VAR thread 2022/23

[Stephen230]

Colour me confused, no wait, colour me absolutely fucking baffled

VAR was sold to the masses on the basis it was there to correct "clear and obvious errors".
Post introduction, this was amended to "clear and obvious errors except for offside which is factual and not open to interpretation"
After todays 98th minute debacle in the Tunisia v France game, I'm once again confused as to what the remit of VAR is with regards offside.
If VAR decided it's offside, then why is the referee asked to review the decision on the telly? By their own rules of implementation it is either offside or it's not.

I was a VAR fan originally, I thought it would reduce the "variation" in decisions we see week in and week out. Instead it has created far more controversy than it has resolved, and today i finally moved into the fuck it off camp

You probably won’t like the answer because it revolves around the complicated subject of what constitutes a “deliberate play” of the ball. These are the words of a journalist who understands the laws of the game and the workings of VAR better than anyone else I know about:

—-

If the officials believed Talbi had made a "deliberate play," the phase is reset, Griezmann is onside and the goal counts.

If the officials believed Talbi hasn't made a "deliberate play," the phase isn't reset, Griezmann remains offside from Tchouameni's pass, and the goal is disallowed.


Essentially, a "deliberate play" is about the defender being in control of his actions. It's not purely about a player trying to kick or head a ball. If the defender has to stretch to play the ball, and can't have true influence about where it goes, that's not considered a "deliberate play."

This is a hugely subjective area of the offside law, which is why referee Matthew Conger of New Zealand had to go to the pitchside monitor to make the decision.

——-

So the answer to your question as to why it wasn’t a matter of fact decision and was handed back down to the referee to decide is that it hinged on a subjective interpretation of whether a “deliberate play” was made. Interestingly the guy on VAR was the same one who referred the Portugal penalty back to the referee the other night.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Colour me confused, no wait, colour me absolutely fucking baffled

VAR was sold to the masses on the basis it was there to correct "clear and obvious errors".
Post introduction, this was amended to "clear and obvious errors except for offside which is factual and not open to interpretation"
After todays 98th minute debacle in the Tunisia v France game, I'm once again confused as to what the remit of VAR is with regards offside.
If VAR decided it's offside, then why is the referee asked to review the decision on the telly? By their own rules of implementation it is either offside or it's not.

I was a VAR fan originally, I thought it would reduce the "variation" in decisions we see week in and week out. Instead it has created far more controversy than it has resolved, and today i finally moved into the fuck it off camp

Welcome to the long time converted .

 

[Blue Mist]

You probably won’t like the answer because it revolves around the complicated subject of what constitutes a “deliberate play” of the ball. These are the words of a journalist who understands the laws of the game and the workings of VAR better than anyone else I know about:

—-

If the officials believed Talbi had made a "deliberate play," the phase is reset, Griezmann is onside and the goal counts.

If the officials believed Talbi hasn't made a "deliberate play," the phase isn't reset, Griezmann remains offside from Tchouameni's pass, and the goal is disallowed.


Essentially, a "deliberate play" is about the defender being in control of his actions. It's not purely about a player trying to kick or head a ball. If the defender has to stretch to play the ball, and can't have true influence about where it goes, that's not considered a "deliberate play."

This is a hugely subjective area of the offside law, which is why referee Matthew Conger of New Zealand had to go to the pitchside monitor to make the decision.

——-

So the answer to your question as to why it wasn’t a matter of fact decision and was handed back down to the referee to decide is that it hinged on a subjective interpretation of whether a “deliberate play” was made. Interestingly the guy on VAR was the same one who referred the Portugal penalty back to the referee the other night.

In other words they have fucked up something so badly they needed to make adjustments, only to fuck it up even more.

 

[bluealf]

There is no such thing as an indirect free kick for handball. Whether you’d like to think it should be handball or not isn’t really relevant to the laws of the game as they stand, which specifically describe this exact situation as an example of a non handball. I’ve posted this in another thread but will put it here aswell. It’s from the video version of the official laws of the game, with live examples.

What if the player is falling backwards on the goalline and makes a save?
It is pedantic but it could be contrived or manipulated by a clever player.

