D
Deleted member 3014
Guest
No is the short answer
World cup final
- Thread starter Ref1981
- Start date
No is the short answer
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Correct, so going forward, just need to hawkeye up the entire boundary lines and make the AR obselete
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I think the pitch-side review is ridiculous.
How can a referee make an impartial decision watching a TV screen in bad light, in front of screaming partisan fans, after 7 people in a room have told him/her he/she has made an obvious error?
To have this pitch-side review in a world cup final, one of the biggest events on earth, was embarrassing. The referee is blatantly not qualified to do it, has basically no experience of it, it was bad production, bad theatre. It looked like amateur hour and brought shame upon the officiating of the tournament.
To read online about how last night's VAR was "vindication" of VAR is just bizarre. I know it's a game of opinions but really!
In the wider world of technology adoption and digital development, most implementation is bad at first. Overall, this VAR protocol, decision making, use of officials, production is bad now. I understand the need to support it during the finals. Now the finals are over I hope that they look at it again and do something different.
The first French goal highlighted the flawed VAR protocol.
The second French goal highlighted the flawed VAR decision-making process.
The second French goal also highlighted how changing the LotG without writing the changes in the book confuses the whole football family. Lineker reading the handball section of the LotG to the WC final audience should have been a magical moment between officials and the rest of the football family - instead, because the LotG are missing vital handball guidance (or however you want to phrase it) it just caused more confusion.
The end result last night, our best referee of the tournament was totally stitched up in the biggest game of his life.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Both of those statements may well be true (2nd one probably, 1st one not so sure - players often try to curl the ball so that if it's touched it throws the keeper off but if it isn't, it will drift in at the far post). However they're both ultimately irrelevant to the principle of attributing the goal based on whether the original attempt was on target or not.
Again, there are no universally-applicable rules but that's certainly the principle used by the Dubious Goals Committee in the Premier League and to the best of my knowledge, also in the EFL.
D
Deleted member 3014
Guest
My point a while back, slowly but surely the criteria to become a linesman won’t warrant needing a human being.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
A good post
Am going to stick neck out here and say, Mike Dean, Micheal Oliver, Mark Clatenburg and to make it relevent to the WC, Cukir or Brych, and maybe even Kuipers, would have watched it pitchside and said no pen
Of course, we will never know
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
I have said for years the AR at elite level should not have a flag, just the comms plus the hand stick.
My Swedish referee mate said it was a nailed on penalty...... very grey area indeed to give that!!
one
RefChat Addict
As I said, looking at slow motion, most referees would say its a pen. And slow motion replays is what everyone is looking at now. The fact the you say "he bats it down" means you are judging intent and speed of replay has a big impact in intent judgement. I suggest you do two thing.
1. Look at a few replay angles in real-time speed (forgetting the slo mo repays as best as you can)
2. Jump for header for an incoming ball with your natural movement and notice the direction of the movement of your hand. Failing that have a look at the player in front of him and see how his hand is moving. His hand movement was perfectly natural and given the player in front of him had an excellent chance of getting the ball, he wouldn't have expected the ball to end up where it did.
Another point to consider, the time from the sight touch from the player in front of him to the his hand is under 0.05 seconds. I am not an biology expert but my guess is that is not enough time to react to anything.
Modric was the right decision for me. Unlike Mbappe, Modric showed up in the group stages
D
Deleted member 3014
Guest
Can’t have been that nailed on or the ref would have picked it up in real time.
Took him 5 replays to make a decision & it’s been labelled controversial accross the world.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
The ref never saw any touch by any Croatia player real time, he missed everything. As above, the very least it was a corner,
D
Deleted member 3014
Guest
Nailed on is not a term I’d associate with that penalty incident.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
No, but if he has missed the whole Croatia player touching the ball in any shape or form, then he cant make a call on it, without the help of a replay?
he cant make an informed call on something that he has not seen
Am fine if he saw it real time and said yes or no. But, he has not seen any touch with any part of the Croatia body, by anyone
Would the AAR behind goal have seen it? Been interesting to see, (of course even if they saw it, based on what we have witnessed from them, would they have called it? )
he cant make an informed call on something that he has not seen
Am fine if he saw it real time and said yes or no. But, he has not seen any touch with any part of the Croatia body, by anyone
Would the AAR behind goal have seen it? Been interesting to see, (of course even if they saw it, based on what we have witnessed from them, would they have called it? )
D
Deleted member 3014
Guest
I don’t think France showed up in the group stages.
arbitre
Active Member
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
There is so much nonsense in that article it is frightening (but predictable I guess)
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
There's 2 questions - was the initial decision wrong? If so, was it clearly and obviously wrong? You can say 'yes' to the former without saying 'yes' to the latter.
There's a few things to consider. Position of the arm, movement of the arm, time to react being a few things.
The attacker did touch the ball first - but the change to the trajectory of the ball was minimal. So that hasn't changed what the defender had to react to. If, for instance, the ball was going to miss the defender but the path of the ball was significantly changed at the last moment, then you consider that the defender has had no time to react.
The defender also had a view of the ball the entire time it was crossed in - again, if the defender was unsighted until it passed his opponent, then that's in the defender's favour.
