Italy just had the equalizer taken away in the semis of the u20 WC. Foul for an elbow to the face called on VAR.

Unintentional. If I'm Italian I'm pissed.

I love VAR

As a referee, I have very mixed emotions about VAR.

For offside, yes, no problem. That's 100% an objective decision and we all want it correct. In practice, I think the tech is still not quite up to the task as you must sync the instant in time the ball is touched (not when it leave contact but when contact is first made) by the player making the touch with a body part that can legally play the ball by the player in an OS position. And all of that is subject to the frame rate limitation in the video.

For a goal, that's not VAR that goal line tech and its not really reviewed. Its basically the tennis Hawkeye line system and it immediately vibrates a band on the refs wrist when the whole ball crosses the whole line. There's no human in the loop.

In theory nonsense off the ball (VC in particular) should be a good idea. In practice I don't think that's always being done. The Mens WC in particular they just flat ignored it. Nikolas Otamenti committed VC twice. Both times in a dead ball situation, he kicked a ball in someone's face. It was blatant, it was with force and it was on purpose. Its 100% violent conduct. The CR either saw it and ignored it or didn't see it. It was caught on video for the entire world to see and the VAR could not possibly have missed it. And yet somehow he was never punished. You cannot explain that other than they (FIFA) has told referees including VAR that they should not use it for its intended purpose. If you aren't going to use it, why have it?

The handling stuff you see now is beyond dumb. Handing is really a subjective call. And VAR is being used here to rereferee the match (mostly). Some are missed, but most of this is the referee and their training saying "no PK" and the VAR is rerefereeing the match in a booth. In the WC last year one referee made the call of no PK, he got the buzz to look at it (and the VAR is basically saying you committed a "clear and obvious error"), he looked and decided he was right and VAR was wrong and went with his call. He got sent home. So the message was ignore VAR and you are done. That's rereferring a match.

Now in the U20 WC we are seeing VAR catch GKs off their line in very ticky tacky ways.on PK attempts. And they are getting carded for it.

Its gone way too far.

Mark my words. Theres going to a very big controversy in the WWC all because of VAR. The women who are reffing the matches basically have never used it and are struggling. Witness the incredible delays already with ARs not flagging offside. They are also calling handling very tight with it. And the new Law changes for GKs on PK attempts are going to cause issues. Something really bad is going to happen because of VAR. I would not be shocked to see a GK get carded out of a game because VAR says they cheated on a PK attempt. I hope not. Put I'm not holding my breath.

So, I have to comment on this and want your opinon. You said Offside is 100% objective. I disagree with that and wanted your opinion. (hijacking my own thread.) The laws state:

Quote:

---

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

• interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
• interfering with an opponent by:
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used

---

This part of the law seems really subjective. "Clearly obstructing line of vision"; "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close", ""clearly impacts". "obvious action which clearly impacts" To me, those are all subjective.

what is close? 1 inch? 1 foot? 1 yard?

Thoughts?

Yes that part is subjective but VAR as we see it is being used is focusing on the ball being played to an offside player. And in that usage it doesn't require an on field review. VAR just says "it's off" and the crew goes with the call.

mathguy86 said:

---

Yes that part is subjective but VAR as we see it is being used is focusing on the ball being played to an offside player. And in that usage it doesn't require an on field review. VAR just says "it's off" and the crew goes with the call.

---

Sorry.. You said offside was 100% objective and thought you meant all the time.

This is what really frustrates me with the inconsistency of this aspect of the law.

Sometimes it's called. Sometimes it's not.

The interference like shielding a GK from an offside position is rarely called. Offside is 99.99% of the time an objective decision. And that's where VAR works best. Really VAR is focusing on the objective question of position.

