Rostov-on-Don, 17 June 2018 20:00 CET
Brazil - Switzerland
Referee: César Ramos (MEX)
Assistant Referee 1: Marvin Torrentera (MEX)
Assistant Referee 2: Miguel Hernández (MEX)
Fourth Official: John Pitti (PAN)
Fifth Official: Gabriel Victoria (PAN)
VAR: Paolo Valeri (ITA)
AVAR1: Mauro Vigliano (ARG)
AVAR 2: Elenito Di Liberatore (ITA)
AVAR 3: Gianluca Rocchi (ITA)
Very good game for the young referee... I'm really excited to watch him! I expect a good performance like in the Club World Cup Final :)
ReplyDeleteMy eyes will be on him
ReplyDeleteBlue kit for Ramos
ReplyDeleteMay I ask you why is that so important to share the colour of the referee kit with us all the time? I am asking with all my respect, but I think everybody can see that...
DeleteBtw 6' min good application of advantage and also good verbal warning.
A candy for each post or sth.
DeleteThere is no harm in writing that either
DeleteSoham is just being nice to all readers who suffer Dalton's disease/colour blindness (do not differentiate between red/green (lime) colour and men are more prone to it. No harm really.
DeleteFinally someone understood :D
DeleteThanks for the interpreation Andreja, now it all makes sense. ;)
DeleteHowever Soham I think that information has not much relevance regarding to the referee's performance. And we are here to discuss that, aren't we? :)
More than blatant holding there in the midfield. OK to play advantage, but this is a mandatory booking, at least according to UEFA RAPs :) Player when more than content when he saw that referee only warned him...
ReplyDeleteYesterday Bas Nijhuis was talking about this also. Because FIFA is for al the confederations they have to set a line which is the average of all. In Europe for example there is a strict line on diving. In conmebol this is different. Therefore the choice of Kuipers to only warn the player instead of book him was supportable. We can expect more of Rhode differences as you mention Chefren.
DeleteYou are right... Those are always very acceptable to FIFA so there were no concerns about the no YC anyway from my side I was repeatedly saying!
DeleteMissed YC for holding? 6' I think yes
ReplyDeleteagreed...warranted more than a warning
DeleteMissed corner kick in 12'.
ReplyDeleteYes, that was a great save by the goalkeeper
DeleteMissed a clear corner kick when Brazil had a big chance.
ReplyDeleteVery hard to detect
Deleteyeah took a couple of replays for me to see it also!
DeleteWhat a goal!
ReplyDeleteLot of beautiful goals so far.
Delete34': good offside call by AR1, attacker in offside was temporarily outside the pitch due to play's reasons. An assistant referee could have misread this situation. I remember some cases...
ReplyDeleteEasy going first half... And steady Ramos... Well done!
ReplyDeleteOMG again???? Foul is so so clear. Chefre, what's going on with the Italian VARs?? What a disaster.
ReplyDeleteWell, the problem is that for you it is a clear foul, but VAR have different opinions, in this case I think you can support the choice, assessing the pushing as not significant.
DeleteNot so clear IMO. Important thing here is intensity of the contact
DeleteStrongly disagree Chefren. Valeri had to call Ramos to see the situation. Disaster with italian var again...
DeleteYou don't seem to be able to be impartial because this is crystal clear. I don't blame Ramos. Make no mistake. But the Italina VARS are an absolute disaster. It's becoming a pattern. Someone tell them please VAR is not a hobby.
DeleteHow can you assess the push as ‘not significant’? It’s a crystal clear error.
DeleteYou can't question on my being impartial because I assessed the foul before the goal in POR - ESP as crucial mistake, but I see this one less foul than that situation... in addition, we can't know how VAR were instructed. This kind of intervention (foul of play before a goal) is very particular and different from the other cases (penalties, red cards and mistaken identity), VAR must be sure that the foul is very, very clear. If you analyze the push, you see that it is not so blatant. That's my explanation, but please don't question on my impartiality :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteShocking thing here is that Italian referees handled plenty of situations like these the entire season and they are the ones who are persistently reluctant when it comes to spotting errors and warning the main referee. Any explanation for this, Chefren?
DeleteIn my opinion, they were instructed to intervene only in case of VERY CLEAR FOUL MISSED BY REFEREE. It is also possible that Ramos said: "I saw it and for me not enough", then VAR supported. Dear Steve, we can make only speculations and it is very difficult. The good thing to make on this blog is trying to understand the reasons, and not blaming referees... hopefully you agree on that.
DeleteAgree but this a very clear foul!
DeleteThis is *
DeleteI completely follow Chefren here.
DeleteThe philosophy of German VAR is completely different from the Italian. Where in Italy interventions are not enough, German VARs intervene too much. As so often, truth in the middle. But all in all they are working well in Russia. So far.
