# 1st VAR at World Cup: France-Australia



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 16, 2018)

Australia was putting up a good fight when a no-call penalty decision was reviewed by VAR. 60 seconds or so later, the referee whistles for VAR check and orders the penalty afterwards.

I didn't get a chance to check what was being said on FOX, but the English BBC broadcasters were almost unanimously and whole-heartedly against the decision. They were complaining that it "wasn't clear and obvious" and "the defender got the ball first".

Most people are thinking VAR is controversial, but I think it presents an interesting opportunity to see what refs would call if they had the same looks that people at home got. They are finally able to get back at the armchair referee's and pull up a seat of their own; and much to the dismay of most people, they are realizing that maybe referees are intentionally calling soccer in a way that they could only previously explained away as "blind referee". Without that excuse anymore, they are forced to realize that either their understanding of the game was off all this time, or still think that they know more than 5 world class officials.

What do you all think of VAR? Is it doing more harm than good? Is it opening new problems and fans are just as screwed either way? Does it disrupt the game?


----------



## baldref (Jun 17, 2018)

i like goal line technology. don't like VAR.


----------



## Surfref (Jun 17, 2018)

I am not a fan of VAR mainly because it is too slow in a game that can change in seconds.  The goal line technology worked perfectly in the FRA vs AUS game.


----------



## Frank (Jun 17, 2018)

I like goal line and red card review. Both have such a huge impact on game that you want to be 100% correct.


----------



## coachrefparent (Jun 17, 2018)

I wish they would implement Flopping VAR, and amend the LOTG, so that flops, (including rolling around and faking an ankle injury, etc, looking like you need a helicopter ride to the hospital,  then running full speed as soon as play resumes), can be sanctioned by issuance of a yellow at any point by the VAR crew. There are so many blatant replays of fake fouls and acting.

This would return the game to what is should be, and bring the game on the field in line with what we all see in HD and 4k, without all the theatrics and foolish looking fish.


----------



## espola (Jun 17, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> I wish they would implement Flopping VAR, and amend the LOTG, so that flops, (including rolling around and faking an ankle injury, etc, looking like you need a helicopter ride to the hospital,  then running full speed as soon as play resumes), can be sanctioned by issuance of a yellow at any point by the VAR crew. There are so many blatant replays of fake fouls and acting.
> 
> This would return the game to what is should be, and bring the game on the field in line with what we all see in HD and 4k, without all the theatrics and foolish looking fish.


Return?


----------



## Surfref (Jun 18, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> I wish they would implement Flopping VAR, and amend the LOTG, so that flops, (including rolling around and faking an ankle injury, etc, looking like you need a helicopter ride to the hospital,  then running full speed as soon as play resumes), can be sanctioned by issuance of a yellow at any point by the VAR crew. There are so many blatant replays of fake fouls and acting.....


They could call it the Neymar Rule. Neymar's theatrics in the Brazil vs Switzerland game yesterday set a new standard for bad acting and faking an injury.  The ref should have given him a Yellow card for the first flop and maybe we would not have had to watch him flop and roll around like he was going to die another 20 times.


----------



## watfly (Jun 18, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> I wish they would implement Flopping VAR, and amend the LOTG, so that flops, (including rolling around and faking an ankle injury, etc, looking like you need a helicopter ride to the hospital,  then running full speed as soon as play resumes), can be sanctioned by issuance of a yellow at any point by the VAR crew. There are so many blatant replays of fake fouls and acting.
> 
> This would return the game to what is should be, and bring the game on the field in line with what we all see in HD and 4k, without all the theatrics and foolish looking fish.


I think in some cases the flopping is backfiring on the players (unfortunately though not enough to stop it).  Refs already apply a higher standard in the box and floppers are exaggerating legit fouls and wondering why they didn't get the call.  It can make it difficult for a ref in real time to differentiate between what is foul and what is acting,  Refs understandably err on the side of no call or don't give floppers the benefit of the doubt.

I wasn't a fan of VAR initially but after seeing games like the last El Clasico you have to wonder if it hasn't become necessary.  Is it truly realistic with the speed of the modern game to expect a single CR to accurately officiate 2 acres of turf?


----------



## coachrefparent (Jun 18, 2018)

watfly said:


> I wasn't a fan of VAR initially but after seeing games like the last El Clasico you have to wonder if it hasn't become necessary.  Is it truly realistic with the speed of the modern game to expect a single CR to accurately officiate 2 acres of turf?


It's absurd. NFL has a much smaller field and most plays cover an area of about 50x15 yards. The plays last about 4-10 seconds each, and the officials reset to a new position each play.  They have 7 officials, all with whistles, and they blow calls all the time. 

The ask of a referee in soccer is irrational and outdated, just like the people running the sport. There should be a minimum of 1 referee and AR per half of the field, all 4 of them with whistles.  

Then make any player that trolls around, yelling, and grimacing, while holding his ankle, exit the game for a minimum of 2 minutes. For his own safety of course.