I also feel like all reviews, in all sports, need a short time clock. If you can't tell in 15 seconds, it's not obvious enough to overturn

The standard is supposed to be "a clear and obvious error". I have heard national refs suggest the training means "this is something that 95% of all referees believe was a mistake". The problem is it's it's not being used that way.

mathguy86 said:

---

The interference like shielding a GK from an offside position is rarely called. Offside is 99.99% of the time an objective decision. And that's where VAR works best. Really VAR is focusing on the objective question of position.

---

It gets called all the time in my daughters league.

Standing in front of a GK in an offside position does not constitute offside. You actively have to move with the ball to shield them while in an offside position and simultaneously not try and play the ball. I work an average of 200 games a year and can't recall the last time I had to make this call.

mathguy86 said:

---

Standing in front of a GK in an offside position does not constitute offside. You actively have to move with the ball to shield them while in an offside position and simultaneously not try and play the ball. I work an average of 200 games a year and can't recall the last time I had to make this call.

---

I've seen it called 4 times in the last year.

And then I have seen a player kick and miss at a cross in front of the keeper and it not called. Got that one on video. Would you like to give me your opinion?

Post the video.

mathguy86 said:

---

Post the video.

---

Will do in a bit.

You make the call. Sorry for the quality. It's my phone recording my laptop on Hudl. U12 v U13.

I can't see the entire field so its possible that a backside defender kept the center forward onside. Assuming that is not the case then that player is in an offside position at the time the ball is played and they attempted to play the ball. They missed and but they attempted to play the ball. Offside and not a subjective call IMHO. They are offside because they attempted to play a ball from an offside position. They are entitled to be in the position and that is not shielding the GK. That has nothing to do with it.

If there is a backside player I cannot see that kept them on then that is 100% not offside and a legal goal.

I can't see the AR so who knows where there were. They should be down the touchline at the same spot as that player. But referees miss calls. At the pro level thats what VAR is designed to fix.

Thanks for taking a look. While you can't see the field, you can see there is no one behind the dark haired defender. I accounted for everyone and she definitely is an offside position. The only players on the field not visible were the 2 strikers and left winger. All 4 defenders are in the video.

I had a ref on a message board tell me that he couldn't tell how close the girl was based on the video to kicking the ball. That's why I found the rule so subjective. She kicked and missed. Obviously she was close to it as she right next to the keeper after the ball goes by.

If she kicks at the ball after it goes into the net its a goal. Thats so late to be no longer relevant. If she starts to kick as it goes by the keeper who is clearly behind her that is also no longer relevant. It appears she started to kick as the ball passed her. Thats a fair attempt to play the ball from an offside position.

U12/13 and you probably had a younger AR I'm guessing? referees are learning to referee just as players are learning to play. And both make mistakes. Even old ones do, I promise.

mathguy86 said:

---

If she kicks at the ball after it goes into the net its a goal. Thats so late to be no longer relevant. If she starts to kick as it goes by the keeper who is clearly behind her that is also no longer relevant. It appears she started to kick as the ball passed her. Thats a fair attempt to play the ball from an offside position.

U12/13 and you probably had a younger AR I'm guessing? referees are learning to referee just as players are learning to play. And both make mistakes. Even old ones do, I promise.

---

I think she made a play at it right in front of the keeper. I was in the very far corner and didn't even realize it until I watched the film.

Its almost they say, we have VAR. Lets throw out common sense.


The good thing about this one is it was meaningless.

I think in the long run it will be a negative for the sport. I am not a fan of it at all in football, though I think the NFL does a better job of it compared to college. I think it works better in baseball where there are far fewer objective calls. But I have little use for it in soccer.

If they would limit it to egregious errors on offsides and whether or not the ball crossed the goal line then I could probably live with it. But thats not how it is working and it will only get worse.

How i would improve VAR:
For offsides the lines men signals clear offside flag up, called offside but not stopping play (flag held horizontally) or not offside no raising of the flag. To over rule offsides the Video review gets 3 minutes to make a decision and can't use artifiical lines to draw lines. If they can't reach a decision in under 3 minutes call goes to as called.

