The Importance of VAR

[lamptern]

If people don't like the interference of the VAR, they should watch WWC 2019, 1/8 finals England vs Cameron from start to end. Without the existence of VAR, the brilliant referee could have been eaten alive. 

[The Ref]

I wonder if the idiots in the VAR booth are being assessed?

 

[lamptern]

To some degree,  the referee was under VAR's pressure more and more as the game unfolds. She manged it well.

As long as the VAR delivered good angled video clips and correct offside judgements, they are doing their job well. They are not idiots in this game I think. The only complain I have is that they didn't show the opposite angle camera shot for the Cameron challenge in their box late in the game. If that angle is shown to the referee as broadcaster did, it would have made it easier for her.

Edited June 23, 2019 by lamptern

[RJB]

If all we care about is getting it correct, then we have to take the officials off the field and leave it entirely up to VAR.  I’m sorry but if this is what it has come to with so many stoppages making calls at such incredibly fine margins(in many cases) then I don’t think it’s worth it. Especially given that I think referees are not making calls, knowing that VAR will inevitably bail them out; no call is the safe call because they’ll get a second - and better - look. 

We can all sit and say that VAR is ultimately making the correct call, but the Cameroon disallowed goal was offside by what must have been millimetres!  Technically correct, but those are the types of fine lines I think I’m ok with. 

Is something different at this World Cup? At Russia I don’t feel like it was used nearly as much, but I’m not really up to date on changes to these types of things. 

[The Ref]

34 minutes ago, Lofty said:

The way I understand it:

1. VAR is making all the offside decisions. These are a question of fact, not a question of opinion, so no need for the referee to review, and they seem to have software that draws the blue and red line and makes the factual decision for them.

2. Other than that, the job of the VAR team is to draw the referee's attention to decisions they feel warrant review. The REFEREE then looks at the replays and makes the final call.

Thus the only decisions made by the people in the VAR booth are to refer incidents to the referee for review, so it is more than a little harsh to call them "idiots".

Do not feel offended, but you are soooo wrong.

[The Ref]

4 hours ago, Lofty said:

Ha ha, not offended (!) but I would like to know what you think is wrong. I was pretty specific so it should be easy to point out -- unless of course you are just being facetious.

I have been wrong before and will no doubt be wrong again!

Some offsides are clear and hard to dispute.  But there a various situations that call for interpretation which may differ from person to person and are not a question of fact.  For instance: when does a gesture deceives or distracts and what gesture; when is a position deemed to be interfering; the opinion of the referee (not a question of fact) judges which player has opportunity or not; obstructing the GK line of vision is a tricky one as it depends who is looking where, height of players, movement, arms, etc.; gaining an advantage is another tricky one to judge.  There may be others that escape me as it is a while I referee myself and assessed other referees and ARs.  I feel blessed that the VAR didn't exist in my days, what a conundrum.  

 

[The Ref]

Spain did not allow a single run of play goal to the U.S.  The U.S. needed 2 penalty kicks to win the game, one of them courtesy of the VAR and the referee.  Spain was the better team in the field.

[rkomar]

I can't believe the ref allowed that second penalty to stand.  That contact was so weak compared with other shenanigans taking place in the penalty area.  VAR gave her a chance to change her mind, but no...

[Unnamed Trialist]

As a Spain fan, I thought that was a disgustingly biased refereeing performance, really disgraceful. I don't think the VAR is the worst of it, though that soft penalty came when Spain was having a great 2nd half.   

[rkomar]

24 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

As a Spain fan, I thought that was a disgustingly biased refereeing performance, really disgraceful. I don't think the VAR is the worst of it, though that soft penalty came when Spain was having a great 2nd half.   

You can't blame VAR for the soft penalty.  In fact, they offered it as something the ref should look at again.  That's all they can do.

[Unnamed Trialist]

3 minutes ago, rkomar said:

You can't blame VAR for the soft penalty.  In fact, they offered it as something the ref should look at again.  That's all they can do.

Since the player took two steps after contact, and then fell, it is suspect. Yes, there is contact, but the ref simply looked like she had a job to do, the one Alex Morgan was instructing her on the whole game. 

Canada has seen how the US does that a few times.

[rkomar]

The slow-mo closeups of the fouls showed how the US players embellished so much.  Instead of landing on their feet, they would often lift their feet on contact and flop to the ground.  The ref fell for it most of the time.