----------



## outside! (Jun 18, 2018)

Safety first!


----------



## espola (Jun 18, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> It's absurd. NFL has a much smaller field and most plays cover an area of about 50x15 yards. The plays last about 4-10 seconds each, and the officials reset to a new position each play.  They have 7 officials, all with whistles, and they blow calls all the time.
> 
> The ask of a referee in soccer is irrational and outdated, just like the people running the sport. There should be a minimum of 1 referee and AR per half of the field, all 4 of them with whistles.
> 
> Then make any player that trolls around, yelling, and grimacing, while holding his ankle, exit the game for a minimum of 2 minutes. For his own safety of course.


And do something about the clock, at least in pro and international games that can afford to pay a real timekeeper.  The NCAA figured this out years ago.


----------



## Surfref (Jun 19, 2018)

espola said:


> And do something about the clock, at least in pro and international games that can afford to pay a real timekeeper.  The NCAA figured this out years ago.


And how would you suggest time be regulated?


----------



## espola (Jun 19, 2018)

Surfref said:


> And how would you suggest time be regulated?


Fourth official would operate the clock, referee could signal that it be stopped for incidents that would otherwise allegedly lead to adding extra time (such as injuries, substitutions, cards), and the referee could order the clock to be set to any value as needed to correct mistakes or make the game fair.


----------



## coachrefparent (Jun 19, 2018)

espola said:


> Fourth official would operate the clock, referee could signal that it be stopped for incidents that would otherwise allegedly lead to adding extra time (such as injuries, substitutions, cards), and the referee could order the clock to be set to any value as needed to correct mistakes or make the game fair.


But then how would the referee let the game continue  until the ball reaches the neutral third, or after a corner kick is taken, as mandated by the laws of the game?


----------



## Surfref (Jun 19, 2018)

espola said:


> Fourth official would operate the clock, referee could signal that it be stopped for incidents that would otherwise allegedly lead to adding extra time (such as injuries, substitutions, cards), and the referee could order the clock to be set to any value as needed to correct mistakes or make the game fair.


And what would happen if there is no 4th official and just the CR and ARs like in a youth game?


----------



## espola (Jun 19, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> But then how would the referee let the game continue  until the ball reaches the neutral third, or after a corner kick is taken, as mandated by the laws of the game?


It could be a soft finish - game ends at the next dead ball after time runs out, like the NFL or  "ball was in the air" in the NBA.  Of course, there would have to be some recognition of cynical strategic play, such as a foul by the team leading (or benefitting most from a draw) in order to create a dead ball situation when the opponents are on the attack.


----------



## espola (Jun 19, 2018)

Surfref said:


> And what would happen if there is no 4th official and just the CR and ARs like in a youth game?


No changes - as I stated before - " pro and international games that can afford to pay a real timekeeper".


----------



## Surfref (Jun 19, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> But then how would the referee let the game continue  until the ball reaches the neutral third, or after a corner kick is taken, as mandated by the laws of the game?


Where exactly does it mandate in the LOTG 2018-2019 that time cannot end before a corner kick is taken or the ball in the neutral third?  I know it is not in Law 5, 7, 10 or Practical Guidelines for Match Officials.  The Referee is the time keeper and can add additional time for reasons specified in the LOTG Law 7 (if allowed by the gaming authority aka league or tournament).  I would normally not end a game before a corner kick, but have done it when the gaming authority rules state no additional time is allowed or the games are running late and I need to get the next game started.


----------



## younothat (Jun 19, 2018)

Wow talk about your judgement error in the Poland vs Senegal game where the Senegal sub is waved on at mid field while Poland has the ball and runs on to get a breakaway goal .

VAR i guess does'nt apply to this one,  shame because we all make mistakes and this one was not good game management.


----------



## espola (Jun 19, 2018)

younothat said:


> Wow talk about your judgement error in the Poland vs Senegal game where the Senegal sub is waved on at mid field while Poland has the ball and runs on to get a breakaway goal .
> 
> VAR i guess does'nt apply to this one,  shame because we all make mistakes and this one was not good game management.


The referee waved the player on when Poland had control (sort of - a long header vaguely in direction of the goal), and then picked a bad moment  to get their keeper involved.


----------



## coachrefparent (Jun 19, 2018)

Surfref said:


> Where exactly does it mandate in the LOTG 2018-2019 that time cannot end before a corner kick is taken or the ball in the neutral third?  I know it is not in Law 5, 7, 10 or Practical Guidelines for Match Officials.  The Referee is the time keeper and can add additional time for reasons specified in the LOTG Law 7 (if allowed by the gaming authority aka league or tournament).  I would normally not end a game before a corner kick, but have done it when the gaming authority rules state no additional time is allowed or the games are running late and I need to get the next game started.


In the thousands of soccer matches, this is how they all seem to finish, making sure the offense gets its "last chance" even if time has well run out. So I thought I just missed something buried in the laws (not really.) 