 

[flook]

You probably won’t like the answer because it revolves around the complicated subject of what constitutes a “deliberate play” of the ball. These are the words of a journalist who understands the laws of the game and the workings of VAR better than anyone else I know about:

—-

If the officials believed Talbi had made a "deliberate play," the phase is reset, Griezmann is onside and the goal counts.

If the officials believed Talbi hasn't made a "deliberate play," the phase isn't reset, Griezmann remains offside from Tchouameni's pass, and the goal is disallowed.


Essentially, a "deliberate play" is about the defender being in control of his actions. It's not purely about a player trying to kick or head a ball. If the defender has to stretch to play the ball, and can't have true influence about where it goes, that's not considered a "deliberate play."

This is a hugely subjective area of the offside law, which is why referee Matthew Conger of New Zealand had to go to the pitchside monitor to make the decision.

——-

So the answer to your question as to why it wasn’t a matter of fact decision and was handed back down to the referee to decide is that it hinged on a subjective interpretation of whether a “deliberate play” was made. Interestingly the guy on VAR was the same one who referred the Portugal penalty back to the referee the other night.

OK thats a considered and reasonable answer, not something I'm used to on here :)

I do have further questions though

Who is this journalist and on what basis do you make the statement of his competence?

Where is this definition of what constitutes a "deliberate play" set down? Over the years I've seen a number of incidences where the defenders touch has been far less controlled than the header in question here which have resulted in the goal standing. I've also heard on each of these occasions, from a number of different pundits/commentators etc, and if I'm not mistaken, the likes of Peter Walton, that if the defender has made a deliberate effort to play the ball then he has played the attacker on side. (Not that I'm suggesting for a minute that any of these are qualified to make such a statement and it be factually correct).

Assuming your definition is the correct one, how is "being in control" then defined? The defender here jumped, got his headed to the ball and directed it away from goal. That would seem to me to be a controlled action. Another example, a defender plays the ball with his foot and it goes to an opposition player, is that uncontrolled or just crap control.

Finally, why in god knows how many premier league matches has a VAR decision never been referred back to the referee? I refuse to believe that this type of incident has never happened before in a VAR controlled game, in fact as per my earlier comment, I've seen a number of such instances and VAR has always made the decision.

 

[Stephen230]

What if the player is falling backwards on the goalline and makes a save?
It is pedantic but it could be contrived or manipulated by a clever player.

Well by law a handball is a handball. Where it happens on the pitch should be irrelevant. The only exception is when a goal is scored or directly assisted by an accidentally handball. In practice, if a hand did stop the ball going in the goal, I suspect it might be judged as intentional come what may.

 

[Stephen230]

OK thats a considered and reasonable answer, not something I'm used to on here :)

I do have further questions though

Who is this journalist and on what basis do you make the statement of his competence?

Where is this definition of what constitutes a "deliberate play" set down? Over the years I've seen a number of incidences where the defenders touch has been far less controlled than the header in question here which have resulted in the goal standing. I've also heard on each of these occasions, from a number of different pundits/commentators etc, and if I'm not mistaken, the likes of Peter Walton, that if the defender has made a deliberate effort to play the ball then he has played the attacker on side. (Not that I'm suggesting for a minute that any of these are qualified to make such a statement and it be factually correct).

Assuming your definition is the correct one, how is "being in control" then defined? The defender here jumped, got his headed to the ball and directed it away from goal. That would seem to me to be a controlled action. Another example, a defender plays the ball with his foot and it goes to an opposition player, is that uncontrolled or just crap control.

Finally, why in god knows how many premier league matches has a VAR decision never been referred back to the referee? I refuse to believe that this type of incident has never happened before in a VAR controlled game, in fact as per my earlier comment, I've seen a number of such instances and VAR has always made the decision.

The journalist is called Dale Johnson, editor at ESPN football. I trust his competence because whenever anybody on Twitter challenges his knowledge of the laws of the game he nearly always replies with evidence he was right. He is reviewing every single VAR intervention during the World Cup. And when the Premier League is running he has a weekly article on a Monday, reviewing the weekends controversies. I prefer his take to ex referees like Gallagher on Sky, who always seems to find an excuse to claim the right decision was made, as he’s not afraid to call out an error when that’s his opinion.