The instruction, as reported by Salvio Spindola, a retired referee that worked with FIFA on the VAR implementation and case training, is that goals MUST be analyzed no matter what. Penalties, red cards, and mistaken identities are optional, meaning the VAR officials may or may not look into it in detail, but goals must always be validated by the system. That said, Chefren, you seem to misunderstand the VAR role in goal cases. Again, it is not to be assessed only when "clear mistakes" happen, but EVERY TIME when a goal is scored.
DeleteContact and "shoulder clashing" are very common and often do not characterize foul on corner kicks, but the Swiss player used both hands to push the Brazilian defender from behind, which clearly destabilized and prevented him from effectively jumping for the ball. This is a foul in Brazil, in Switzerland, in Italy, in Argentina, in Mexico, and in Russia too. It is not up to debate anywhere, if I may say so.
And, no. VAR would not be called in every corner kick, simply because not every corner kick results in goal. Heck, not every corner kick players are pushed from behind with both hands. This argument is ludicrous. VAR was created to be used in a situation like that, first and foremost. The fact that it wasn't taints the entire credibility of the system.
1-1, foul before the goal? Another borderline decision.
ReplyDeleteFor sure in that case not a clear mistake, so OK that VAR supported.
Sorry, but it's never borderline. Come on. Watch it again.
DeleteAgree, no clear mistake.
DeleteI agree this time. I would have preferred a foul whistle, but not (clear) enough to intervene.
DeleteClear foul for me. Scorer made big advantage by pushing and scored.
DeleteDo we know what is the foul in PK area???
Pushing from behind - no.
Holding in Serbia-Costa Rica - no!
Holding in Croatia-Nigeria - yes!
I totally agree with ref_1707. Surely Ramos missed the push because otherwise one would expect him to whistle it.
DeleteI'm also tending towards a foul there. Goal should've been disallowed IMO
DeleteTwo hands pushing in the back of the opponent... where in the LOTG is written that it has be a firm push or the level of force of the push? This is a foul just as it is on the midfield. Attacker gets An advantage from this push. So clear mistake by at least VAR, if not the mail referee who has to see this aswell.
DeleteFidje, spot on but some folks here keep talking about "slight pushes". Maybe they've drawn up new rules :) Or they just can't make heads or tails of what's going on, which is more than likely.
Delete@ Fietje: If you REALLY want to whistle that way, good luck and have a long life. COME ON! Sure the question is about the way and sort of pushing, if not we really have 5 - 10 OKs per match. You must have it clear, that the push caused the fall and or destroyed the attackers position to the ball. Only THEN ot is OK. And here for me ... 70% yes. A PK. But for this VARteam a question of interpretation, not a CLEAR mistake.
DeleteAt least one should tell Ramos to rewatch here.
Andrasch, it's a clear mistake because if you push, you're automatically putting your opponent off balance, whether he falls down or not. If you push, you take an illicit advantage of your opponent. In football you can touch your opponent with the arm but you can't push. As simple as that. At the end of the day it is a push and a push is always punishable. Crucial mistake from Ramos and the most shocking thing here is the fact that a team SCORED A GOAL. This situation itself must promp VAR to warn the referee and make him watch the replay because the final outcome of the match might be negatively influenced. Yet another disaster from Ramos-Valeri after Rocchi-Irrati.
DeleteWho said the VAR is to be used only when there is a clear mistake?
DeleteIf a play is proven to be a clear mistake, the referee does not need to check it on a monitor! AHAHA, that argument is ludicrous. VAR is to be used first and foremost when there is doubt, and just the fact that we are discussing it here should be enough to hint at how doubtful the play was.
DeleteClear foul prior to 1-1. Incredible that Valeri didn’t call Ramos. Weird. Weird !
ReplyDeleteNo room for doubt whasover.
DeleteThats soccer not basketball. Everyday-fight in the penalty area.
DeleteFrom the replay behind the goal played at full speed, the push is very clear and obvious so VAR should had intervened and Clattenburg shared the same view
DeleteLet's make it clear and go by the book: in football one can put the arm on the opponent's body but one can't push. That means taking an illicit advantage.
DeleteVery soft push for me. Supportable call to allow the goal for me.
ReplyDeleteGiven this second situation occurred after PORTUGAL - SPAIN, possible foul before a goal, we must draw the conclusion that committee instructed VAR to invite referees to rewatch these incidents only in case of VERY, VERY CLEAR FOUL MISSED.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion POR - ESP was more foul than this one, this can be absolutely supportable, however the doubts remains, in the meaning that maybe Ramos totally missed it and in case of review, he would have changed idea. But this seems to be the protocol, based on what we can argue from the incidents.
If it is very, very clear foul, why to re-watch??? VAR should say to the ref what to give.
DeleteWhy don't they bring it to the referee's notice and let them decide? If Ramos has missed it best thing is to ask him to re-watch and let him make a call... Just like the second VAR intervention in Diedhiou's game was!
DeleteYeah, at least tell the ref to watch it on the screen. Why not warn the ref to wtah the incident himself? It's so clear that at least it should have been analysed by Ramos.