Of course the laws don't say that, which was really my sarcastic point.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 19, 2018)

younothat said:


> Wow talk about your judgement error in the Poland vs Senegal game where the Senegal sub is waved on at mid field while Poland has the ball and runs on to get a breakaway goal .
> 
> VAR i guess does'nt apply to this one,  shame because we all make mistakes and this one was not good game management.


The Laws of the Game should not bail out defenders who make obvious mistakes. This was the entire philosophy behind the new offside interpretations.

There was no reason that the referee shouldn't have waved on the player at that moment. A mistake could have occurred at any moment. What if the referee waited 5 seconds, maybe the defender makes a bad pass and the intercepted ball is then passed to the oncoming player who is unmarked and then scores. What if the referee wait to wave on the player until the ball is in the attacking third and at that moment the goalie intercepts it and punts it to the wide open newly entered man who can score with an easy counter attack.

My point is that the fault is with the mistake, not the referee. A mistake could have happened at any time and a referee can not and should not operate under the premise that he should expect a mistake to occur at every moment. There was no bad management, just unlucky.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 19, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> It's absurd. NFL has a much smaller field and most plays cover an area of about 50x15 yards. The plays last about 4-10 seconds each, and the officials reset to a new position each play.  They have 7 officials, all with whistles, and they blow calls all the time.
> 
> The ask of a referee in soccer is irrational and outdated, just like the people running the sport. There should be a minimum of 1 referee and AR per half of the field, all 4 of them with whistles.
> 
> Then make any player that trolls around, yelling, and grimacing, while holding his ankle, exit the game for a minimum of 2 minutes. For his own safety of course.


Refereeing high school with 2 whistles is a nightmare in and of itself. 4 whistles sounds like pandemonium for me.

Unlike soccer, footballs laws are much more straightforward, with the exception of pass interference. Soccer has many more judgement calls. People complain about the embarrassing flopping in soccer, that is because of the judgement nature of most calls. Notice that the one aspect of American football that has a modicum of flopping (OMG pass interference, referee bail me out of having to display skill) is in the one judgement area of football.

Any good referee know that their primary job is not and enforcer of the laws, but rather as a game and player manager. You need 1, main, "consistent", and authoritative voice to manage the game. You don't want too many cooks in the kitchen. More than one referee with a whistle is like having a kid with divorced parents. (OMG that ref didn't make the call I wanted so I will go to the other referee with a whistle and ask him to change the call or at least make a balancing call later in the game).


----------



## baldref (Jun 19, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> Refereeing high school with 2 whistles is a nightmare in and of itself. 4 whistles sounds like pandemonium for me.
> 
> Unlike soccer, footballs laws are much more straightforward, with the exception of pass interference. Soccer has many more judgement calls. People complain about the embarrassing flopping in soccer, that is because of the judgement nature of most calls. Notice that the one aspect of American football that has a modicum of flopping (OMG pass interference, referee bail me out of having to display skill) is in the one judgement area of football.
> 
> Any good referee know that their primary job is not and enforcer of the laws, but rather as a game and player manager. You need 1, main, "consistent", and authoritative voice to manage the game. You don't want too many cooks in the kitchen. More than one referee with a whistle is like having a kid with divorced parents. (OMG that ref didn't make the call I wanted so I will go to the other referee with a whistle and ask him to change the call or at least make a balancing call later in the game).


Excellent opinion. I agree wholeheartedly. One of the reasons I don’t do highscholl anymore. Two whistles only works well when you have two referees who are in tune. Very rarely is that the case. It leads to confusion and embarrassment quite often.


----------



## espola (Jun 21, 2018)

I thought one of the strengths of VAR was supposed to be that we wouldn't get horrid decisions like that (Australia-Denmark).


----------



## watfly (Jun 21, 2018)

So far VAR has awarded 5 penalty kicks and were not even through the 2nd round.  That statistic pretty much speaks for itself.


----------



## Surfref (Jun 21, 2018)

I thought the VAR handling in the Denmark vs Australia game today was correct and did not take a lot of time to away from the game for the ref to make the decision.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 21, 2018)

espola said:


> I thought one of the strengths of VAR was supposed to be that we wouldn't get horrid decisions like that (Australia-Denmark).


Mark Geiger (USA ref) was the lead VAR that called for the review on the handling in the Denmark game. He also did a handling no-call in the Morocco - Portugal game. To the untrained eye, they look to be the same, but one is clearly ball to hand and not deliberate, whereas in the Denmark - Australia game, the defender was making himself bigger by extending his hand there.

I also wish my head could be in two places at once by extending the area that I am covering by putting my hand adjacent to my head.


----------



## espola (Jun 21, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> Mark Geiger (USA ref) was the lead VAR that called for the review on the handling in the Denmark game. He also did a handling no-call in the Morocco - Portugal game. To the untrained eye, they look to be the same, but one is clearly ball to hand and not deliberate, whereas in the Denmark - Australia game, the defender was making himself bigger by extending his hand there.
> 
> I also wish my head could be in two places at once by extending the area that I am covering by putting my hand adjacent to my head.


