The Ref Stop

VAR - Mexico vs New Zealand

R

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
It has descended to a whole new level tonight. Hardly anything happened in the game, then in stoppage time a New Zealand player gets pulled back and, seemingly in retaliation launches into an awful two footed tackle. This leads to what can only be described as a brawl, with at least three punches thrown.

The referee, Bakary Gassama from Gambia, looked like a rabbit in headlights. He was clearly being told something in his ear piece, not surprising as there could have been many yellows and even reds. He then decides he needs to have a look for himself and runs over to a video screen by the touchline. From what he sees he somehow comes to the conclusion of one caution and administers this.

This is where it gets really messy. He blows to restart play and New Zealand put the ball into the box. He blows as the ball is in the air and then starts holding his ear piece again, there's another delay, and then he cautions two further players. Now, is this not incorrect in law as he has changed his decision after restarting play?

I've been broadly supportive of this current approach, but it has gone horribly wrong tonight. Why has the referee had to go and look at a video screen, why couldn't the people upstairs tell him what to do? Why, after two VARs and the referee have looked at replays have they still not come to the correct outcome? Why has the referee restarted play only to stop it again to take further disciplinary action? What a mess ...
 
The Ref Stop
RustyRef said:
It has descended to a whole new level tonight. Hardly anything happened in the game, then in stoppage time a New Zealand player gets pulled back and, seemingly in retaliation launches into an awful two footed tackle. This leads to what can only be described as a brawl, with at least three punches thrown.

The referee, Bakary Gassama from Gambia, looked like a rabbit in headlights. He was clearly being told something in his ear piece, not surprising as there could have been many yellows and even reds. He then decides he needs to have a look for himself and runs over to a video screen by the touchline. From what he sees he somehow comes to the conclusion of one caution and administers this.

This is where it gets really messy. He blows to restart play and New Zealand put the ball into the box. He blows as the ball is in the air and then starts holding his ear piece again, there's another delay, and then he cautions two further players. Now, is this not incorrect in law as he has changed his decision after restarting play?

I've been broadly supportive of this current approach, but it has gone horribly wrong tonight. Why has the referee had to go and look at a video screen, why couldn't the people upstairs tell him what to do? Why, after two VARs and the referee have looked at replays have they still not come to the correct outcome? Why has the referee restarted play only to stop it again to take further disciplinary action? What a mess ...
Click to expand...
My only thought is they did not have all have language skills to explain what they needed to do.

The VAR will need to be adopted across the world if if is to succeed, if FIFA are going to continue to use referees from all confederations at these events. We know the referees are not as good (or have the same depth of quality) as in UEFA.

I lot of problems still to resolve.:facepalm:
 
Here's a video :


You'd probably need at least 10 minutes to watch all that happened there, so (unless you want to take that time) this is one of the situations in which VAR won't help a lot. Most brawls will probably still end like they end now: with two bookings, for the most aggressive player of each team. VAR could help to actual get the right man though, now referees sometimes seem to just take a guess.
 
lincs22 said:
My only thought is they did not have all have language skills to explain what they needed to do.

The VAR will need to be adopted across the world if if is to succeed, if FIFA are going to continue to use referees from all confederations at these events. We know the referees are not as good (or have the same depth of quality) as in UEFA.

I lot of problems still to resolve.:facepalm:
Click to expand...

But don't all FIFA referees have to pass fairly advanced English language tests?

Accept it might still be difficult, but how can the VAR not be able to communicate "New Zealand number x, red card for a terrible challenge that used excessive force", or even just "send off NZ number x for a terrible foul"? Having watched it again, aside from the punches thrown there is actually a real headbutt in there, and I just can't understand how they have made such a mess of this.

I would also add that the initial challenge that sparked it all was so obviously red that the referee should have had the card out straight away, and that might have defused the whole thing. You shouldn't need video replays to call that as SFP, but the fact video officials and the match referee have both failed to call it as SFP defies all logic.
 
