World cup Var

[Rocking Red Cyril]

Now I am some  one who feels Var has a place in football. If and when they get it right . But already on three penalty shoots just used all wrong .

How in the first game is Ecuador goal dissolved for a knee offside from a head on on the box. Surely Var is not for that.

And the England game how is little shirt pull .The tef. alerted by var and penalty given when McGuire is rugby tackled in the first half and var says nothing . 

Human error or directed bias. The first penalty against the host nation. FIFA bias to Qatar's wealth. Keep them happy  And the seconed not given to England . FIFA directed bias against England. Because I am sure they don't want to have us win a world cup because they are going to do anything they can to not let us host another world cup .

End of rant 

Come on you England 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Rocking Red Cyril

[Davefevs]

Overall incompetence and individual bias.

[Lrrr]

As people have said it’s going to come down to VAR luck 

[1960maaan]

Taking my feelings out of the discussion, I found this piece from ESPN. Actually quite good, whether you agree with it or not, it does go some way to explain the thinking.  

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/fifa-world-cup/story/4807433/var-review-why-iran-got-a-penalty-but-harry-maguire-was-not

For the Iran Pen;
"With Pouraliganji, the ball was crossed in close proximity to him, which meant the shirt pull from Stones was deemed to prevent the opponent from challenging for the ball"
For England non Pen;
"In the case of Maguire, it was deemed that even with the holding offence by Cheshmi, the ball was not in immediate playing distance. Therefore, the England player was not prevented from competing from the ball."

"So, what's the difference for the VAR? One key consideration is whether an attacking player is prevented from being able to challenge for the ball; ergo, would he have had a chance of playing the ball without the challenge? It's not the only factor, as a penalty could still be awarded for holding, but the VAR will put a great amount of stock on this."
Added to that, Maguire also had his arm around Cheshmi, which will also be taken into account by the VAR as a holding offence by both players.

I would argue that Maguire tries to run past the marker and his arm (being attached to his body) has to go somewhere when he is Rugby tackled. As for not being in playing distance, if you are stopped from running by being pulled to the ground, there is little chance of getting close to playing the ball. But at least it gives some idea of the thought process.

The Ecuador disallowed goal;
This was the correct decision, though it wasn't at all clear for fans and it took quite some time for the 3D visualisation to be shown.

I actually agree with this , my problem is elsewhere.

When the free kick was played into the area, Ecuador defender Felix Torreschallenged Qatar goalkeeper Saad Al-Sheeb. The ball fell to Michael Estrada, who headed it back to Torres for him to create the goal for Valencia.However, when Torres got a touch on the ball (the direction it travels, forwards or backwards, is irrelevant) Estrada had one foot ahead of the second-last defensive player, who was Abdelkarim Hassan.
The review took longer than a regular offside check because the offside VAR, Tomasz Listkiewicz, had to be certain that the ball came off Torres. Without that, Estrada would not have been offside.

So my take , at least now as at the time I was convinced he was ok and the VAR shown was useless , is the decision is right. That said , and this annoyed me at the time, the 3D image from VAR takes the Keeper out of the picture when clearly he is a player and involved.

That image shows the striker clear of the defender, my problem is as there is a defender much further back towards goal, the keeper is in effect the "last man" and should be taken into the equation . Now from the photos and clips I've seen , the guy is still off, what I don't get is why take the keeper out? Makes me think they have made a mistake thinking the guy in red above, is the last man. 

  

Crap grab, but you can see a defender closer to goal than the keeper. I do think the strikers foot is just offside.
I hope that VAR have better images because I'm still not sure who actually gets the touch, but allowing for them having clear footage, it looks like it's the right decision.

I don't feel any better, as it just feels like excuses , rather than explanations for the Penalty decisions. I do worry that VAR will play a big part in who wins the World Cup, and that has to be wrong. 
Lets hope today is free of VAR arguments .

[TonyTonyTony]

VAR has arguably brought more controversy to the game than when the Referee decided on his own - the exact opposite of its intent. 

The contrasting penalty decisions yesterday were ridiculous. Imagine that's in a WC Final, and the second penalty is the winner? Time for VAR to **** off

[Rocking Red Cyril]

58 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Taking my feelings out of the discussion, I found this piece from ESPN. Actually quite good, whether you agree with it or not, it does go some way to explain the thinking.  

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/fifa-world-cup/story/4807433/var-review-why-iran-got-a-penalty-but-harry-maguire-was-not

For the Iran Pen;
"With Pouraliganji, the ball was crossed in close proximity to him, which meant the shirt pull from Stones was deemed to prevent the opponent from challenging for the ball"
For England non Pen;
"In the case of Maguire, it was deemed that even with the holding offence by Cheshmi, the ball was not in immediate playing distance. Therefore, the England player was not prevented from competing from the ball."

"So, what's the difference for the VAR? One key consideration is whether an attacking player is prevented from being able to challenge for the ball; ergo, would he have had a chance of playing the ball without the challenge? It's not the only factor, as a penalty could still be awarded for holding, but the VAR will put a great amount of stock on this."
Added to that, Maguire also had his arm around Cheshmi, which will also be taken into account by the VAR as a holding offence by both players.

