VAR - Wellington Phoenix v Beijing BG

[CapnBloodbeard]

VAR was put to good use here (it's going to be in the Hyundai A-Leage for the finals, maybe even the last few rounds)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/footba...ellington-phoenix-beat-beijing-bg-in-friendly

If that clip doesn't work then there's a youtube link in these search results
https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=SoOjWI2SG9Pu8wfdw4mADA&gws_rd=ssl#q=wellington+phoenix+VAR

Correct decision was made. Was still a slow process, although it was at a natural stoppage anyway.
A few concerns though:-
- pretty sure the AR missed an offside infringement. Foul occurred first (just) so not an issue, but still...
- Am I harsh in saying that I thought the referee should have spotted this one?
- Following from the second, one concern I've always had is that having the 'backup' of a VAR may make referees hold back from actually making decisions (and given the current laughable culture of 'referees shouldn't be seen/influence the game/upset people/do anything, that's already a bad enough problem). We see that in rugby league, so I would wonder if the same could occur here.

but ultimately, a match-changing decision was made correctly as a result.

Also, I was curious to see the clip used - only one clip. No access to multiple camera angles? That's a worry as a particular angle can skew something (though had to skew a blatant push in the back

 

[DB]

I don't like the fact that the referee has to run to a screen situated off the field of play to view the incident. It just looks messy. And as you say, it's important to see a variety of angles to get the full picture of the incident. Obviously this will develop as time goes on, they'll probably have a watch or something displaying it

 

[RustyRef]

It wasn't given for a push, it was given for a tangle of legs at the far side of the area as the cross came in. I couldn't work it out at the time but it was an "in the know" FIFA official who has said this, and that for me brings about all kinds of issues. It means it wasn't a match changing decision, as the player who was clipped would have needed to be Superman to get anywhere close to the ball.

For me this isn't want video reviews were brought in for. Real time no one spotted any kind of offence here, and there is barely even an appeal from the attacking team. Surely reviews should be reserved for when there is a clear error - i.e. when someone has actually noticed that the referee may have not a decision wrong ..?!

 

[Mooseybaby]

Agree with DB, seen a few video reviews now and the sight of the match referee running off the pitch to look at a TV screen is messy and un-necessary to say the least. You don't see it in cricket or rugby, surely if the referee is willing to accept advice from his line assistants and the statues behind the goals (when they are on duty), why not just have another qualified referee watching the TV and relay what he has spotted to the man in the middle without the need for the referee to leave the pitch to view it himself? If the man in the middle is running off the pitch every two minutes to review video of the likes of Shawcross and Huth rugby tackling and shirt pulling, 3pm games could still be going at midnight!

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

It wasn't given for a push, it was given for a tangle of legs at the far side of the area as the cross came in. I couldn't work it out at the time but it was an "in the know" FIFA official who has said this, and that for me brings about all kinds of issues. It means it wasn't a match changing decision, as the player who was clipped would have needed to be Superman to get anywhere close to the ball.

How can it not be for the push when that was a clear intentional act? That makes no sense (not disputing what you're told, just that I don't follow that decision-making process....)
As for the tangle of legs - well, as we know that's the responsibility of the player behind, unless the attacker crossed over and the defender had no chance to avoid it.
Which would make this implementation more concerning - as this single angle used means you can't identify the different paths of the players.

why not just have another qualified referee watching the TV and relay what he has spotted to the man in the middle without the need for the referee to leave the pitch to view it himself

Looking at a VAR Q&A, apparently the set up is supposed to actually permit a separate VAR to make a decision and advise the referee, and the referee should only review it if it isn't clear......but I don't think it's been implemented like that yet......?

 

[PinnerPaul]

Still takes 3 minutes and that's after play has stopped/there has been a break immediately after the incident.

As we saw in clip a few weeks ago, when the ball stays in play the delay is even longer.

 

[xPositor]

I'm still not convinced that the rationale behind bringing in video reviews in this form is that it introduces the opportunity for full screen advertising mid-game.

 

[Trip]

It took me ages to see it. It is indeed a penalty, for a clipped ankle which causes an attacker to go down, but one which would never be given or expected without the video. I don't think this is the best advert for VARs.

In general I am in favour of the use of video but this format isn't right.

 

[Iain]

good advert for not using VAR. what a disaster. takes too long. No player appealed. no one cared. get on with the game.

 

[GraemeS]

good advert for not using VAR. what a disaster. takes too long. No player appealed. no one cared. get on with the game.

I disagree. I think this proves that this isn't the format in which VAR should be used, but I also think it proves that the VAR can spot things an on-field referee has no chance of spotting.

I agree with you that the lack of appeals for this foul is significant, and that's why I think the VAR should only get involved if the manager challenges. That alone will aid credibility. Also, the delay is definitely unacceptable. The off-pitch VAR should be empowered to make the decisions on his own and communicate that decision to the on-pitch referee, which would make it much quicker. Include the caveat that he should only overturn the on-field decision if it's definitely wrong and I think that would be a working system.

 

[xPositor]

I disagree. I think this proves that this isn't the format in which VAR should be used, but I also think it proves that the VAR can spot things an on-field referee has no chance of spotting.

I agree with you that the lack of appeals for this foul is significant, and that's why I think the VAR should only get involved if the manager challenges. That alone will aid credibility. Also, the delay is definitely unacceptable. The off-pitch VAR should be empowered to make the decisions on his own and communicate that decision to the on-pitch referee, which would make it much quicker. Include the caveat that he should only overturn the on-field decision if it's definitely wrong and I think that would be a working system.

I think the clue should be in the name - Video _Assistant_ Referee, and the old adage that assistants are there to assist, not insist. I agree with you that the VAR should be communicating with the on-pitch referee, but only in the same way as a NAR or AAR would. Holler down the mike with what you have seen, but ultimately the decision rests with the referee.

 

[GraemeS]

I think the clue should be in the name - Video _Assistant_ Referee, and the old adage that assistants are there to assist, not insist. I agree with you that the VAR should be communicating with the on-pitch referee, but only in the same way as a NAR or AAR would. Holler down the mike with what you have seen, but ultimately the decision rests with the referee.

I'm happy to change the name to "Video Referee" if that would make you happier?

Seriously though, I think any solution that requires the on-field referee to view a replay to make a decision is going to be painfully slow. The only way to speed it up to a reasonable pace is to have the video referee making the decision, and only on a very limited number of incidents.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Upon rewatching it, I stand corrected about the push. The arm in the back was only because the player behind stumbled - that was when he caught the leg of the player in front though.