I couldn't believe what I was watching. Very very poor use of the VAR by a referee that didn't look like he should be referring at that level.
He was poor throughout the game, missing several incidents. At least one red card for a two footed challenge and then this incident just topped it off. As it is mentioned above, rabbit in the headlights and very very poor game. Be surprised if we see him around again at top level.

I don't even think they needed. VAR for this incident. The AR and 4th were right on top, as was the ref.
 
RustyRef said:
This is where it gets really messy. He blows to restart play and New Zealand put the ball into the box. He blows as the ball is in the air and then starts holding his ear piece again, there's another delay, and then he cautions two further players. Now, is this not incorrect in law as he has changed his decision after restarting play?
Click to expand...
Although I agree that this was a total mess and the best argument I have seen against VAR's yet, on the simple matter of changing a decision after restarting play, I would say the referee is (just about) within the law. He did initially allow the free kick to be taken but then stopped play again and after cautioning the two additional players, went back and had the kick retaken. So in a purely technical sense, you could say the first attempt at having the kick taken is cancelled out and play doesn't truly restart until the second go around, which is after the two subsequent cautions.

Still overall, a very unsatisfactory outcome.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grove said:
Although I agree that this was a total mess and the best argument I have seen against VAR's yet, on the simple matter of changing a decision after restarting play, I would say the referee is (just about) within the law. He did initially allow the free kick to be taken but then stopped play again and after cautioning the two additional players, went back and had the kick retaken. So in a purely technical sense, you could say the first attempt at having the kick taken is cancelled out and play doesn't truly restart until the second go around, which is after the two subsequent cautions.
Click to expand...
Would you use the same argument if 15 seconds of play had lapsed even if play was brought to the original free kick?

EDIT: I have now looked at the footage again. He never allowed the free kick to be taken. In fact he signaled for the free kick NOT to be taken but it was taken without his permission anyway. I don't see any issue on that front. The restart was not legal.
 
Last edited:
I was watching live, and my initial reaction (if I was refereeing), was Yellow for the pull back by Mexico player, Red for the two footed retaliation by NZ player, and 2 Reds (1M, 1NZ) for the head butts. Then to the VAR I would have said, "Now, what have you guys seen that I might have missed?" That might have produced a few more cards!
 
arbitre said:
I was watching live, and my initial reaction (if I was refereeing), was Yellow for the pull back by Mexico player, Red for the two footed retaliation by NZ player, and 2 Reds (1M, 1NZ) for the head butts. Then to the VAR I would have said, "Now, what have you guys seen that I might have missed?" That might have produced a few more cards!
Click to expand...

That's what a good referee would have done. Consult with his Asst and the 4th official - identify those, write them down then ask VAR who else (Mexico 8 for steaming in was a RC!) what the referee was wrong on sooo many levels.

Sort of proves VAR not fully thought through yet:wall:
 
Wouldn't it be great if someone invented a system when decisions could be reviewed instantly and the right decision arrived at....

What a ******dogs dinner they have made of it so far!!!
 
To be honest, I put a lot of the fault in this particular incident on the match's referee. He's the final say, he's not required to take the advice of the VAR, and he let a lot of crap go earlier in the game that really led to this mess.
 
OK, I think I figured out what happened here. I wondered if the New Zealand player had perhaps taken the kick prematurely and went back to the video check if the ref had blown the whistle to restart play and on watching it back, I realised that the referee actually didn't restart play at all. The picture below shows the exact moment the referee blew the whistle, immediately before the player took the free kick. I think it is fairly evident that the ref is telling the player to wait (the reason presumably being that he was still discussing the incident with the VAR). However the player, who was not looking directly at the referee, apparently thinks it is the signal to take the kick and does so. As soon as the referee sees what has happened (as he sees the ball go past him) he blows the whistle again. So as far as I can tell the whole thing was just another part of the total mess and confusion surrounding the use of the VAR.

There is no clear way for the players (or spectators, or commentators) to know exactly what is happening, no accepted method to indicate that the discussion is still ongoing and/or what stage the discussion has reached. So misunderstandings like this are prone to occur. 2017-06-22 16.40.59.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 2017-06-22 16.40.59.jpg
    2017-06-22 16.40.59.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 1
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top