His arms were in an awkward position because he was jumping and twisting trying to head the ball beside an opponent who was doing the same.  The ball changed direction 1/10 second before it hit his hand because the opponent got to it first.  Somebody posted a screen shot that shows he had his eyes closed anticipating a collision.  I used to argue that deliberate is a synonym for intentional,  but now it seems FIFA has managed to make it mean nothing at all.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 21, 2018)

Surfref said:


> I thought the VAR handling in the Denmark vs Australia game today was correct and did not take a lot of time to away from the game for the ref to make the decision.


You must watch the EPL more. I agree that the 1st iterations of video replay were slow and cumbersome like in the F.A. Cup. But the version of VAR at the World Cup has been fast and unobtrusive. This VAR is modeled off the MLS (which I watch more of) and I think the results in the World Cup and MLS were both great and quick.

You mentioned before that you didn't like the concept of VAR because it was slow and intrusive, but I think you have not really witnessed this version in action. The statistic in the MLS is there is 1 full VAR review every 3 games and the average time VAR takes is 1:16 per game. I assure you more time is wasted with so called injuries and real injuries. Also this is my mental image of baldref:


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 21, 2018)

espola said:


> His arms were in an awkward position


I think that statement says it all right there. If you look at the FIFA considerations for handling, one of them asks if the arms were in an unnatural or natural position.

At no point has deliberate been a synonym for intentional. FIFA would just change the word to intentional if that is what they meant. Deliberate is something way more nuanced, hence, the reason handling is such a mystery to most people. If you are really interested in knowing the nuances, I can post the considerations and a YouTube video that might clear up some of the muddy waters that is handling.


----------



## espola (Jun 21, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> I think that statement says it all right there. If you look at the FIFA considerations for handling, one of them asks if the arms were in an unnatural or natural position.
> 
> At no point has deliberate been a synonym for intentional. FIFA would just change the word to intentional if that is what they meant. Deliberate is something way more nuanced, hence, the reason handling is such a mystery to most people. If you are really interested in knowing the nuances, I can post the considerations and a YouTube video that might clear up some of the muddy waters that is handling.


A few years ago they scrubbed almost all of the mentions of "intentional" from LOTG and supporting documents.  However, they do not controll the English language (yet).

 There is nothing unnatural about using one's arms for balance while jumping.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 21, 2018)

espola said:


> There is nothing unnatural about using one's arms for balance while jumping.


Yes, but the action of jumping is unnatural. Especially jumping with you hand next to your head.




There is a 19 minute version of this video, but I think this will suffice.


----------



## baldref (Jun 21, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> You must watch the EPL more. I agree that the 1st iterations of video replay were slow and cumbersome like in the F.A. Cup. But the version of VAR at the World Cup has been fast and unobtrusive. This VAR is modeled off the MLS (which I watch more of) and I think the results in the World Cup and MLS were both great and quick.
> 
> You mentioned before that you didn't like the concept of VAR because it was slow and intrusive, but I think you have not really witnessed this version in action. The statistic in the MLS is there is 1 full VAR review every 3 games and the average time VAR takes is 1:16 per game. I assure you more time is wasted with so called injuries and real injuries. Also this is my mental image of baldref:


I thought I could stay unknown, but you found me out


----------



## espola (Jun 21, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> Yes, but the action of jumping is unnatural. Especially jumping with you hand next to your head.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jumping is unnatural?

Please continue.


----------



## watfly (Jun 21, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> I also wish my head could be in two places at once by extending the area that I am covering by putting my hand adjacent to my head.


That's actually proper technique for heading and jumping.







Definitelynotanotherref said:


> If you look at the FIFA considerations for handling, one of them asks if the arms were in an unnatural or natural position.


I know that USSF issued a 2009 directive that mentioned natural/unnatural as a consideration but that consideration was neither solely dispositive of handling nor did it turn an otherwise non-deliberate act into a deliberate act.  I'm not aware that FIFA/IFAB has published any guidance regarding the concept of unnatural/natural.  What guidance would that be?

Here is an article from a referee that was a national ref trainer, advisor to the USSF and editor of Referee magazine, who gives very little credibility to the "notion"(as he calls it) of unnatural vs natural. http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/the-handball-violation/


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 21, 2018)

espola said:


> Jumping is unnatural?
> 
> Please continue.


*sigh*This will be a long one. And it answers _watfly's_ response at the bottom.

Updated FIFA considerations (2017):
42.Does the hand move towards the ball or does the ball move towards the hand?
43.Is the player’s hand or arm in a “natural position” or an “unnatural position”
44.Does the player attempt to avoid the ball striking the hand?