Deletewatch*
DeleteI think Ramos saw and in communication with VAR said what he saw and VAR only confirmed his perception
DeleteThe VAR does not have to assess the main referee's perception. Otherwise, there's no point in using the electronic review.
DeleteYes it does. If you listened to the press confernce of Colina and Busacca you would understand how it works
DeleteIf he said Ramos said to Valeri i saw the push, there is nothing he missed for VAR to recommend OFR
DeleteThat makes no sense at all. He might have seen something that does not correspond to what actually happened. The electronic review is always more reliable than the human eye. One thing is to assess an incident that is open to different interpretations and in this case the main referee perception prevails. Another thing is an objectively clear foul like this one. Even if Ramos told Valeri he saw something, that doesn't mean the VAR can't step in because obvioulsy he might have not judged it properly
DeletePeople are concluding things based on thin air. The use of VAR cannot be inconsistent like that, or subjective to the referees humor. If VAR officials tell the referee a play needs to be reviewed, he can't simply dismiss it based on what he might have seen or not. The referee must be humble enough to believe he may be wrong at least. If referees are not even in position to do so, the entire system is pointless.
DeletePlus, you are seriously inferring you can tell how much force was applied in that push just by looking at it?!? Can you tell if whoever was pushed offered any resistence?!? If a player has his TWO hands against another player's back, and this second player moves forward (as the Brazilian did), he was pushed. Foul. Period. It does not matter how hard the push was. Mind that pushing someone from behind their backs with both hands isn't anything like shoulder clashing before corner kicks. You dont see what we saw today in every match like some here are implying. Bottom line, if you don't blow the whistle in all situations like that, you don't have a norm, and therefore are not supported to pass on judgement on whether a play is a foul or not. Now expect other players to push each other in future matches of this World Cup with the argument "this happened before and it was allowed"...
English media say not enough contact for foul, Mark Clattenburg sats review and disallow
ReplyDeleteThe weakest refereeing so far. This had to be an advantage for Neymar! Had to!
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely no consistency in the use of VAR. It's difficult to understand for us let alone ordinary fans...
ReplyDeleteall goals are reviewed, no...VAR should have called down to the ref if so...
DeleteIf Ramos saw directly the situation, VAR was even less entitled to intervene...
ReplyDeleteBut Valeri must see what we all saw! A clear foul and had to call ref for that.
DeleteChefren, rule is: ALL GOALS ARE REVIEWED BY VAR.
DeleteLooks like you didn't get quite well how the system works.
Penalties, red cards, and mistaken identity cases MAY OR MAY NOT be reviewed according to VAR instructions, but all goals MUST be reviewed via the technology.
That said, having analysed the video that clearly shows a player pushing another (intensity of the push is irrelevant here, as that can't possibly be measured with accuracy), VAR officials should have asked the referee to review the play. If they didn't, the flaw lies with them. If they did and were dismissed by the field referee, the flaw lies with the latter. Again, if referees are going to arrogantly dismiss VAR reviews, then why we have the system in place to start with?!?
I dont like at all his mechanics in showing the cards. It's like he throws the card into the player's face.
ReplyDeleteYep, saw that kind of "aggressivity" in many CONCACAF and CONMEBOL referees.
DeleteI don't have a problem with that when it comes to a YC for reckless challenge or dissent, or RC for SFP or violent conduct, but IMO it's not suitable for a single YC for SPA, players don't "deserve" that kind of aggressivity.
Oh, just watch this slight push and now ref whistled foul. And it was smaller push. Terrible. Inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteThe problem of VAR is also about the concept... you can't say that in case of another similar situation occurred during the same game and managed differently by referee, then there isn't consistency.
DeleteTeo's comments get valid in case Ramos saw the foul before 1-1 but deemed it not enough... But that has got nothing to do with VAR, it's more to do with inconsistency from Ramos himself!
DeleteHe might think he saw something but he might have made a wrong assessment on the pitch. VAR has to tell the main ref the replay shows another thing.
Deletethe question is did he create space or hold his space. IMO it was right on the margin. BRA was not moved enough by the SUI player to give the call. but had he made the call i think it would be justified...very tough call to catch in real time. VAR may indeed be the problem there.
ReplyDeleteBrazil wanted a penalty there. Very challenging game for Ramos.
ReplyDeleteSupportable decision this one.
No PK at all.
DeleteEverything is "supportable" and everything is against Brasil. And everything is CLEARLY WRONG!
DeleteIrrati and Valeri should go home today.
Defender presses his left arm on the chest of Brazil #9 - and all of a sudden #9 jumps in the air and falls to the ground. Normal contact. #9 did not want to stay on his feet.
DeleteI agree Irrati and Valeri have to go home. They are not up to the mark by any means.
DeleteIt's not clear, for god sake.
DeleteThis is example of the grey area decision.
But this situation MUST be rewatched IMO
A push is a push. And by the way it is a clear one. Are you guys watching the same incident???
DeleteNo, definitely.