I don't mind that the US won the game; they were expected to.  I'm just disgusted that the poor reffing was the difference that won them the game.  Let's see if the same ref gets any more games in the tournament.  Even more interesting, will the US get the same help playing against the French?

[YEG Round Baller]

21 hours ago, Lofty said:

The way I understand it:

1. VAR is making all the offside decisions. These are a question of fact, not a question of opinion, so no need for the referee to review, and they seem to have software that draws the blue and red line and makes the factual decision for them.

2. Other than that, the job of the VAR team is to draw the referee's attention to decisions they feel warrant review. The REFEREE then looks at the replays and makes the final call.

Thus the only decisions made by the people in the VAR booth are to refer incidents to the referee for review, so it is more than a little harsh to call them "idiots".

Point #1 and #2: Exactly! Offsides seem to be handled well. The problems start when the VAR guy (they are mostly men, by the way) thinks his judgement is better than the on-field referee's judgement.

"CLEAR & OBVIOUS ERRORs". I thought this was supposed to be the defining principle of VAR.

At this 2019 WWC the VAR officials appear to be questioning and second-guessing the judgment of the on-field referees far too often. If you are an on-field referee, under huge pressure, both because its a World Cup and because you are a female, then I think the tendency has been to change your call just to cover your own butt, even if the video shows your original call to be defensible. The VAR officials have to butt out, keep their opinions to themselves, and stick to OFFSIDES and CLEAR & OBVIOUS ERRORS.

And why does it take them 2-3 minutes to look at a play, and only then call the on-field ref over to the video screen. The on-field ref should immediately go to the screen and be part of that 2-3 minute "group" debate. If a judgement call takes 3 minutes to discuss, then it was probably correct to begin with. One again: CLEAR & OBVIOUS ERRORS ONLY.

[The Ref]

I've watched some of the Copa America men's games which is taking place right now.  These games have everything under the sun and not once has the VAR intervened.  Makes me think the VAR men refs for the WWC feel they need to "correct" the lady refs on the field.  Wrong!

Edited June 25, 2019 by The Ref

[Califax]

I actually don't think the penalty was that great.

1. Not a lot of pace

2. Didn't get it all the way to the corner, it just looked that way on the live angle.

3. Instep hit telegraphed where it was going. 

Sinclair aside, it was poor. Tough beat. 

 

[Patrick]

19 hours ago, rkomar said:

The slow-mo closeups of the fouls showed how the US players embellished so much.  Instead of landing on their feet, they would often lift their feet on contact and flop to the ground.  The ref fell for it most of the time.

Earlier in the tournament, in another thread, I said that the refereeing was sub-par.  Man, did that offend people!  I said that using only female referees was unfair to the players who earned the right to be here.  My flame retarding underwear was barely up to the task.  I said VAR was so intrusive here precisely because the all-female officiating staff were unable to call offside correctly, and that they weren't good enough for the level of the games (not is so many words, but that was the gist).  Well, I think I am being rather soundly vindicated by the last few matches.  When the US was hammering Thailand the referee wasn't important.  When the US was jobbing Spain out of at least a regulation draw now we see how poorly prepared the referees are.  The referee blew Canada's chances in 2012 due to the overt pressure applied by the USWNT and  Wambach, and here the referee was taken in by the US professional diving team. 

I support women in sports, especially soccer, and that includes referees.  That doesn't mean that only women should coach, or officiate, or organize, or work the concessions at a Women's tournament.  The women who have earned the right to play at a WWC should not be knocked out because someone thinks that it is more important to give female referees a training opportunity.  Let female referees earn the right to be there.  They can get their training in league play and earn their right to progress just like any other referee.

[Patrick]

I think there were a few others beside yourself who disagreed with me.  But it's all in rhetorical good fun.

[The Ref]

Reading about the criticism of the VAR at the Copa América in Brazil what it boils down to is the VAR saying you guy down there (the ref on the pitch) don't know what you are doing, we will call it right from our one dimensional screen.  The referee who is live and close to the action on the field and who can read the game, body language, facial expressions, expletives, etc. is there just for show.  The actual refereeing is done from a TV screen which cannot even hear the players.  The VAR with all its inconsistency has got to go.  Just keep the referee and assistants on the field.  Soccer until now has survived just fine for some 100 years.