*1. Consideration 42:* When the defender jumped forward in the den-aus game, his hand moved with his body, so it is argued here that his hand moved towards the ball.
*2. Consideration 43*:Here the defender jumps unnaturally. Go ahead and jump straight up and down in your room right now and pantomime a header. Your hands will start by your shoulders and end up around your belly at the apex of the jump. That is what a natural straight up and down header looks like. So any deviation from this _standard_ motion is considered, abnormal aka. _unnatural_. Because this defender was not perfectly positioned under the ball, he had to contort his body differently so he could rebalance himself to get his head in the path of the ball. Unfortunately for him, his hand also went into the path of the ball.
*3. Consideration 44:* is the most interesting to me. In professional play, referees expect an active attempt to avoid handling when possible. This is why you see many defenders defend with their arms behind their back. I've seen the ball still hit the arms behind the back, but those are never called (even though running around with your hands behind your back is hardly "natural" - here we see one of the differences between the dictionary definition of natural and the soccer definition).
*4. Still on Consideration 44:* H
is hand was in a position before the header that was DIRECTLY INBETWEEN where the ball was and where it needed to go to score a goal. Not only that, his hand was next to his head, essentially doubling the area that his body was covering. Whether this was intentional or not doesn't make that much of a difference. It is his job as a defender to make sure that he is trying to avoid handling contact. You argue that he had no time to react to the ball. Maybe no time to react from the time the ball was headed, but every defender knows that their opponent is trying to redirect the ball towards goal. That is why he tried to put his head there. Ultimately, he allowed his hand to drift into the contested area which is careless. And careless is the first mark of a DFK foul.​
*5. The National Training video:* If we take the philosophy of the video I posted, we want to reward good attacking soccer and penalize a defender for over-extending or mispositioning. Here the attacker pretty much jumped straight up and down. The defender was mispositioned so he did not. As _espola_ observed, it was awkward. Much like a slide tackle is considered an overextending last ditch attempt to stop an attacker, an unnatural jump is an overextending last ditch attempt to stop an attacker. The defender took a gamble, like you do when you slide, and his gamble did not pay off.​ 
Jumping itself is not unnatural, but there are many more ways to jump unnaturally than naturally. My bad for not having perfect clarity on the internet.

The attacking philosophy mentioned in the video you can see permeated all throughout soccer. All the laws are trying to make soccer higher scoring. That is why the new offside laws don't protect defenders that make mistakes, why the goal was not called back when the attacker was waved on and scored, and why there are way more penalty kicks in soccer than before. Before, if perfect defending met perfect attacking, perfect defending would win. But now, perfect attacking has the advantage.

But wait, there is more. If this same exact play happened in a Presidio GU16 game and I had the benefit of VAR. I would not have called it. Perhaps you are expecting some consistency between youth league soccer and World Cup Football. Why would I call it differently you may ask? Because of considerations 43 and 44. First of all, for whatever reason, women tend to place both their hands directly above their shoulders when they go for a header. So for women to go up for a header with their hands there is generally considered to be "natural". Furthermore, you have to take the skill of the players into account, especially for consideration 44. Pros should be, and are, way more aware of their body than all youth.

Lastly, for _watfly's_ video. That is an instructional video for forwards to get power. Notice the defenders technique at 1:30. Its much closer to the point I make in point #2. Additionally, the forwards hands aren't that high at the apex of his jump, considering he is using his hand to propel himself upwards. And final point. If you pause the video at 0:55 when he is preparing to jump. If the ball hit his hands then, I don't care how natural and proper that heading technique is, I am still calling handling there.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 21, 2018)

watfly said:


> I know that USSF issued a 2009 directive that mentioned natural/unnatural as a consideration but that consideration was neither solely dispositive of handling nor did it turn an otherwise non-deliberate act into a deliberate act.  I'm not aware that FIFA/IFAB has published any guidance regarding the concept of unnatural/natural.  What guidance would that be?
> 
> Here is an article from a referee that was a national ref trainer, advisor to the USSF and editor of Referee magazine, who gives very little credibility to the "notion"(as he calls it) of unnatural vs natural. http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/the-handball-violation/


That article was aimed at most parents that are uneducated and don't understand handball. It is not meant to be taken as an interpretation of the law. If the only thing readers got out of that article was that "nothing is a handball", that's a win in my book lol.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 21, 2018)

watfly said:


> I know that USSF issued a 2009 directive that mentioned natural/unnatural as a consideration but that consideration was neither solely dispositive of handling nor did it turn an otherwise non-deliberate act into a deliberate act.  I'm not aware that FIFA/IFAB has published any guidance regarding the concept of unnatural/natural.  What guidance would that be?


 For the more perceptive and aware parents and players. Most guidance is not published and is given in lectures like in the video I posted. You are right that nat/unat is not conclusive by itself. It is 1 of 9 considerations. There is a lot to the referee's discretion, but at the highest level, they want to be consistent across all referees and games. The video I posted earlier is a national instructor attempting to define natural/unnatural. And that involves sharing a soccer philosophy that all referees should share.

All that being said, we are continually being educated on the laws. In fact, next week, I have a session specifically on handling as a part of the D.A. summer showcase referee training program.


