1st VAR at World Cup: France-Australia

[coachrefparent]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[watfly]

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

 

[Surfref]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Jumping is unnatural?

Please continue.

 

[watfly]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

*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.

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