They could eliminate a lot of the issues if they allowed the VAR team to call the foul without involving the ref which requires the ref to wait for a break in the action, which in this case involved a rescinded goal in the meantime. If the ref just got a message in his ear that there was a foul he missed and it needed to be brought back, this never would have happened. They already do this with offsides calls. They just tell the linesmen they missed it, they don’t wait until the play is over and send the linesman to a screen. Even though there is a little delay sometimes, it’s never this bad.
As a big tennis fan, the automation and instant review is fucking great, the players just play without any of the arguing and whining, and the players are less mentally affected by calls that don’t go their way because they’re confident they were right. But if they did it like FIFA does it and waited for the completion of a break/game/set/match point to let the chair umpire look at a screen, that would cause all kinds of bullshit. And the challenge system was bullshit. If you know, why put it on the player to stop playing, and potentially give up a point, to get the call right? They just do it right now, and hopefully FIFA will follow their example.
The ability exists for this to be almost instant, there is no reason for this.
The refs are trained to let play happen for minor fouls if a promising attack is occurring. VAR is there to catch things like this and correct them. If no scoring happens, then the game flows freely. If every foul was called that VAR saw, then the game would be stopped all the time. Also, if the fouls are called when they happen (like they used to do), then the play stops and no scoring can happen. What about when the foul is deemed to be not a foul after review? The scoring chance is gone for no reason. Most of the time, the minor fouls don’t really affect the game. They do in the box, and when they create a scoring chance. So the rules allow the game to be played to allow scoring to happen just in case what looked like a foul is not considered a foul.
Tennis is a bad example for this, since play is stopped all the time and it isn’t a contact sport. Yes, you can do automated calls like offside, goal/no goal, in/out of bounds. And two of those already are called automatically. But fouls can be very subjective, even within the same game.
I hear what you’re saying, but a foul is a foul. If the players no longer think “if the ref doesn’t see it, it’s not a foul” that might make the game flow more smoothly as well. And the refs are trained to play on if the foul was committed by the defending team, not the attacking team, this was not a play on situation, and the VAR team can be trained the same way.
The tennis analogy certainly isn’t perfect but using all the information available to the officials as soon as possible and removing as much subjectivity as possible has been a massive improvement to tennis. Unless you enjoy the drama more than you enjoy seeing who is better on a particular day.
They could eliminate a lot of the issues if they allowed the VAR team to call the foul without involving the ref which requires the ref to wait for a break in the action, which in this case involved a rescinded goal in the meantime.
VAR isn’t going to intervene quickly enough to prevent situations like that from occurring because they aren’t black and white like an offside and require time to analyse. As I said, many of fhe laws of the game (including fouls) require interpretation from the referee. You cannot compare it to something like tennis where almost every umpiring decision (fault, let, out or in, etc) is a black and white decision like offside which can be automated through the use of technology.
Regardless of the subjectivity of the calls, the VAR refs, operating under the same guidelines as the on field refs, with better angles provided by video, could make the same real time calls with more complete information. If their calls were simply followed in real time just like the on field ref, this type of situation could be avoided.
The VAR booth should have the same power to call a foul and bring it back in real time as the on field ref.
You seem to be missing the point here. If VAR is going to intervene it needs to be 100% sure that it is correct. The only way to do that on a law that requires human interpretation, such as a foul, is to thoroughly review the footage beforehand. The pace at which football can be played simply makes it impossible for VAR to instantly call fouls in real time AND get those calls correct.
They could eliminate a lot of the issues if they allowed the VAR team to call the foul without involving the ref which requires the ref to wait for a break in the action, which in this case involved a rescinded goal in the meantime. If the ref just got a message in his ear that there was a foul he missed and it needed to be brought back, this never would have happened. They already do this with offsides calls. They just tell the linesmen they missed it, they don’t wait until the play is over and send the linesman to a screen. Even though there is a little delay sometimes, it’s never this bad.
As a big tennis fan, the automation and instant review is fucking great, the players just play without any of the arguing and whining, and the players are less mentally affected by calls that don’t go their way because they’re confident they were right. But if they did it like FIFA does it and waited for the completion of a break/game/set/match point to let the chair umpire look at a screen, that would cause all kinds of bullshit. And the challenge system was bullshit. If you know, why put it on the player to stop playing, and potentially give up a point, to get the call right? They just do it right now, and hopefully FIFA will follow their example.
The ability exists for this to be almost instant, there is no reason for this.
The refs are trained to let play happen for minor fouls if a promising attack is occurring. VAR is there to catch things like this and correct them. If no scoring happens, then the game flows freely. If every foul was called that VAR saw, then the game would be stopped all the time. Also, if the fouls are called when they happen (like they used to do), then the play stops and no scoring can happen. What about when the foul is deemed to be not a foul after review? The scoring chance is gone for no reason. Most of the time, the minor fouls don’t really affect the game. They do in the box, and when they create a scoring chance. So the rules allow the game to be played to allow scoring to happen just in case what looked like a foul is not considered a foul.
Tennis is a bad example for this, since play is stopped all the time and it isn’t a contact sport. Yes, you can do automated calls like offside, goal/no goal, in/out of bounds. And two of those already are called automatically. But fouls can be very subjective, even within the same game.
I hear what you’re saying, but a foul is a foul. If the players no longer think “if the ref doesn’t see it, it’s not a foul” that might make the game flow more smoothly as well. And the refs are trained to play on if the foul was committed by the defending team, not the attacking team, this was not a play on situation, and the VAR team can be trained the same way.
The tennis analogy certainly isn’t perfect but using all the information available to the officials as soon as possible and removing as much subjectivity as possible has been a massive improvement to tennis. Unless you enjoy the drama more than you enjoy seeing who is better on a particular day.
VAR isn’t going to intervene quickly enough to prevent situations like that from occurring because they aren’t black and white like an offside and require time to analyse. As I said, many of fhe laws of the game (including fouls) require interpretation from the referee. You cannot compare it to something like tennis where almost every umpiring decision (fault, let, out or in, etc) is a black and white decision like offside which can be automated through the use of technology.
Regardless of the subjectivity of the calls, the VAR refs, operating under the same guidelines as the on field refs, with better angles provided by video, could make the same real time calls with more complete information. If their calls were simply followed in real time just like the on field ref, this type of situation could be avoided.
The VAR booth should have the same power to call a foul and bring it back in real time as the on field ref.
You seem to be missing the point here. If VAR is going to intervene it needs to be 100% sure that it is correct. The only way to do that on a law that requires human interpretation, such as a foul, is to thoroughly review the footage beforehand. The pace at which football can be played simply makes it impossible for VAR to instantly call fouls in real time AND get those calls correct.