----------



## espola (Jun 21, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> *sigh*This will be a long one. And it answers _watfly's_ response at the bottom.
> 
> Updated FIFA considerations (2017):
> 42.Does the hand move towards the ball or does the ball move towards the hand?
> ...


On the bigsoccer.com referee forum discussing this play, there was a divided opinion.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 21, 2018)

espola said:


> On the bigsoccer.com referee forum discussing this play, there was a divided opinion.


 Unfortunately, not all referee's are on the same page. That just means that some of them are wrong, and some of them are right. I will lean on the side of 5 hand picked, World class referees who all had the advantage of slow motion replay. Somehow I imagine they have had more training than the exclusive forum on bigsoccer.com.


----------



## espola (Jun 21, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> Unfortunately, not all referee's are on the same page. That just means that some of them are wrong, and some of them are right. I will lean on the side of 5 hand picked, World class referees who all had the advantage of slow motion replay. Somehow I imagine they have had more training than the exclusive forum on bigsoccer.com.


Appeal to authority is usually seen as a feature of a weak argument.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 21, 2018)

espola said:


> Appeal to authority is usually seen as a feature of a weak argument.


Darn, someone that took a Logic 101 class. Well then I take your appeal to authority fallacy and counter it with bandwagon fallacy (bigsoccer.com). Then I raise you a fallacy fallacy. (Just because I use a logical fallacy does not mean my conclusion is incorrect.

Then I will point out that my appeal to authority came after my detailed post defending my position. Rather than address my points that I backed up with the law and FIFA considerations, you countered with "well not all referees agree", which neither acknowledges nor disproves my arguments. Seeing that logic and patient reasoning did not work, I resorted to humiliation via logical fallacy, which is the only thing logical fallacies are actually good for.

I also acknowledged your (bad) argument by agreeing that not all referee's agree (if even all people on the referee forum are referees).


----------



## espola (Jun 22, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> Darn, someone that took a Logic 101 class. Well then I take your appeal to authority fallacy and counter it with bandwagon fallacy (bigsoccer.com). Then I raise you a fallacy fallacy. (Just because I use a logical fallacy does not mean my conclusion is incorrect.
> 
> Then I will point out that my appeal to authority came after my detailed post defending my position. Rather than address my points that I backed up with the law and FIFA considerations, you countered with "well not all referees agree", which neither acknowledges nor disproves my arguments. Seeing that logic and patient reasoning did not work, I resorted to humiliation via logical fallacy, which is the only thing logical fallacies are actually good for.
> 
> I also acknowledged your (bad) argument by agreeing that not all referee's agree (if even all people on the referee forum are referees).


Your detailed points were covered pretty well in the bigsoccer discussion.  The opposing arguments were also covered pretty well.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 22, 2018)

espola said:


> Your detailed points were covered pretty well in the bigsoccer discussion.  The opposing arguments were also covered pretty well.


I will look closer at the arguments tomorrow. I can sort of already imagine some of them. There is a reason they are called "considerations". It is because they are not authoritative or conclusive, they are just posed questions to think about in the few milliseconds most referees have to make their decisions.

In practice, out on the field without VAR, most referee will err on the side of making a no call. We are instructed as referees to only make calls that we are sure about (over 95% sure). You will rarely see this handball called on any pitch that doesn't require an admission fee. The problem I see on a lot of referee forums is that there is a lot of "this is what I would call in my game". This lends an interesting dichotomy where both the professional referees and the keyboard warriors are correct. Both games are different enough that the correct decision is the opposite depending on the league. If I called fouls like they do in the World Cup at my next Adult Men's game, I would be chased off the pitch.

Professional referees have to deal with high definition, slow-motion, multiple camera angles that dissect every little detail of the game, so naturally they have to call it differently and closer to the letter of the law in order for them to defend themselves. They are also required to be, for the most part, in sync with their peers. In amateur soccer, the referee is entitled to reffing the game "his way". Does he call a tight Napoleonic game or does he "let them play"? But PRO refs need to be consistent not only within the game, but with each other. It is easier to set clear definable boundaries and stick to them than tell them they should all "let them play" and then expect that all the games will be called similarly.


----------



## espola (Jun 22, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> I will look closer at the arguments tomorrow. I can sort of already imagine some of them. There is a reason they are called "considerations". It is because they are not authoritative or conclusive, they are just posed questions to think about in the few milliseconds most referees have to make their decisions.
> 
> In practice, out on the field without VAR, most referee will err on the side of making a no call. We are instructed as referees to only make calls that we are sure about (over 95% sure). You will rarely see this handball called on any pitch that doesn't require an admission fee. The problem I see on a lot of referee forums is that there is a lot of "this is what I would call in my game". This lends an interesting dichotomy where both the professional referees and the keyboard warriors are correct. Both games are different enough that the correct decision is the opposite depending on the league. If I called fouls like they do in the World Cup at my next Adult Men's game, I would be chased off the pitch.
> 
> Professional referees have to deal with high definition, slow-motion, multiple camera angles that dissect every little detail of the game, so naturally they have to call it differently and closer to the letter of the law in order for them to defend themselves. They are also required to be, for the most part, in sync with their peers. In amateur soccer, the referee is entitled to reffing the game "his way". Does he call a tight Napoleonic game or does he "let them play"? But PRO refs need to be consistent not only within the game, but with each other. It is easier to set clear definable boundaries and stick to them than tell them they should all "let them play" and then expect that all the games will be called similarly.