DeleteI thought so.
Deleteand now not even an OFR...
ReplyDeleteClear penalty! All Italian VAR refs should go home immediately!
ReplyDeleteThey are giving a very bad account of themselves.
DeleteThis is ridiculous, Teo, and you should know that. No penalty is correct.
DeleteVery difficult decision here, true. But Valeri had to call Ramos for rewatching. This kind of procedure is completely catastrophic and occurred with a slighly lack of clearance....
DeleteIn my opinion that's never a clear penalty. If you write such things, you don't know how VAR works, sorry.
DeleteOf course, penalty was supportable as well, but don't say that this one was a black or white... it wasn't.
More room for discussion about the possible foul before 1-1, but ot this one...
Just try to be impartial in commenting. This certainly was a correct no PK call!
Delete*but not this one
DeleteClearly not enough for a penalty, look at the pure simulated fall of Jesus (different to Ronaldo, which was 'only' exaggerated, not totally manufactured).
DeleteThen, if you add that everything is against Brazil, well, for this reason, you have just to leave the blog, nothing more. I'm really sorry, I must be harsh against such statements.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf there is VAR why not to use it? For what we have VAR - for the ref to review every 10th suspicious situation? When Italians were VAR refs, did they call ref to review some situation so far?
DeleteThis particular incident requires an electronic review. There is a push and as a result of that a team scores!!! This is not something that happens in the middle of the field. It's a clear foul but what is not acceptable is the fact that Valeri did not even tell Ramos to watch the push.
DeleteWhile Ramos hasn't totally covered himself in glory, some of the comments here are a bit of overreaction IMO
ReplyDeleteAs the officiating was excellent up till now, this indeed is the least convincing effort...
DeleteSome people show that they don‘t know anything about VAR, I‘m sorry to say that. 50:50-situations are not enough to recommend an OFR - penalty call would have been backed, play on is no mistake either.
Delete@Frederick Just small mistakes here and there. I can't see any big mess ups or anything. It's quite an interesting game for a young referee and he has done more or less well... Lots of room for improvement but not the least convincing or something... That's a bit harsh IMO
DeleteAgree but here the procedure goes against clearance and communication for refereeing image. And it’s weird to see this kind of miscommunication during World Cup.
DeleteWhat miscommunication @Benoit??
DeleteI understand everything, but VAR should give a chance for the ref to review situation and maybe make different decision. No matter it is not clear mistake. That should be correct and the best for all. If that's not the case, then VAR refs have a lot of influence on the final outcome.
DeleteBut what you are saying that's not the protocol... Yes what is clear enough for the VAR to intervene that's a point of debate... But if they don't think a clear mistake is made they can't intervene!
DeleteI’m certainly not saying it’s bad refereeing tonight. Just some areas for improving.
DeleteAfter all, it’s the WC. And the standard so far has been superb!
VAR intervenes in not so clear situations if referee on the pitch did not saw contact. But if he saw it and told VAR that he saw it, then there is no OFR
Delete@soham for players and public. If ref went to see the situation both times, it should be more clear for all people that situations have been correctly analysed by both ref and var and decisions would be more clear. Just my feelings soham :)
DeleteRamos is a young and promising referee, maybe this game came too early for him. But he delivered a performance which was okay, not good but okay. He has to improve some things, that is right, and he surely will.
DeleteAt the 1:1, I would have also liked to see an OFR. This is a matter of interpretation, therefore it would have been good to watch it again.
This particular incident requires an electronic review. There is a push and as a result of that a team scores!!! This is not something that happens in the middle of the field. It's a clear foul but what is not acceptable is the fact that Valeri did not even tell Ramos to watch the push.
Delete@david02 So right... The game just came a bit too early... I expect a lower profile game up next for him... This game should've gone to Geiger or Irmatov! Anyway Ramos did okay and he has a bright future, of course points of improvement are there to polish up performances but all in all very much in the acceptable level!
DeleteWhat was this last thing Ramos saw inside Switzerland's area?? Was that enough for a foul this time around? Cut the comedy! Worst performance so far in the tournament. Terrible decision to validate Switzerland's goal, very much in line with his inconsistency throughout the match.
ReplyDeleteI think it's exaggeration of emotions by you! Are you a Brazil supporter?
Delete+1
DeleteWorst performance, both for the VAR and for the ref.
Worst performance of this WC, there I agree. But it’s not a bad performance over all!
DeleteLOL I just don't like to realise 8 eyes are not enough to avoid blunders in a World Cup. And it always gets on my nerves when some people try to whitewash incompetence from VARs falling back on the same senseless excuses. If they can't do the job, they must go home.
Delete'Incompetence' - here you have it. Populistic, unreflected, black-white thinking.
DeleteIs there another word to describe what we just saw? Either you're blind or you want to cover up something. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what Ramos saw inside Switzerland's area in the last seconds of the match that prompted him to immediately whistle. And then he can´t see an obvious push.
