1st VAR at World Cup: France-Australia

[Definitelynotanotherref]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[espola]

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]

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-sc...roversial-goal-vs-poland-video-164836351.html

So should the rules be changed or tweaked?

 

[Surfref]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.