The Ref Stop

Video Assistant Referee

The Ref Stop
cheers for that. interesting that there was well over a minute of play before he stopped the game to review the incident

i do wonder if the player in question was actually offside though...
 
Looks like you will need to take your iPad to matches to allow you to view incidents.
 
Interesting it takes 90 seconds for video ref to relay back to referee. thats a long time in football... goal, red card, mass confrontation could all begin within that timeframe so what happens if the opposition or even the attacking team commit any of the above offences? Has it been agreed as to how that situation would/shoild be managed. I like the correct decision being arrived at, however thats taken too long in my opinion and could severely punctuate the game unneccessarily.
 
Based on Kassai's body language, I suspect that he was contacted well in advance of the play coming to a halt... that would allow him to hold up a restart that could be taken quickly.
 
http://footballrefereeing.blogspot....-viktor-kassai-awards-first.html#comment-form
More here.

Personally I think it has to be offside. Attacker is in an offside position and interferes with an opponent while the ball is in flight. AR should have flagged, though a difficult one. (other angles notwithstanding)

And, given the nature of the decision here the VAR should have either alerted about the offside ASAP ...but presuming the VAR is not supposed to call for reviews where bringing the game back and wasting 2 mins would have no advantage for the team... the VAR should have left this alone.

Overall I see this as a damning indictment of the VAR.
 
Technically it can't be offside as the foul happened way before anyone actually committed an offside offence.

This strikes me as a right mess though. OK, it wasn't the case here, but in the 90 seconds it took the VAR to alert Kassai that he needed to watch the video anything could have happened. He could be having to reverse penalties, goals, cautions, red cards, etc.

Why does the referee need to see the video? In rugby you don't get the referees trotting across to make sure the video referee has got it right, the referee takes his word for it. And can you imagine doing this at some PL and FL grounds? Somewhere like Everton and QPR, where the fans are right on top of you, the referee is going to be inches from the crowd whilst he watches this replay.

I'm not completely anti video review, but this cannot be the right way of doing it.
 
RustyRef said:
Technically it can't be offside as the foul happened way before anyone actually committed an offside offence.
.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the attacker become active as soon as he/she interferes with the opponent i.e. before the foul (which was clearly retribution so could also be an easily sold YC)?
 
santa sangria said:
Doesn't the attacker become active as soon as he/she interferes with the opponent i.e. before the foul (which was clearly retribution so could also be an easily sold YC)?
Click to expand...
No. The player in an offside position would only satisfy the criteria for being penalised for interfering with an opponent if they prevent an opponent from playing the ball or impact on their ability to play the ball.

Given the foul occurs a very large distance from where the ball was dropping in the area, then penalty is the correct decision.
 
What a dogs dinner of a trial.... this will end up like US Football and how crap and elongated is that!!! Bin it... Only video evidence of any use would be like Rugby where someone could be put on report for a Monday committee, blatant red card fouls like Rojo tonight or Ibras elbow can be retrospectively sanctioned if proved with no impact on the day
 
ASM said:
No. The player in an offside position would only satisfy the criteria for being penalised for interfering with an opponent if they prevent an opponent from playing the ball or impact on their ability to play the ball.

Given the foul occurs a very large distance from where the ball was dropping in the area, then penalty is the correct decision.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to be pedantic but isn't this clearly a case of the impacting on the defender's ability to play the ball - it's a deliberate illegal block to stop the defender getting to the ball - seems exactly that final point...? Would the defender have challenged for the initial header - maybe not - but surely the actions of the attacker in blocking the opponent have to be penalised?

If you don't want to penalise the offside, should/could the attacker be penalised for impeding the progress of an opponent with an IFK?
 
santa sangria said:
I'm not trying to be pedantic but isn't this clearly a case of the impacting on the defender's ability to play the ball - it's a deliberate illegal block to stop the defender getting to the ball - seems exactly that final point...? Would the defender have challenged for the initial header - maybe not - but surely the actions of the attacker in blocking the opponent have to be penalised?

If you don't want to penalise the offside, should/could the attacker be penalised for impeding the progress of an opponent with an IFK?
Click to expand...
Not for me. The defender's ability to play the ball is not impacted by the attacker as he makes no effort to attempt to play it nor are they in a position to realistically play it as they would have to move quicker than Usain Bolt to reach the dropping zone.
 
@santa sangria again, not for me. We cannot penalise impeding an opponent here as there is physical contact between the two (so IDFK isn't an option) and the attackers actions do not warrant penalising for a direct free kick.
 
Fair enough, not immediately clear there is contact... but, yes if there is contact then DFK... but yes agreed this would be a stretch... can't help think that this would have been a suitable decision though "in the spirit of"...
 
es1 said:
cheers for that. interesting that there was well over a minute of play before he stopped the game to review the incident

i do wonder if the player in question was actually offside though...
Click to expand...
Th incident took place at 27:50, penalty scored on 32:10, to me that looks and feels like too long.

I guess the more it happens, the more we will get used to teh delay, but personally, I don't like it.

Also manager of defending team is going to ask why offside wasn't "video reviewed"!
 
PinnerPaul said:
Th incident took place at 27:50, penalty scored on 32:10, to me that looks and feels like too long.

I guess the more it happens, the more we will get used to teh delay, but personally, I don't like it.

Also manager of defending team is going to ask why offside wasn't "video reviewed"!
Click to expand...

I don't so much mind the delay in coming to the correct decision, I was more referring to the near 90 seconds between the initial foul and the time play was stopped.

How that period of play is managed and what occurs in it is the biggest problem for me with the procedure we're using. Anything can happen, goals/red cards/3/4/5 mins play, the whole temperature of the match can be changed for the worse (penalty decision denied, up the other end, winning home team goal, instead they review and award a penalty and the away team score the winning goal).

Perhaps a solution is attempting to shorten this period by stopping play as soon as it enters a neutral area (whatever that might be determined to be) minimising the risk of a scenario like the one I described happening.

We'll never have a perfect answer as any solution will either impede on the flow of the game too greatly or lead to quite lengthy periods of waste game time. Hopefully we see a few more examples of how it's used in this tournament so we can see if it does add to the game or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top