VAR trial - France v Spain

[es1]

surprised there's no thread on this yet!

I watched the game last night (albeit missing the 1st five mins of the second half and the first referral as the in laws came round!). I thought the trial was a success, two incorrect decisions overturned which, if there wasn't a VAR could have resulted in an entirely different result had France taken the lead.

In both instances the decision was quick enough not to unduly delay the game however both were clear cut and didn't really test the officials decision making ability. The spain penalty did look soft however and it's unclear if the VAR had any input confirming that the decision was correct.

However, there's clearly a problem with the situation where offside is flagged against an attacker about to shoot and the ref blows, stopping play, before the shot is taken. in this scenario, if the flag is incorrect, a goal can never be awarded once the ref has blown so I think we need to have refs hold off on blowing for offsides like this until the attacker has shot and scored / missed so that the goal can be awarded retrospectively if the decision was incorrect.

 

[QuaverRef]

I didn't catch the game and didn't even realized they were using it until this morning!

How did it work? Did the referee request somebody to check the decisions after the goals were scored, or was it a case of getting updates in his ear during various situations in the game?

 

[es1]

I didn't catch the game and didn't even realized they were using it until this morning!

How did it work? Did the referee request somebody to check the decisions after the goals were scored, or was it a case of getting updates in his ear during various situations in the game?

That's a good question, and one i can't really answer! There was no signal that he was checking with the VAR, just that he remained within the penalty box with his finger on his earpiece talking to the VAR until the decision was made!

I think there needs to be some sort of signal when the VAR is to be used to prevent confusion (much like cricket and rugby).

 

[RefCrow]

You can view the decisions here:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.ti...als-mbappe-griezmann-pedro-iniesta?source=dam

 

[PinnerPaul]

So this is different from trials we have seen previously. In those ref went to look at a monitor before giving the decision (Penalty in both cases)

Here it appears VAR is making the decision as ref has not looked at incident on a monitor

 

[AlexF]

So this is different from trials we have seen previously. In those ref went to look at a monitor before giving the decision (Penalty in both cases)

Here it appears VAR is making the decision as ref has not looked at incident on a monitor

If a decision is black and white (ie, inside or outside of the PA), the referee isn't obliged to look at the monitor, and can simply take the advice of the VAR, much like they'd take the advice of an AR.

The situations where we've seen a referee looking at the monitor has been (I think) exclusively on sendings off.

 

[es1]

If a decision is black and white (ie, inside or outside of the PA), the referee isn't obliged to look at the monitor, and can simply take the advice of the VAR, much like they'd take the advice of an AR.

The situations where we've seen a referee looking at the monitor has been (I think) exclusively on sendings off.

correct, there was a pitchside monitor there last night if it was needed

 

[ASM]

That's because these were "factual" decisions - was the player in an offside position or not - so therefore the VAR can advise.

The other scenarios are those of opinion, leading to an "on field review" - i.e. Referee looking at a monitor following advice from VAR to review it.

 

[PinnerPaul]

correct, there was a pitchside monitor there last night if it was needed

Not correct, the two examples I saw were not sendings off, or even cautions, they were penalty decisions, not given in real time.

Next time ball went out of play referee went to look at replays on monitor and then gave the pens.

 

[es1]

What are you on about? There was a monitor pitchside last night. It wasn't used...but it was there in case it was needed

 

[PinnerPaul]

What are you on about? There was a monitor pitchside last night. It wasn't used...but it was there in case it was needed

You said Alex was correct - he mentioned monitors only used for sending offs, I stated that I had seen them used for non sending off incidents.

Did that warrant your rude reply to me? No I don't think it did.

 

[es1]

You said Alex was correct - he mentioned monitors only used for sending offs, I stated that I had seen them used for non sending off incidents.

Did that warrant your rude reply to me? No I don't think it did.

ok pal
we're talking about different things then

 

[PinnerPaul]

ok pal
we're talking about different things then

I probably should have replied to Alex direct, apologies.

 

[es1]

I probably should have replied to Alex direct, apologies.

and apologies if i came across rude...not my intention

 

[Padfoot]

40 seconds to destroy the ARs credibility.....yeah, great success.

 

[es1]

40 seconds to destroy the ARs credibility.....yeah, great success.

sure, in an ideal world the mistakes would not have been made in the first place but we see mistakes like this every match day. we'll never eradicate them all with better training etc. so we need to use tools like this to help

 

[Padfoot]

sure, in an ideal world the mistakes would not have been made in the first place but we see mistakes like this every match day. we'll never eradicate them all with better training etc. so we need to use tools like this to help

Except it doesn't help....it just satisfies the ridiculous desires of the media.

Will only be a bad thing....will ruin the game....and every time it 'corrects' a referees or ARs decision it destroys their credibility.

Get shot of it now.

 

[es1]

Except it doesn't help....it just satisfies the ridiculous desires of the media.

Will only be a bad thing....will ruin the game....and every time it 'corrects' a referees or ARs decision it destroys their credibility.

Get shot of it now.

Satisfies the rediculous desires of the media to...

Get decisions correct? I imagine that's something fans, players, owners, refs and umpteen other football stakeholders all want.

Rugby referees and cricket umpires don't seem to have their reputations impacted by using technology to correct their mistakes.

 

[arbitre]

As some of you know I live in France, and I watched the game on French TV live.

First off, these two decisions were made quite quickly, and really had little or no effect in delaying the game. The decisions were made by the 'video referee' outside the stadium (in a specially equipped setting).

The two decisions were hairline and were not easy to spot with the naked eye, the first one especially, as the player offside was the furthest from the AR with a number of bodies between them. Both the video decisions were correct, and no players contested the 'reversal' as it were. It was a friendly, so maybe that helped. In a competitive match it may be different, but the video evidence (was) is pretty clear. If the VAR has any doubts I am sure he will concur with those on the field.

Had there been no video the match would probably have finished 1-1, instead of 0-2, so video evidence will be match changing in many cases.

I guess it is a much needed improvement, for the professional game. At grass roots it will have no effect whatsoever, except players asking the referee for the video review!!!!!

 

[jofusref]

if they are going to introduce this silly idea, they should do it the way it is done in rugby. listen to the conversation between the referee and the person sitting in a nice warm van with countless tv screens and replays