For dives in the box retro-active 5 game ban for clear and obvious dive with no contact. Onus is on the player to communicate if contact is made on him or not. So even if he tripped via the turf monster he would be obligated to communicate that with the head ref or be subject to a ban. Otherwise don't review dives except in the final 5 games of the season.

If you can't change the call on the field after watching the clip 3 times, then it stands. That goes for all replay in any sport

Dre_00 said:

---

100% agree. Was watching the game and had the same reaction.

If they are going to insist upon VAR for offside calls, then they need to change the offside rule. The spirit of offside is to ensure that the attacker doesn't gain an unfair advantage. Even if you can say with 100% certainty that Sterling is off there (and I don't think you can for the reasons you mentioned), does him being .19 inches ahead of the defender give him an unfair advantage?

---

This is my biggest beef too. And considering it's a rule that human eyeballs simply can't see in tight situations, I think a rule change is needed.

I don't really have a problem with VAR. I do have a problem with several rules of the game.

Fun fact: Marco Van Basten was a huge proponent of VAR when he worked for FIFA, but at the same time, he also wanted to get rid of the offside rule.

Bwahahahaha. VAR in the most watched league in the world will be a **** show. A likely winning goal at 90+2 in MCY v TOT was just taken off the board from a VAR review of a ball that took a microscope to see touch an arm and that had zero impact on the play. And yet it ignores a clear bull dog take down in the first half.

VAR + EPL may be the end of VAR.

Thanks for posting when. I read about it on Twitter but wasn't sure when it happened.

New law that is handball and I'm ok with that one. It didn't need to be watched and lines drawn etc.

I Am Mine said:

---

Thanks for posting when. I read about it on Twitter but wasn't sure when it happened.

New law that is handball and I'm ok with that one. It didn't need to be watched and lines drawn etc.

---

I was at a pub watching the game so couldn't hear the commentary... I understand they took the "intentional" part out but the arm still has to be in an unnatural position... seemed like his arm was in a natural position, not sure what the player is supposed to do in that case.

And yeah... the first half choke-hold tackle on Rodri not being awarded a penalty by VAR followed by this just adds salt to the wound.

Quote:

---

a player gains control/possession of the ball after it touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity

---

No mention of unnatural or making themselves larger in this aspect of the law.

Touched player As arm and created a goal scoring opportunity.

That part of the law may be flawed, but it wasn't created by VAR.

WIthout going into the technical wording of the Law, in a nutshell if it deflects off an offensive arm and leads to a goal it's handling. A deflection off a defensive arm is generally not. That's not quite what the Law says but that's what is being taught.

This was technically a deflection. However no one saw it. No one complained. You would have needed a zoom lens and slow mo replay to even know it happened. IMHO this was not anything soccer expected as being handling. But with VAR it's getting called. And you can thank Neymar for it.

Not a fan of the way we're using VAR to police the game for infractions deemed too minor or invisible by the officials on the field. I get using it to look for violent conduct or other red card offenses and to see if the ball was over the goal line, but the game of soccer just isn't one that's mean to be picked apart like it currently is.

I Am Mine said:

---

Quote:

---

a player gains control/possession of the ball after it touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity

---

No mention of unnatural or making themselves larger in this aspect of the law.

Touched player As arm and created a goal scoring opportunity.

That part of the law may be flawed, but it wasn't created by VAR.

---

Yeah, I just found the full rule... that is a rule issue.

Quote:

---

HANDLING THE BALL

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
  
  • scores in the opponents' goal
  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• scores in the opponents' goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

It is usually an offence if a player:

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
  
  • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
  • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player's hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player's hand/arm:

• directly from the player's own head or body (including the foot)
• directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
• if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
• when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body

---

Don't understand why the unnaturally bigger part is not before the is an offence. Laporte had no idea what he was doing and unless he didn't have a left arm could have done nothing in that situation other than what happened. Silly.