DeleteRamos' appointment for this match turned out to be a total miscalculation.
ReplyDeleteNot the wisest appointment... But went okay!
DeleteThere's a crucial mistake. So, never okay. Plus, he did seem very indolent and unsure of his decisions. It bodes ill for him. A low profile match should follow.
DeleteWhy did Ramos allow the last corner?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, in my opinion he extended too much added time.
DeleteIn case of goal scored, further polemics... in my opinion the Mexican should gain more experience in several aspects, his performance was not expected level in the big picture, if you ask me. However, he can be supported in both situations, for sure we can avoid the crucial mistakes.
8.1 area, I think.
Maybe I have watched a different match, but if we take the two potential VAR interventions aside, I have seen a very good, promising and composed referee. Good disciplinary control, strong potential, some things like free kick positioning a bit unusual.
ReplyDeleteVAR situations:
Goal: Pushing of course, also with a certain effect on the opponent. 100% clear and obvious (!) mistake? No. Usual way of leading duels at corner kicks nowadays, surely at a borderline, and potentially a OFR would create more acceptance. But it is absolutely normal that such pushings are not sanctioned at the top level. Go on is acceptable for me, OFR would be acceptable too.
Penalty: Here I see the first VAR mistake of the World Cup. In my view, holding and tripping. I think Ramos only perceived the holding. If so, also here, given the strong protests, OFR creates acceptance and offers the ref to look at both holding and tripping. But also here, a 100% penalty is looking different for me.
And in general, a note. As soon as you think a mistake has been made despite VAR, most of you tend to turn into a systematic criticism. "VAR inconsistent", "Poor system", and so on.
Start to consider...
... it is not easy to sit in front of the monitor with high heart ratio and responsibility. They are not armchair fault finders like some of you. They must weigh their actions a lot. It is human that mistakes can happen in this process.
... that maybe 4 FIFA referees also like Rocchi have good reasons for letting the goal stand. Don't turn into a mode like "they slept" or "are they blind", which is sometimes suggested here reading between lines. Maybe maybe there is an opportunity that they looked at it, deemed it as 'not enough' at that level, or asked Ramos what he had seen, who maybe maybe said 'I saw a pushing, but not enough for me.', and, in line with what Rosetti, Collina, Busacca etc want, therefore let the goal stand...
Apart from this, I am sure Ramos' general performance has been appreciated by FIFA.
^^! Very well said!
DeleteI agree. Also some of the readers on this blog are too dramatic imo.
DeleteEmotion and impulse control are strengths of referees and not possessed by everyone commenting here :) Also, very human.
DeleteI can't help but laugh myself silly reading your comment. Aren't you the one who said the other day VARs don't have to seek the best possible deciisons? I rest my case :)
DeleteVARs are not there to seek the best possible alternative of decisions. They are brought to life to prevent clear errors. Correct.
DeleteYour comment is the ultimate proof you have not understood the VAR modalities and system in any way. But you are commenting here every day, this irritates me, to be very honest.
@SteveSmith your comments are good examples for Dunning-Kruger effect and anti-intellectualism
Delete@Mikael: Did not want to recommend another wikipedia article again, but if, it had been dunning kruger :)
Deleterefinho, you actually know beans about VAR whatsover. Someone who holds VAR does not always have to seek the best possible decisions is someone who cracks nice jokes. And that is alos important in life for sure.
DeleteMikael, anti-intelectualism?? LOOOL You can't even crack jokes :)
also*
DeleteStart to read the IFAB protocol, and accept that you have had not understood the VAR principles before. Then we can see and discuss anew.
DeleteLOOL I see it's hard for you to be caught up in a ridiculoulsy dumb statement, which says it all. Maybe for you it's not VAR but rather a BAR since they're doing nothing and they don't even have to worry about taking the best possible decisions. What a joke :)
DeleteI know that nowadays Trump, Brexit etc is possible by deliberately sticking to non-facts, but I try to keep distance to your attempt to go personal which means you are agreeing on a content level you are incorrect and have no chance.
DeleteFact is:
"The referee's decision can only be changed if the video review shows a CLEAR ERROR i.e. not 'was the decision correct?', but: 'was the decision clearly wrong?'." (p. 4/67)
"Video technology will only be used to correct clear errors and for missed serious incidents in defined (..) situations." (p. 5/67)
https://www.knvb.nl/downloads/bestand/9844/var-handbook-v8_final
Of course preventing clear errors automatically leads to the best decision remaining (mostly).
But the vice versa statement is not accounting. Taking the best decision does not always mean the other alternative is clearly a mistake. (easy logic thinking)
LOOL The core purpose is always to seek and take the best possible decision, otherwise why are they spending so much money? You can strive to correct your dumb statement but you clearly lack the talent for that. What we saw today was a CLEAR ERROR. A push is always a push. And a push is always punishable because it is against the rules (easy logic thinking, even though I now understand you might struggle to get a grip on this).
