VAR England v Italy

[JamesL]

In real time this is difficult to spot. It took me a couple of replays to spot the infringement. Theres a lot going on here.

The clear and obvious is a myth being perpetuated by pundits which is clearly causing confusion. These people clearly havent read the protocol or understand how VAR works.

Video assistance is only for key match-changing situations (goals, penalty incidents and direct red cards and mistaken identity) and serious missed incidents
The referee will always make a decision (including ‘no offence’) which will only be changed if the review shows a clear error – “was the decision clearly wrong?”
Video Assistant Referees (VARs) are match officials
Only the referee can initiate a review; VAR and other officials can recommend a review

So as xpositor says the likely scenario here is VAR has said did u see this. Answer no. Referee initiates review. And I am sorry once the ref spots Tarkowski stand on the italians foot he has to award a penalty.

 

[alexgr]

For me, it's quite simple. A foul is committed. It's soft, yes, and the problem here is that the punishment (penalty) seems far too generous given the offence. But those are the LOTG. A clear foul, nothing to see here, move on.

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
VAR is to correct clear errors AND for missed serious serious incidents. The referee was looking at it yet he MISSED the contact which under the law is a foul. There is a mistaken view that if a referee has seen the incident, made no decision that VAR is not relevant. That is not the case which is what I have been saying. It was like the Chelsea incident as under VAR the referee could have also given a penalty there also for the pull back had it been in use. It is no different as Pique clearly pulled Alonso back which while the referee was also looking at it the actual foul contact part was missed. It would also have likely to have been a red card.
The referee when he viewed the incident in replay here knew instantly that he missed the contact which was a foul. He could have decided not to use VAR yet I would suspect under the silent check the VAR official said you need to look at this which is what he did and saw that it was technically a foul so it had to be a penalty. The referee could not ignore the obvious fact that a careless foul has been committed. I believe RR that is why the VAR official did not make the call and that it had to be the referee by looking at the monitor.

 

[Grasshopper]

In two recent games where the VAR has been used it seems to have replaced the referee as being in charge of the game.
My concern is that referees have now become assistants to the VAR. Last night I don't believe the game expected a penalty to be awarded. Either a corner or goal kick was expected. The referee had a good view, and more importantly fnobody appealed for a spot kick. We can argue all day long as to whether the correct decision was made regarding the penalty being awarded. However VAR has proved itself to be just as controversial as just letting the referee do his/her job.
A lot of money invested in a system that so far has not progressed the game IMO!

 

[JamesL]

In two recent games where the VAR has been used it seems to have replaced the referee as being in charge of the game.
My concern is that referees have now become assistants to the VAR. Last night I don't believe the game expected a penalty to be awarded. Either a corner or goal kick was expected. The referee had a good view, and more importantly fnobody appealed for a spot kick. We can argue all day long as to whether the correct decision was made regarding the penalty being awarded. However VAR has proved itself to be just as controversial as just letting the referee do his/her job.
A lot of money invested in a system that so far has not progressed the game IMO!

Whilst I agree with your sentiments on VAR I have to disagree that nobody expected a penalty. This is, by definition, a careless foul. Had no penalty been awarded then Italian media would probably be blaming the loss on the failure to award the penalty.

The question the referee must ask himself during the review is was the original decisio clearly wrong. Then having been shown Tarkowski standing on insigne's foot causing him to trip he has to say yes and award a penalty.

I havent been a fan and still am not of the overall process but we cant say technology is needed then criticise it when it arrives at the correct decision in a situation when thr protocol specifically states it should be used.

A side from some questionable decisions elsewhere outside of UK much of the controversy has come.from a lack of understanding. We have ex pgmol referees perpetuating the clear and obvious myth that the media has plucked out of nowhere. So now when ever VAR is used everyone hides behind this when before VAR they would have screamed the house down for technology to right the wrongs.

 

[QuaverRef]

For me it's a foul, he stood on his foot. However, we are now in a situation where we don't know the guidelines for 'clear and obvious'.

Just to throw this into the mix, is the referee actually reviewing the situation for the penalty? Or is he reviewing the potential mistake in awarding a corner (89th minute corner, 1-0 down has to be considered match changing situation) and spotted the contact as part of the incident. Maybe that's why, rather than going by the VAR decision, he's actually gone over to review it himself.

 

[JamesL]

For me it's a foul, he stood on his foot. However, we are now in a situation where we don't know the guidelines for 'clear and obvious'.

Just to throw this into the mix, is the referee actually reviewing the situation for the penalty? Or is he reviewing the potential mistake in awarding a corner (89th minute corner, 1-0 down has to be considered match changing situation) and spotted the contact as part of the incident. Maybe that's why, rather than going by the VAR decision, he's actually gone over to review it himself.

There arent any guidelines for clear and obvious.

The referee must review of the decision is clearly wrong. Obvious doesnt come into it and is where the confusion is coming from.

 

[QuaverRef]

There arent any guidelines for clear and obvious.

The referee must review of the decision is clearly wrong. Obvious doesnt come into it and is where the confusion is coming from.

Exactly, even if somebody were to attempt to draw up some sort of guideline where do you draw the line? I'm all for VAR providing it's implemented correctly but at the moment it just seems to be a case of picking and choosing when the referee wants to review a situation. Unfortunately, that's always going to be the case when the game is built around opinions

 

[AlexF]

We have ex pgmol referees perpetuating the clear and obvious myth that the media has plucked out of nowhere.

That phrasing came from IFAB when VAR was introduced.

They stated, in their initial press releases: "minimal interference -- maximum return" and "clear and obvious error".