This takes some digesting but the official definition of “deliberate play”

As an aside, the French FA have complained to FIFA that Tunisia kicked off after the “goal” before it was disallowed. Which obviously shouldn’t happen. I didn’t watch it live but shouldn’t be hard to prove either way.

 

[Stephen230]

Farcical scenes at the end of the France, Tunisia game which I’ve only just caught up with. It seems the referee blew for Tunisia to kick off and then in the next breath immediately blew for full time. That would make a VAR review out of the question. Either way it’s a fuck up in communication because if he was aware a VAR review was impending he shouldn’t have blown for either a restart or full time. I reckon he will probably claim he was just blowing for full time and not a restart.

France are apparently confident that FIFA will adjust the final score to 1-1 after a hearing in the morning. That’s highly unlikely though, as the laws of the game specifically state that a match result will not be invalidated in the case of incorrect use of VAR protocol. Either way, don’t expect to see any of the officials involved again in the tournament.

Thank Christ it doesn’t actually make any difference to the group standings, or they’d be some shit going down.

 

[stonerblue]

Colour me confused, no wait, colour me absolutely fucking baffled

VAR was sold to the masses on the basis it was there to correct "clear and obvious errors".
Post introduction, this was amended to "clear and obvious errors except for offside which is factual and not open to interpretation"
After todays 98th minute debacle in the Tunisia v France game, I'm once again confused as to what the remit of VAR is with regards offside.
If VAR decided it's offside, then why is the referee asked to review the decision on the telly? By their own rules of implementation it is either offside or it's not.

I was a VAR fan originally, I thought it would reduce the "variation" in decisions we see week in and week out. Instead it has created far more controversy than it has resolved, and today i finally moved into the fuck it off camp

And 3 hours after your post things got worse..

 

[Corky]

The fact is none have been given by VAR or in real time when a defender has headed the ball back to an attacker before.

Next they will start booking a player for leaving the pitch to take a throw-in, as it's in the Laws...

 

[Blue Mist]

Farcical scenes at the end of the France, Tunisia game which I’ve only just caught up with. It seems the referee blew for Tunisia to kick off and then in the next breath immediately blew for full time. That would make a VAR review out of the question. Either way it’s a fuck up in communication because if he was aware a VAR review was impending he shouldn’t have blown for either a restart or full time. I reckon he will probably claim he was just blowing for full time and not a restart.

France are apparently confident that FIFA will adjust the final score to 1-1 after a hearing in the morning. That’s highly unlikely though, as the laws of the game specifically state that a match result will not be invalidated in the case of incorrect use of VAR protocol. Either way, don’t expect to see any of the officials involved again in the tournament.

Thank Christ it doesn’t actually make any difference to the group standings, or they’d be some shit going down.

The referee blowing for full time does not stop a var review. Remember when the rags benefitted from a var review, (they got a penalty) after the ref had blown for full time. We are told every goal is reviewed so surely the ref has to wait for the var man to indicate it is ok to proceed. In this case it seems var and the the ref were so inept, they failed to talk to each other.
This stupidity is why people believe in corruption. How much money was on a 1-0 or a 1-1 result ? If you cannot remember the procedures to follow you are not fit to run the game, either as the ref or as var.
It is such a fucked up system it should be scrapped.

 

[Corky]

The referee blowing for full time does not stop a var review. Remember when the rags benefitted from a var review, (they got a penalty) after the ref had blown for full time. We are told every goal is reviewed so surely the ref has to wait for the var man to indicate it is ok to proceed. In this case it seems var and the the ref were so inept, they failed to talk to each other.
This stupidity is why people believe in corruption. How much money was on a 1-0 or a 1-1 result ? If you cannot remember the procedures to follow you are not fit to run the game, either as the ref or as var.
It is such a fucked up system it should be scrapped.

Blowing to kick-off, then full time, does though.

They were okay with it, then got an intervention.