If you are going to be reading the bigsoccer discussion, click over to the discussion about the referee of the Argentina-Croatia game as well.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 22, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> Most people are thinking VAR is controversial, but I think it presents an interesting opportunity to see what refs would call if they had the same looks that people at home got. They are finally able to get back at the armchair referee's and pull up a seat of their own; and much to the dismay of most people, they are realizing that maybe referees are intentionally calling soccer in a way that they could only previously explained away as "blind referee". Without that excuse anymore, they are forced to realize that either their understanding of the game was off all this time, or still think that they know more than 5 world class officials.


I would like to direct attention to the original observation, which was that VAR would create discussion about the nitty-gritty, hyper-specialized, and obscure portions of the law. Originally, fouls that the referee did not call because he could not be 100% sure about them, are now being called because they have the same opportunity as we do to slo-motion review them. This of course mean more PK's and the chance for everyone to see what calling soccer to the letter of the book looks like.

No one was prepared to VAR to do this to the game (except highly trained officials) because they did not know exactly what the Laws of the Game entailed. The Laws and considerations were always shrouded in mystery and all the controversial decisions were explained away as the referee probably needed a slightly better angle. I think it is fascinating to see what these professionals consider 100% accurate calls. Especially when people are baffled how that is a 100% right call

Let's not lose sight of what needs to happen for a VAR check to happen. A Center referee needs to make a call, and then 4 World class referees of all different nationalities need to slo-mo review it and generally agree (The lead VAR has the final say so it need not be unanimous) that there was a clear and obvious error. Not a maybe, a definitely. All maybes are left to the discretion of the on-field referee. Then the Center referee has to watch his own call in slow-motion and then decide if he wants to stick with his call, or swallow his pride, admit he made a mistake, and reverse his own call.

Every VAR call made can't be an accident so you have to decide in each case: Is it 1. correct 2.corrupt 3.Incorrect. I don't think that is a false trichotomy. If you think its incorrect, you will definitely be under scrutiny by me because I will ask you "What information do you have that the Pro's didn't have or know". And if you think it is corrupt, well then I can't really help you as I don't know what goes on in FIFA.​


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 22, 2018)

I personally love VAR, I don't think it takes too much time, it gets rid of the embarrassing no-brainer calls and no calls that have decided big games before, and it potentially adds educational opportunities for the VAR decisions made on the margin. But hey, I'm young and think technology is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I think the best argument against VAR is that some fouls look worse in slow-motion that they do in real time. I imagine learning how to defend will have to fundamentally change in the era of VAR.

So everyone, keep commenting on all the controversial VAR calls.
Because of Murphy's Law (and statistics), we will no doubt have a controversial VAR decision in the Semi's or Finals. I look forward to the future discussions. Everyone on this site seems fairly educated about the general laws of the game (yes even the parents). But I'm excited to dig into the more nuanced parts of the Laws.​


----------



## espola (Jun 22, 2018)

VAR got it right - Neymar was touched and then dove.  But why was there no yellow for simulation, and why was the restart a drop to the keeper?


----------



## Surfref (Jun 22, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> There is a reason they are called "considerations". It is because they are not authoritative or conclusive, they are just posed questions to think about in the few milliseconds most referees have to make their decisions......


Most non-referees and some referees have never heard of the Considerations.  Just look at the RPD training in San Diego.  There is normally only between 30-60 referees in attendance each month out of at least a 1000 in SD County. Many referees have only heard of the considerations during a monthly association meeting and have never seen or used them.  They are fairly easy to find if you know where to look. The other problem is that since last October I have received hard copies of three different versions all titled 2017 FIFA Considerations Updated.  I use the current ones on the CalSouth website.   

For you non-referees and the referees that do not have a copy of the considerations, they can be found at the Cal South website under FIFA Considerations:  http://www.calsouth.com/en/referees/laws-of-the-game/


----------



## espola (Jun 22, 2018)

VAR got the Iceland penalty right, but I don't know why the ref needed any help there.


----------



## espola (Jun 22, 2018)

Surfref said:


> Most non-referees and some referees have never heard of the Considerations.  Just look at the RPD training in San Diego.  There is normally only between 30-60 referees in attendance each month out of at least a 1000 in SD County. Many referees have only heard of the considerations during a monthly association meeting and have never seen or used them.  They are fairly easy to find if you know where to look. The other problem is that since last October I have received hard copies of three different versions all titled 2017 FIFA Considerations Updated.  I use the current ones on the CalSouth website.
> 
> For you non-referees and the referees that do not have a copy of the considerations, they can be found at the Cal South website under FIFA Considerations:  http://www.calsouth.com/en/referees/laws-of-the-game/


Do you carry that entire list in your pocket during games?