That second has since been rephrased to "was the decision clearly wrong?"

The problem is... the initial wording is what gets remembered, which is why instructors (tutors, etc) are told to teach the correct method first.

 

[JamesL]

That phrasing came from IFAB when VAR was introduced.

They stated, in their initial press releases: "minimal interference -- maximum return" and "clear and obvious error".

That second has since been rephrased to "was the decision clearly wrong?"

The problem is... the initial wording is what gets remembered, which is why instructors (tutors, etc) are told to teach the correct method first.

Fair enough then. It hasnt come.from nowhere. But the issue with much of theVAR process is a lack of understanding.

 

[Big Cat]

I think some of you are stuck on laws from ten years ago. These days intent is absolutely, 100%, irrelevant, if you stand on someone's foot you have tripped them

Can you back this up? For the trip (or the standing on the foot) to be a 'careless' offence, the offender would need to have show 'a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acted without precaution'. Sorry to quote from the book, but unless there's other guidance out there, my interpretation is that the incident does not meet this criteria and therefore wasn't a foul

 

[JamesL]

Can you back this up? For the trip (or the standing on the foot) to be a 'careless' offence, the offender would need to have show 'a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acted without precaution'. Sorry to quote from the book, but unless there's other guidance out there, my interpretation is that the incident does not meet this criteria and therefore wasn't a foul

It could very well be argued that standing on someones foot shows, to quote the book, 'a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acted without precaution'.

 

[Big Cat]

Which could equally be counter argued and both arguments, arguably have equal weight. It's not black or white for me. In the absence of a VAR, this discussion wouldn't be happening. VAR involvement in decisions which are not black or white is the problem for me

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Can you back this up? For the trip (or the standing on the foot) to be a 'careless' offence, the offender would need to have show 'a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acted without precaution'. Sorry to quote from the book, but unless there's other guidance out there, my interpretation is that the incident does not meet this criteria and therefore wasn't a foul

Thats a foul on my park 8 days a week, and at top elite level too it seems
Give that on the halfway line and nobody bats an eyelid

 

[cwyeary]

Thats a foul on my park 8 days a week, and at top elite level too it seems
Give that on the halfway line and nobody bats an eyelid

The Italy player has white tape on his blue socks, so his Law 4 violation trumps the England Law 12 violation right? /s

 

[HarryD]

He's playing for the other team, is that not enough for an S6?

 

[PinnerPaul]

Another example of the VAR interfering in the absence of a 'clear' mistake by the on-field ref

Yep agree there. There was an interview with ex player, now FIFA rep on The PL show (BBC) last week, during a piece on VAR. He clearly stated that only 'clear and obvious errors' are supposed to be flagged up by VAR. You can argue the decision either way, although I feel 7/10 refs would say no pen, BUT how anyone can claim that is a 'clear and obvious error' is beyond me.

Don't agree guys, with the benefit of replays that is a clear penalty and even Tarkowski accepted he trod on his foot. Remember there is no requirement for intent, and therefore he clearly tripped him.

The only complaint I would have is why Atkeyin had to go and look at the monitor, it was obvious so he should have gone on the advice of his VAR.

That's not how its supposed to work though is it? Thought ref was always supposed to make final decision, after looking at incident.

I think some of you are stuck on laws from ten years ago. These days intent is absolutely, 100%, irrelevant, if you stand on someone's foot you have tripped them. The offending player isn't complaining, the pundits are agreeing with the decision, this really isn't a difficult decision. The referee didn't see it real time as he was looking through a lot of legs. He took just one view of the pitch side monitor and immediately walked away signalling penalty, that's how easy a decision it was. No delays, no watching the same decision for or five times, he made his decision within seconds.

We can't have it both ways. I'm still not sure how agreed I am on VAR, but it is now here. This means that penalty decisions will go from not getting given due to being on the soft side, to getting given because if it gets to the VAR they can only look at black and white. And looking at black and white here it is absolutely a foul, no matter how soft.

'No delays'? Are you working for FIFA? - no delay whatsoever......... apart from listening to VAR, jogging over to monitor, waiting for monitor to be put in position!, looks at monitor, jogs back into position = over 2 mins from incident to penalty being taken.

Also you seem to be missing something obvious, VAR does NOT give penalty, ref does. He isn't obliged to give pen, just because VAR has advised ref, he looks at the incident again.

 

[HarryD]

Careful Paul - admin don't like double posts - let alone triple posts

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
When the Laws of the Game were completely rewritten in 1996 all reference to the intent of a player was removed from Law 12, except handling where there must be a deliberate act on behalf of the player. The first six of the direct free kick offenses require only a careless act on the behalf of a player to be a foul. In 2008 the LotG was updated further to remove
""tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball"" to tackles an opponent in a careless manner.......
So if a player while challenging for the ball tramps on the opponents foot it is a foul. The referee does not have to consider intent, accidental etc. He can view it is a trifling and doubtful yet I cannot see any referee ignoring a player being trod on in a tackle for the ball as shown as anything other than careless.
So while we may not agree with VAR the train has left the station. If this was shown afterwards as a penalty not given then there is many out there that would be complaining which is the very reason we have VAR. This can work the other way and it will do so if had the referee given the penalty and it was reviewed on VAR that there was no contact then the attacker may be cautioned for simulation and an IDFK outward.
The fact is that the defender went in for the ball, tackled for it carelessly and trod on the top of the opponents boot is a foul.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

If the post is about, is this a pk, then I am astounded if any referee does not see it as a foul
If the post is about use of VAR to get (the correct) call, then thats a different brand of oil