A&H

VAR...dortmund v bayern

I don't think it's inconsistent at all. "I've got nothing because I didn't see ball hand contact. But I was shielded--double check for me."

And I don't think we know when an R asks about review--goes through the headsets and could be in the background where we don't see/hear.
But the VAR should be doing that anyway. Generally, what does the referee going "maybe I missed something there" add to the process?

Ironically, this example we're talking about is actually one of the few where it could have helped: the referee could have enforced a delay on the corner because he was asking for a check. But he didn't*, so my initial point still stands - the VAR carrying out their initial check will take an amount of time, and any system that relies on that amount of time passing before the next natural restart has introduced a pointless inconsistency.

In a "fair" game, this penalty would have been given. It's VERY obvious on the right replay and would have been just as obvious to the VAR. Why are we defending a system that adds this element of chance when we could at least be open minded to considering a system that makes the game easier for and less about the referees?

*possibly out of a fear that if he delayed the game to ask for a check that came to nothing, he would have denied Dortmund a quick corner opportunity for no reason?
 
The Referee Store
Double whammy for Dortmund as they had a penalty awarded against them in their next game yesterday, given by the referee and it was no "worse" an offence than the one they were penalised for. This is surely exactly the kind of inconsistency that VAR is supposed to remove.
 
VAR is supposed to hold up the game if it needs to check something--issue is if they don't see there is something to check in time. But changing the fundamental concept that decisions are final once a restart takes place is, to me, a horrid idea.
 
VAR is supposed to hold up the game if it needs to check something--issue is if they don't see there is something to check in time. But changing the fundamental concept that decisions are final once a restart takes place is, to me, a horrid idea.
That's a separate discussion (and one I might actually start one day if I get bored...), but I don't think we should get into it now as that's not what I was saying and risks deflecting the discussion into something else.

I'm saying that the requirement for the VAR to complete his checks before the restart adds an unnecessary element of chance to the question of if VAR can be applied or not. After hitting his elbow that ball could have stayed in play, dribbled into the GK's arms, cannoned back off the post into play or ended up deflecting over the perimeter fence. Any of those things happen and the next restart happens later, so the VAR likely has more time to do his checks and therefore awards the obvious penalty. Instead, it settles exactly where it needs to and a quick corner is taken. Why should the random chance of where a ball ends up after a handball offense determine if that handball can be checked by VAR?

There are multiple solutions to this problem and you're right in saying that one of which is removing the sanctity of the "restart locks the past in stone" law. But as I've mentioned previously, my preference is to take it out of the hands of the referee/VAR and put it in the hands of either the managers or captains. Stops it being an official-related question of how quickly a VAR can fiddle with his camera angles and makes it a strategic decision for a team to decide if it's worth risking a limited challenge - as has worked well in so many other sports.
 
Back
Top