----------



## younothat (Jun 22, 2018)

NGA vs IRL VAR review 81m for a potential PK foul in the box .   VAR review and the ref made the call after going to the monitor, seem like the correct decision

Poland vs Senegal game that I posted about before was that my gut instinct was that the ref could have manged that sub better as I watched live but I would agree after the replays that the goal was good, the fault and mistake was with the  Polish players.

Of course Poland was upset, Senegal scores 2018 World Cup's most bizarre, controversial goal vs. Poland (Video)
https://sports.yahoo.com/senegal-scores-2018-world-cups-bizarre-controversial-goal-vs-poland-video-164836351.html

So should the rules be changed or tweaked?


----------



## Surfref (Jun 22, 2018)

espola said:


> Do you carry that entire list in your pocket during games?


No, the list comes up on the heads up display on my Google glasses 

Of course we do not carry the list around.  That is what training is for.  During training we watch scenarios and use the Consideration to justify why or why not to make the call.  A lot of the Considerations are questions referees have been asking themselves for years.  It has also been used at the professional level for years and started to be consistently incorporated into the So Cal referee training a few years ago.  I first saw it at a Grade 6 recertification training session about 6 years ago.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 22, 2018)

espola said:


> VAR got it right - Neymar was touched and then dove.  But why was there no yellow for simulation, and why was the restart a drop to the keeper?


It is frustrating for me because I would love to give a yellow to Neymar there, but our instructions pretty much boil down to: we can only give a yellow for diving if there is zero contact. Because there was contact, there is reasonable doubt so we can't give the yellow. Instead the contact was seen by VAR as trifling, and not enough for a foul, so no PK, no card for diving.

Trust me, I have dreams where a player gets elbowed in the gut and then proceeds to holds his face and then I give a yellow to both players. Yellow for the reckless elbow, the other for the exaggerated simulation. Or when a player is simply tripped and then tumbles 20 times and cries bloody murder, I grant the team the foul they deserve, but issue a yellow to the player. Alas, only in my dreams.

Oh, the restart was because the referee blew his whistle inadvertently  while the ball was in play (that is what it is considered according to the laws)
There was no foul by anyone, just a no call. That's why dropped ball.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 22, 2018)

younothat said:


> Of course Poland was upset, Senegal scores 2018 World Cup's most bizarre, controversial goal vs. Poland.
> So should the rules be changed or tweaked?


I think the only viable replacement to the rule is that the injured player can only re-enter when the ball is out of play. But, sometimes it can take 3-5 minutes before the ball is out of play, and to make a team play 10 men when they don't have to for that long seems unfair. There are pros and cons to both, I just think the cons to waving on a player at the referee discretion are minimal and the odds of it changing the game are astronomical, tell that to Poland though.


----------



## coachrefparent (Jun 22, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> I think the only viable replacement to the rule is that the injured player can only re-enter when the ball is out of play. But, sometimes it can take 3-5 minutes before the ball is out of play, and to make a team play 10 men when they don't have to for that long seems unfair. There are pros and cons to both, I just think the cons to waving on a player at the referee discretion are minimal and the odds of it changing the game are astronomical, tell that to Poland though.


In a game with 4++++ officials, played a high professional level (really at any level), an injured player should be able to come back whenever they want (excluding youth games where refs have made them sit for concussions, etc.) It's stupid for them to have to bow down and seek the permission of the referee, just like it's stupid when they have to stay on  the field to drink during a water break, or be subject to a yellow card. Lots of stupid laws and application.


----------



## espola (Jun 22, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> In a game with 4++++ officials, played a high professional level (really at any level), an injured player should be able to come back whenever they want (excluding youth games where refs have made them sit for concussions, etc.) It's stupid for them to have to bow down and seek the permission of the referee, just like it's stupid when they have to stay on  the field to drink during a water break, or be subject to a yellow card. Lots of stupid laws and application.


A lot of the existing laws are traditions left over from the days when teams could not afford to have substitutes, there was only one referee, and he was the only person present who owned a watch.  I know of one local referee who still insists that players tuck in their no-tuck jerseys.


----------



## espola (Jun 23, 2018)

Belgium 5:2 Tunisia  -- VAR got the PK call right - was that foul in the PA?  Yes.

The kind of game I like -- Lots of career highlight reel-worthy goals, not much nasty crap off the ball, and at the end both teams were friendly to each other and to the referee team.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jun 23, 2018)

espola said:


> A lot of the existing laws are traditions left over from the days when teams could not afford to have substitutes, there was only one referee, and he was the only person present who owned a watch.  I know of one local referee who still insists that players tuck in their no-tuck jerseys.


I know of him as well. He is also known for an infamous Holy Bowl (Cathedral v Saints) where he gave 14 yellow cards to players after they yelled "shit" after missing a shot or cross. He is currently on one of my 3 allowed "never make me work with this guy again" list.


----------