DeleteVAR refs didn't have to correct anything here. The only thing they should do is to call the main ref to review the incident! That's all.
DeleteWhy did Turpin call Diedhiou today to review potential VC and RC? Was that clear mistake from Diedhiou not to give anything to Prijovic? It wasn't! So, refinho you would say that VAR shouldn't do anything. But Turpin did and he was correct - ref HAD TO REVIEW IT! He did, gave YC, so everything is ok.
For me, it would be OK if Ramos, after reviewing the incident prior Swiss goal, decided not to change his decision. Totally ok, bud he had to be invited to watch it once again!!!
Agree, AT LEAST he had to watch the electronic review. But clearly Italian VARs are the worst we've seen so far. I remember Felix Zwayer in Peru-Denmark as a good ezample of how a VAR should act.
Deleteexample*
DeleteAccording to Bas Nijhuis on Dutch tv 2 crucial mistakes tonight: missed foul on 1-1 and missed penalty to Brazil.
ReplyDeleteNijhuis says that untill now he could back all var decisions, but tonight it's hard to explain why there was no intervention.
So, as we can see, everybody is entitled to have his opinion.
DeleteMaking such mess on the blog doesn't help us in understanding more. You have some FIFA referee, former UEFA Elite, having your same ideas, so if referees behind the monitors don't take the actions you expect, please don't blame use, but just let's look for an explanation!
I am leaning toward the same conclusion as Bas Nijhuis. The VAR team should have alerted Ramos of both situations. For me the no call on the slight push was on the margin and acceptable, but the trip on the BRA forward was clearly a foul upon review. No????
DeleteClattenburg said the same as Nijhuis, so did Serbian "expert" Nedic. Speaking about Swiss goal.
Deletegenuine question here...
ReplyDeleteare potential fouls on goals scored not automatically reviewed by the VAR team? I understand they don't all go down to the field, but the VAR team in the booth must look at all goals scored especially when a potential foul has occurred, correct?
Correct. They must check all goals, and their 'attacking possession phases' based on IFAB protocoll. They also check potential reds like elbowing, dangerous sliding tackles, .......
Deletethen, there must have been some communication between VAR team in the booth and Ramos.
DeleteI can see how Ramos may have missed both the 1-1 pushing and the holding/trip offense on the BRA forward. If this is so, then in both cases should the VAR alert Ramos? that would be protocol correct?
It seems to me that, keeping in mind the very high standard of refereeing so far in the WC, a perfomance that does not meet that required standard is automatically branded as a bad performance. That off course is not the way we should react.
ReplyDeleteAs a general comment: In matches with VAR, I am now evaluating critical situations in two steps:
ReplyDelete1. Do I think, it was a clear error / crucial mistake. Here I basically use the same measurement as before to decide whether I would assign the referee a 7,9 for that. And that involves the question, whether approx. > 85% of all referees on that level would have taken a different decision.
2. Do I expect a VAR intervention? I take this as a different question. And basically here I try to figure out, whether >85% of all (competent) observers would come to the conclusion "clear error" in question 1.
And often enough, I come to the conclusion that it is a crucial mistake in my opinion (1.), but not enough for a VAR intervention (2.)
Of course, I don't claim, this is the only way to evaluate situations, but I think, everyone should be aware of the difference between a clear mistake in their opinion and a clear mistake in everyone's opinion.
You hit the point, Philipp. Congratulations.
Delete“Everyone should be aware of the difference between a clear mistake in their opinion and a clear mistake in everyone's opinion.”
DeleteSo true! That’s where a large part of the discussions comes from in my opinion!
IMO good perfomance by Ramos today. Maybe a bit inkonsistent in a few situations when you compare with the two controversial decisions. But these were solved in a more than supportable way I think.
ReplyDeleteVery good signal that some people who have not been here since the beginning of the WC appear now here trying to overreact and exaggerate things, that is a signal of how excellent the level of refereeing is being until now!
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteEven though i'm also "new" here as a writer (I was here as a quiet reader for more than a year): you're absolutely right.
I had some doubts before WC but i'm suprised in a very positive way so far. Good level refeering.
I think the main problem so far with VAR is lack of public communication. Why do we have cards in football? They are an announcement to the public that a player is booked. Otherwise, that could be said verbally. They send a very clear message. VAR needs to do the same. If the referee has seen the situation and it is not missed, then so should appear on screen. IIRC, there is communication between the VAR room and the broadcast direction room. Then, not having a clear line is the problem of the referee. Without this communication, VAR just seems pointless: spectators see a pushing before the goal and some talking on the mic, but nothing more. Communication is key, and FIFA Refereeing Committee is having serious trouble with that in this WC, also with appointments.
ReplyDeleteI agree, FIFA could easily add 'incident under control' in TV. But be aware: They check around 5-15 situations per game, depending on how difficult it is. It could seem inflationary if always shown. I have seen many VAR scenes in Italy and Germany. What FIFA does is more transparent.
DeleteExcellent answer, refinho.
