it isn't, that is an often quoted myth. That only applies when the VAR thinks the referee has goofed and wants to get involved. If the referee asks for help, or after a goal has been scored, it doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error and rather then comes black or white, hence the incredibly tight offside call recently.

Sorry, but that's wrong. The 'clearly wrong' test applies to ALL instances where the VAR system is used. The protocol stresses this over and over. I don't know where you're getting the idea that the VAR system can be used to overturn decisions that are not clearly wrong.That's just not the case.

As the protocol clearly spells out, in all 4 categories where VAR is to be used:

The referee’s decision can only be changed if the video review shows a clear error
i.e. not ‘was the decision correct?’ but:
“was the decision clearly wrong?”

I wonder if maybe you're getting confused with the distinction in the protocol between factual errors (such as offside position) where the referee does not have to look at the video (OFR) but can rely on the information given to him by the VAR, and subjective decisions where the referee will normally need to conduct an OFR. That is a different aspect of the protocol and does not alter the requirement for it only to be used for clear errors.

 

[RustyRef]

I was getting it from when BT spoke to Chris Foy following a game. Given he works for PGMOL and has been involved in the introduction you would assume he knows how it works, and he was very clear that clear and obvious does not apply when they check replays after a goal has been scored. Hence why they disallowed a goal when the attacker's knee was at most a millimetre offside, in no way could that be described as a clear and obvious error by the assistant.

 

[Peter Grove]

I was getting it from when BT spoke to Chris Foy following a game. Given he works for PGMOL and has been involved in the introduction you would assume he knows how it works, and he was very clear that clear and obvious does not apply when they check replays after a goal has been scored. Hence why they disallowed a goal when the attacker's knee was at most a millimetre offside, in no way could that be described as a clear and obvious error by the assistant.

I'm sorry but again it's a mischaracterisation of the protocol. Simply saying that in the lead up to a goal, any error doesn't need to be clear (there's no mention of 'obvious' in the protocol by the way) gives a misleading impression. It would mean, for instance that a debatable and not at all clear foul by a forward in the build up to a goal (Spurs vs Rochdale, anyone?) would be sufficient reason to overturn the referee's decision - whereas this was actually referred to in the IFAB press conference as an example of a decision that should not have been overturned.

Offside on the other hand, at least in terms of how the VAR looks at it, is always a clear error, because it's supposed to be a factual decision. The way they look at it, it either clearly is or clearly isn't offside (even though we've had discussions on here as to why that may not necessarily be the case).

Once again, I think we have to distinguish between factual errors that are, almost by definition, clear and other kinds of errors which, even in the build-up to a goal, need to be clear but in a different sense.