So, the defender has had plenty of time to react to the cross. Now, one could argue that the defender expected the attacker to head the ball in a different direction thus didn't position himself for the ball to go backwards like that - but I think that's a very weak argument at the best of times; in this case, given the goal was behind the players, you should expect the ball to go somewhat in that direction. So given that the eventual path of the ball wasn't a completely unpredictable one, that leaves it being the defender's responsibility to do the most he can to ensure the ball is not going to strike his arms.
And that leaves us with the positioning of the arms. I had to look at it a number of times to work through this decision making process - but I was left with the fact that he jumped with his arms right out to the side. Why on earth would any defender do that?
I find myself making similar arguments to that in favour of the handling penalty in the Australia - France match (this time a French player was penalised). You simply can't be jumping with your arms right out to the side - doing so puts the defender in a position where there's a good chance they're blocking the ball. The onus is on the player to take reasonable steps to minimise the chance of handling the ball. And that means keeping the arms closer to the body when jumping as a defender. Not jumping with arms flailing out to the side.
When defenders are standing in front of an attacker with the ball, they know now to stick their arms right out to the side - it's not different when jumping.
So while the contact occurred while the arms were coming back down, I don't think they should have been there in the first place. The defender has jumped in a manner that broadens his field position using the arms, he's had visibility of the ball and nothing happened to change his reaction time. That makes the handling wholly the defender's responsibility - and that makes it a foul for me.
So the 2nd question is - was it a clear and obvious error? Fortunately this question doesn't affect us as grassroots referees - it's purely a discussion piece. It's difficult to answer this without being party to FIFA's training on 'clear and obvious error'.
I don't think taking a while to reach the decision means it isn't clear and obvious. I don't believe that 'immediately apparent' is a prerequisite for 'clear and obvious'.
I can only wonder - under what circumstances would a VAR review ever leave the referee thinking 'it's a foul, but I can see an argument to say it's not, so I won't change it'?
When the VAR is to intervene is still one of the challenges facing football. The implementation at the World Cup seems to have a fairly low bar on 'clear and obvious' - once the referee thinks it's a foul, the decision gets made. So I think it's consistent with the VAR application this world cup, though I still wonder if it's the best way to implement VAR.
I don't know what 'clear and obvious' means, and I'm not sure anybody else - even FIFA - does.
There's a few things to consider. Position of the arm, movement of the arm, time to react being a few things.
The attacker did touch the ball first - but the change to the trajectory of the ball was minimal. So that hasn't changed what the defender had to react to. If, for instance, the ball was going to miss the defender but the path of the ball was significantly changed at the last moment, then you consider that the defender has had no time to react.
The defender also had a view of the ball the entire time it was crossed in - again, if the defender was unsighted until it passed his opponent, then that's in the defender's favour.
So, the defender has had plenty of time to react to the cross. Now, one could argue that the defender expected the attacker to head the ball in a different direction thus didn't position himself for the ball to go backwards like that - but I think that's a very weak argument at the best of times; in this case, given the goal was behind the players, you should expect the ball to go somewhat in that direction. So given that the eventual path of the ball wasn't a completely unpredictable one, that leaves it being the defender's responsibility to do the most he can to ensure the ball is not going to strike his arms.
And that leaves us with the positioning of the arms. I had to look at it a number of times to work through this decision making process - but I was left with the fact that he jumped with his arms right out to the side. Why on earth would any defender do that?
I find myself making similar arguments to that in favour of the handling penalty in the Australia - France match (this time a French player was penalised). You simply can't be jumping with your arms right out to the side - doing so puts the defender in a position where there's a good chance they're blocking the ball. The onus is on the player to take reasonable steps to minimise the chance of handling the ball. And that means keeping the arms closer to the body when jumping as a defender. Not jumping with arms flailing out to the side.
When defenders are standing in front of an attacker with the ball, they know now to stick their arms right out to the side - it's not different when jumping.
So while the contact occurred while the arms were coming back down, I don't think they should have been there in the first place. The defender has jumped in a manner that broadens his field position using the arms, he's had visibility of the ball and nothing happened to change his reaction time. That makes the handling wholly the defender's responsibility - and that makes it a foul for me.
So the 2nd question is - was it a clear and obvious error? Fortunately this question doesn't affect us as grassroots referees - it's purely a discussion piece. It's difficult to answer this without being party to FIFA's training on 'clear and obvious error'.
I don't think taking a while to reach the decision means it isn't clear and obvious. I don't believe that 'immediately apparent' is a prerequisite for 'clear and obvious'.
I can only wonder - under what circumstances would a VAR review ever leave the referee thinking 'it's a foul, but I can see an argument to say it's not, so I won't change it'?
When the VAR is to intervene is still one of the challenges facing football. The implementation at the World Cup seems to have a fairly low bar on 'clear and obvious' - once the referee thinks it's a foul, the decision gets made. So I think it's consistent with the VAR application this world cup, though I still wonder if it's the best way to implement VAR.
I don't know what 'clear and obvious' means, and I'm not sure anybody else - even FIFA - does.
He didn't have to react to it - the impact on the ball was very slight; had there been no touch it still would have collided with the defender's hand.