DeleteYes, but I mean situations that could be more significant. Specially those that involve communication with the referee which is not just "we're reviewing something. It's OK, carry on.". For instance, Spain's goal or tonight's, in which there was some waiting time. The strategy has to be studied carefully, of course, and that is achieved through experience. But I think current lack of information can be troublesome for FIFA and VAR itself.
DeleteThe problem would be to identify such "significant" incidents, again, for you an incident can be significant but for other people not. Also, many goals and action are checked as well, so where is potentially the difference?
DeleteI understand what you mean, but in my opinion it is impossible to put into pratice. Indeed, FIFA is very clear and trasparent about VAR than the domestic use we saW at least in Italy... we should accept that in my opinion.
Yes, I get your point. Difficult to define the line between unsignificant and significant decisions. If I understood FIFAs video published last days right at FIFA.com there are these 'incident under review' slogans in the livetickers. Not sure, but also on the giant screen I think. Would be good if TV showed the refs in a small window more often, seeing them pointing to the ear, so everyone sees 'they check something relevant'.
DeleteGood sentence: Achievement through experience. That's it. Guys, this is a revolution, first World Cup with VAR. Who of you expected everything is smooth, hands up please?! For what most of the world's football community expected, I think after around 20% of the tournament the conclusion so far is: not bad, not bad! Opposite is the case: rather well done so far.
Yes, of course, the perception is in general terms good. But there have been these two isolated and closely related in terms of both type of situation and refereeing teams (Rocchi has been involved in both, one as main referee and the other as AVAR) that have not really been understood by the public. So I think pointing this situations may actually help to find a way in which (almost, haters gonna' hate) everybody can understand what's going on.
DeleteI don't criticise VAR per se, in fact I was asking for it in UCL, but when there are things I disagree with or I think are not managed completely well, I try to make a (constructive) criticism to help improve it.
Thank you George. Your comments are giving us value to think how to refine VAR project in future. Good discussion, thank you.
DeleteAs far as I understood, TV commentators are informed about every check. So it would be their task to decide, whether a situation is significant enough to share that information with the viewers. But of course we can't expect perfection in that point, they are also new to it.
DeleteNot related with Ramos' performance (IMO it was okayish, supportable call to allow the goal and play on on Gabriel Jesus penalty incident), but I have to confess I like very much (aesthetically) referees with long-sleeved outfits like him and Clattenburg.
ReplyDeleteMe too!
DeleteWow, our taste is so different :)
DeleteI really dont like long sleeves
I'm with DrMr on this!
DeleteOT: Guys, what do you think about final referee. It think it wont be European again
ReplyDeleteYou're some 20 days too early for this discussion! :D
DeletePedro Proença is my first pick ;)
DeleteRavshan Irmatov.
DeleteI really hope Busacca and Collina do not know yet. Cause they need to see the concrete performances first. AS WE NEED, TOO.
DeleteI hope Irmatov, if he shows a good level in the first matches... He should have been Final's referee in 2010.
DeleteAbout significance of a situation...
ReplyDeleteA situation is significant enough for a mandatory intervention by VAR if the wrong decision directly caused a change in the result, a PK or a RC.
The intervention is only wanted, if it is no grey field, but a black or white situation and minimum 85 % of other refs would have taken the "better/right" decision. If both decisions can be backed by arguments, then a "70%decision" is NOT enough for intervention. That is Italian.
In Germany they still tell the ref, hey, we think you were likely wrong, but rewatch please and then make your decision.
That's why we have more interventions in Germany. But the try to gett to nearly perfect decisions leads to a loss of playflow and causes uncertainty of emotions in field and audience. The Italian way brings a bit less justice - but saves the principle character of football, the emotions of the game.
I dislike Italian approach in those two "problematic" games, involving Valeri and Irrati. Their job is to allow the ref on the pitch to make the best decision. Their job IS NOT to make their own decision, they are only VAR refs. So, if there is potential mistake, they should call for the ref and he should decide by his own! If they don't call him, in some way they make their own decision.
DeleteThe same goes to Geiger. If Marciniak refused to review potential penalty, then he should be full responsible for that.
Bussaca PROMISED that VAR will spot everything. But, we already have 2-3 wrongly assessed situation.
100 % agree with Teo
DeleteIn my opinion:
- penalty for peru in 3rd minute
- foul on Pepe (1st spanish goal)
- penalty for Argentina not given on Pavon
- foul against Miranda prior 1-1 tonight
For me all these are mistakes. It's unacceptable that we didn't have VAR interventions in these situations.
FIFA must not allow different interpretation of VAR protocol from Italian, German, French or other refs. They simply must not. In those 11 matches we saw totally different interpretation and approach. And I would like that ref on the pitch should have the last call, and that he should be allowed to make the best decision. He should re-watch it from 2, 3, 5 angles and make the best possible decision. If he is wrong after that, he should take full responsibility.