 

[Stephen230]

The referee blowing for full time does not stop a var review. Remember when the rags benefitted from a var review, (they got a penalty) after the ref had blown for full time. We are told every goal is reviewed so surely the ref has to wait for the var man to indicate it is ok to proceed. In this case it seems var and the the ref were so inept, they failed to talk to each other.
This stupidity is why people believe in corruption. How much money was on a 1-0 or a 1-1 result ? If you cannot remember the procedures to follow you are not fit to run the game, either as the ref or as var.
It is such a fucked up system it should be scrapped.

Blowing for full time doesn’t prevent a VAR review but play restarting after a goal being scored does. Which is what France are claiming happened here.

 

[Blue Mist]

Blowing for full time doesn’t prevent a VAR review but play restarting after a goal being scored does. Which is what France are claiming happened here.

OK apologies for my ignorance. It was a monumental break down in communications and highlights, to me, why it is a joke.

 

[Blue Mist]

Blowing to kick-off, then full time, does though.

They were okay with it, then got an intervention.

As above, apologies for my ignorance.

 

[dennishasdoneit]

Farcical scenes at the end of the France, Tunisia game which I’ve only just caught up with. It seems the referee blew for Tunisia to kick off and then in the next breath immediately blew for full time. That would make a VAR review out of the question. Either way it’s a fuck up in communication because if he was aware a VAR review was impending he shouldn’t have blown for either a restart or full time. I reckon he will probably claim he was just blowing for full time and not a restart.

France are apparently confident that FIFA will adjust the final score to 1-1 after a hearing in the morning. That’s highly unlikely though, as the laws of the game specifically state that a match result will not be invalidated in the case of incorrect use of VAR protocol. Either way, don’t expect to see any of the officials involved again in the tournament.

Thank Christ it doesn’t actually make any difference to the group standings, or they’d be some shit going down.

You really are taking this world cup thing really seriously aren't you.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Blowing for full time doesn’t prevent a VAR review but play restarting after a goal being scored does. Which is what France are claiming happened here.

Why? Just trying to justify it in my poor little head ....

If they can review an incident after all the players have left the field, which to me seems a pretty terminal event in terms of closing off a match, and can let play go on for two or three minutes while they review a penalty incident, why can't they call back a kick-off after an illegal goal? If the intention is to get decisions right, at all costs almost, why not in this situation?

 

[Blue Mist]

Why? Just trying to justify it in my poor little head ....

If they can review an incident after all the players have left the field, which to me seems a pretty terminal event in terms of closing off a match, and can let play go on for two or three minutes while they review a penalty incident, why can't they call back a kick-off after an illegal goal? If the intention is to get decisions right, at all costs almost, why not in this situation?

Or, very left field this. The ref says 'any problems with that or can I award it'
Dickwad replies either 'nah, all good' or 'just let me check before you re-start/end the game. The fact that two supposedly highly trained, top of their profession, refs, cannot do that is beyond brown envelopes ergh I mean belief.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Or, very left field this. The ref says 'any problems with that or can I award it'
Dickwad replies either 'nah, all good' or 'just let me check before you re-start/end the game. The fact that two supposedly highly trained, top of their profession, refs, cannot do that is beyond brown envelopes ergh I mean belief.

God, I hate the off-side rules. Griezemann was yards offside and making no attempt to get back onside. He clearly gained an advantage, why should he get any benefit? Let the fucker run hard back behind the defense before he next plays the ball, the lazy bastard.

The more I see things like this, the more I hanker back to the old days. Griezemann was offside when the ball was played forward, flag goes up, No controversy. No active/not-active, no second phases, no deliberate plays. It's all so unnecessarily complicated these days. Would be perfect for automated VAR decisions as well.

 

[Stephen230]

Why? Just trying to justify it in my poor little head ....

If they can review an incident after all the players have left the field, which to me seems a pretty terminal event in terms of closing off a match, and can let play go on for two or three minutes while they review a penalty incident, why can't they call back a kick-off after an illegal goal? If the intention is to get decisions right, at all costs almost, why not in this situation?

Well I suppose there’s got to be some point where things are final and restarting play seems as good a time as any. Besides when will the people who refuse to celebrate a goal until they kick off get their moment of joy?