[Patrick]

VAR isn't helping much if it can't at least bring some consistency to the application of the rules.  Japan was done in by a hand ball, the USA gets a pass.  Offside is now called to the millimeter but studs up challenges and spitting on opponents are not dealt with correctly.  Me, I am happy that goal line technology exists because it is black and white.  The offside calls strike me as being too legalistic in a game that has few enough goals as it is.  For the rest, I think I prefer letting a referee decide it on the field, missed calls and all, rather than watching constant appeals for video review.  Let the game flow.

[Kent]

4 hours ago, Patrick said:

Let the game flow.

On this particular point, does it strike anyone else as bizarre that we heard about video review for whether the ball crossed the line or not for YEARS but there was always push back because they didn't want to slow down the game. The proper technology had to be developed so that the ref could be notified within a second that a goal had been scored.

Now all of a sudden they are fine with playing on for who knows how long after an incident occurs, which will eventually render the rest of the play meaningless, then have the ref stop the play for 2 or 3 minutes (as pointed out by YEG Round Baller before, that's not very clear and obvious if it takes that long to figure it out), then another few seconds to jog over to the screen, then another little while to view the play. Several minutes can go by in the process for a single call, and it happens much more often than a controversial call about whether the ball crossed the line or not. They have completely forgotten about the prerequisites that goal line technology had to clear before being introduced.

I don't have any faith that clearer minds will prevail and ask themselves if VAR can make the game more enjoyable, instead of getting caught up with the unicorn-like idea of a perfectly called game. This is real life sports with infinite possibilities, not a video game with a finite number of lines of code, and a finite pixel count.

[The Ref]

So far at the Copa America the VAR has overruled the referee 19 times voiding goals that both the AR and the Ref. gave as legit.  It's gotten to the point that nobody cheers or celebrate goals because they get called back.  Whose dumb idea was the VAR in the first place?

 

[Kent]

10 hours ago, The Ref said:

So far at the Copa America the VAR has overruled the referee 19 times voiding goals that both the AR and the Ref. gave as legit.  It's gotten to the point that nobody cheers or celebrate goals because they get called back.  Whose dumb idea was the VAR in the first place?

 

Yeah, that's another problem I have with VAR. You end up half heartedly cheering a referee's signal instead of cheering the goal itself with your full enthusiasm. It used to be that if you thought the play might have been offside you have a quick glance at the referee's assistant and if the flag wasn't up, GO NUTS! Now you wait until the ball has been kicked off at half to know the goal can't be taken away from you.

I have a question for the The Ref. You seem to have some numbers at least for goals called back at Copa America. Do you know how many goals were "created" via VAR? Meaning, how many times were penalties awarded that resulted in goals? Or penalty retakes that resulted in goals. Or maybe even potentially red cards given via VAR where the benefiting team scored afterwards? Most changes to the game have historically been to try to increase scoring. But VAR might reduce scoring. It must at the very least be increasing the percentage of goals scored from the penalty spot. Stricter on offside means less open play goals, and stricter calls in the box means more penalties.

[The Ref]

From my last count the VAR as overruled the ref 22 times.  It may be more.  In the Chile Colombia the VAR disallowed 2 goals from Chile who eventually won on PKs.  In the Peru Uruguay the VAR disallowed 3 goals from Uruguay who eventually lost to Peru in PKs.  In my view the VAR is changing the outcome of the games based on technicalities of centimeters and forcing the ref in the field to acquiesce to the VAR.  I don't believe that teams try to score goals from some offside positions on purpose.  So is one to conclude that until now there were soooo many offsides that winning teams never deserved to win or lose.  Occasionally there may have been some teams' complaints but never have such number of complaints equal the number of VAR weird decisions.  To me something just doesn't make sense.

[The Ref]

The impact of the VAR has been so severe in terms of goals disallowed and PKs given for trifle touching and balls hitting hands or arms that one can conclude that Federations who can't afford VAR will crown champions and losers who could be suspect of missed referees' calls.  In other words some of the qualified teams 32 in MWC and 24 in WWC could be suspect of having make it by good old fashion referee calls that now such referees are virtually regarded as redundant by the VAR.  So all the soccer that is played by all ages around the world who do not have VAR their results cannot be trusted.  Am I crazy or what?

[The Ref]

Here are some up to date stats.  At the Copa America, so far, the VAR has intervened 28 times.  Of that 11 are disallowed goals and given 3 PKs.  The rest are a variety of stuff.  Information in Spanish obtained here http://www.lun.com/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?dt=2019-07-01&PaginaId=10&bodyid=0

Edited July 1, 2019 by The Ref