ReplyDeleteVAR designations:
ReplyDeleteSWE-KOR: Vigliano - Al Jassim - Al Marri - Orsato
BEL-PAN: Dankert - Zwayer - van Roeckel - Makkelie
TUN-ENG: Ricci - Vargas - de Carvalho - Lopes Martins
VIDEOS
ReplyDelete06' - blatant holding - advantage - warning
https://streamable.com/9h7iz
14' - foul vs simulation
https://streamable.com/e0li3
31' - YC Lichtsteiner (SPA, holding)
https://streamable.com/0d7v2
47' - YC Casemiro (SPA)
https://streamable.com/6krlb
50' - goal vs foul
https://streamable.com/pxgab
55' - SPA?, management
https://streamable.com/374xf
65' - YC Schar (SPA), advantage?
Deletehttps://streamable.com/1rtl6
68' - YC Behrami (careless-reckless or simulation?)
https://streamable.com/7q6o9
71' - missed stamp
https://streamable.com/6nvob
74' - penalty incident, holding, simulation
https://streamable.com/39wp8
76' - advantage, teamwork
https://streamable.com/ajku9
81' - illegal use of arm
https://streamable.com/2m15d
Who are the "top referees" with 0 appointments so far? Which matches do you think FIFA will choose for them?
ReplyDeleteMorning everyone, reading the discussion it all comes down, for the refs, to foul detection and intepration of the LOTG. "According to the ref....". Isn't strange than that we put some talented referees behind the monitor? Shouldn't this be the same referees as ar in the pitch. The best of the best. Or maybe some expercienced former FIFA Elite referees who recently retired? Refs who now the pressure and can take the right decision.
ReplyDeleteThis a very valid argument... One can most definitely question Irrati, Valeri and such category 2 referee's decision making skills!
DeleteI agree, in twenty years I think we will appoint teams Referee-ARs-VARs set teams, with specialist roles for each.
DeleteLike it took time for specialist ARs (1994?) and then refereeing trios (2006), eventually VARs can become a role on it's own as it requires very different skills to being a referee, just the same as being an assistant is different to being the referee.
I think official teams of Ref-AR1-AR2-VAR-AVAR1-AVAR2 will happen very soon (same number of officials as UEFA, six).
I'd have nothing against this idea, because it could make me possible to become VAR as former referee myself :)
DeleteIn serious words, Irrati and the others are used to take good decisions in crowds like 70000 in Italy. I think competition is high in Italy, higher than an average FIFA ref from most other countries. But specialisation is of course valid to be demanded.
Agreed- I think FIFA have already had this idea actually thinking about it, with all respect I doubt Irrati will ascend beyond UEFA Second Category, but his VAR appointments suggest that AIA rate him as best Italian in this role, eg decisive LAZ-INT on Matchday 38.
DeleteIn other words, Irrati wasn't chosen thanks to what he achieved on the pitch, but rather behind the screen.
He is early example of a "VAR specialist", like Makkelie et al.
I have read different newspapers from all over the world and a lot of opinions of football experts and the main point of discussion of this match is not the possible foul in the Swiss goal, rather the poor game of Neymar and Brazil; I think the majority of fans and experts believe that it was a normal and frequent contact in area in any corner in a sport of contact.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that some people here (we all know who) yesterday were overreacting and exaggerating everything as the performance of Ramos (quite improvable, nevertheless) would have been appalling, and indeed it has been quite well received in football's world
Here's the blatant push:
Deletehttps://streamable.com/pxgab
Either you're a slow-witted person (like a minority of two or three here), which I find very likely according to what you wrote, or you have a hidden agenda and don't want to recognise the obvious! There's a clear push, the whole world saw it and there's no point in trying to cover it up. I've read many newspapers myself from all over the world and all of them mention the incident. Of course, they also assess Brazil's performance but the push is making headlines everywhere.
It's a crucial mistake influencing the outcome of the match. Ramos should have spotted it on the pitch (Rocchi's mistake is understandable because it was fast-paced play, Ramos can't really fall back on any excuse as it was a corner situation) and of course this shows Valeri in a very bad light. Honestly I hope they review the incident and are humble enough to assume their mistake and improve their performances going forward.
Rule number 1:
DeleteFoltball ”experts” and players know nothing about the laws of the game or how to interpret them.
50' - goal vs foul
ReplyDeletehttps://streamable.com/pxgab
How this is not faul on Miranda? He pushed him so Mirana couldnt jump infront of him.
We had 2 goals that should be dissallowed by VAR, really dissapointed.
A referee in the World Cup level is expected to call this in the pitch itself!!
DeleteEriksson did a good analysis and showed that the ref couldn't see it because of his position. 3 players in the way. This was something for VAR.
Delete2 matchs 2 italian VARs making mistakes, not even on-field review? Would like to see how would Bussaca will explain these 2 situations..
DeleteReviewing the incident one more time just makes me wonder how on earth can anyone deny this is a monstruous mistake.
DeleteSoham has a point in saying Ramos should have detected the push on the pitch.