I would argue that Maguire tries to run past the marker and his arm (being attached to his body) has to go somewhere when he is Rugby tackled. As for not being in playing distance, if you are stopped from running by being pulled to the ground, there is little chance of getting close to playing the ball. But at least it gives some idea of the thought process.

The Ecuador disallowed goal;
This was the correct decision, though it wasn't at all clear for fans and it took quite some time for the 3D visualisation to be shown.

I actually agree with this , my problem is elsewhere.

When the free kick was played into the area, Ecuador defender Felix Torreschallenged Qatar goalkeeper Saad Al-Sheeb. The ball fell to Michael Estrada, who headed it back to Torres for him to create the goal for Valencia.However, when Torres got a touch on the ball (the direction it travels, forwards or backwards, is irrelevant) Estrada had one foot ahead of the second-last defensive player, who was Abdelkarim Hassan.
The review took longer than a regular offside check because the offside VAR, Tomasz Listkiewicz, had to be certain that the ball came off Torres. Without that, Estrada would not have been offside.

So my take , at least now as at the time I was convinced he was ok and the VAR shown was useless , is the decision is right. That said , and this annoyed me at the time, the 3D image from VAR takes the Keeper out of the picture when clearly he is a player and involved.

That image shows the striker clear of the defender, my problem is as there is a defender much further back towards goal, the keeper is in effect the "last man" and should be taken into the equation . Now from the photos and clips I've seen , the guy is still off, what I don't get is why take the keeper out? Makes me think they have made a mistake thinking the guy in red above, is the last man. 

  

Crap grab, but you can see a defender closer to goal than the keeper. I do think the strikers foot is just offside.
I hope that VAR have better images because I'm still not sure who actually gets the touch, but allowing for them having clear footage, it looks like it's the right decision.

I don't feel any better, as it just feels like excuses , rather than explanations for the Penalty decisions. I do worry that VAR will play a big part in who wins the World Cup, and that has to be wrong. 
Lets hope today is free of VAR arguments .

Thank you for that . It does explain a lot. But how at the time of a var incident happening can the fans be made away of that thinking as it happens. And I too wordy that Var will have a big Influence on who wins the world cup. And as I indicated in my first post . I am worried about individual and FIFA bias

 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

6 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

VAR has arguably brought more controversy to the game than when the Referee decided on his own - the exact opposite of its intent. 

The contrasting penalty decisions yesterday were ridiculous. Imagine that's in a WC Final, and the second penalty is the winner? Time for VAR to **** off

I gel the Var us ok it's down poor use by referees and Var officials. They show no transparency and need to be on sound to hear their conversations . consistency has to be shown 

[bcfc01]

1 hour ago, 1960maaan said:

Taking my feelings out of the discussion, I found this piece from ESPN. Actually quite good, whether you agree with it or not, it does go some way to explain the thinking.  

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/fifa-world-cup/story/4807433/var-review-why-iran-got-a-penalty-but-harry-maguire-was-not

For the Iran Pen;
"With Pouraliganji, the ball was crossed in close proximity to him, which meant the shirt pull from Stones was deemed to prevent the opponent from challenging for the ball"
For England non Pen;
"In the case of Maguire, it was deemed that even with the holding offence by Cheshmi, the ball was not in immediate playing distance. Therefore, the England player was not prevented from competing from the ball."

"So, what's the difference for the VAR? One key consideration is whether an attacking player is prevented from being able to challenge for the ball; ergo, would he have had a chance of playing the ball without the challenge? It's not the only factor, as a penalty could still be awarded for holding, but the VAR will put a great amount of stock on this."
Added to that, Maguire also had his arm around Cheshmi, which will also be taken into account by the VAR as a holding offence by both players.

I would argue that Maguire tries to run past the marker and his arm (being attached to his body) has to go somewhere when he is Rugby tackled. As for not being in playing distance, if you are stopped from running by being pulled to the ground, there is little chance of getting close to playing the ball. But at least it gives some idea of the thought process.

The Ecuador disallowed goal;
This was the correct decision, though it wasn't at all clear for fans and it took quite some time for the 3D visualisation to be shown.

I actually agree with this , my problem is elsewhere.

When the free kick was played into the area, Ecuador defender Felix Torreschallenged Qatar goalkeeper Saad Al-Sheeb. The ball fell to Michael Estrada, who headed it back to Torres for him to create the goal for Valencia.However, when Torres got a touch on the ball (the direction it travels, forwards or backwards, is irrelevant) Estrada had one foot ahead of the second-last defensive player, who was Abdelkarim Hassan.
The review took longer than a regular offside check because the offside VAR, Tomasz Listkiewicz, had to be certain that the ball came off Torres. Without that, Estrada would not have been offside.

So my take , at least now as at the time I was convinced he was ok and the VAR shown was useless , is the decision is right. That said , and this annoyed me at the time, the 3D image from VAR takes the Keeper out of the picture when clearly he is a player and involved.

That image shows the striker clear of the defender, my problem is as there is a defender much further back towards goal, the keeper is in effect the "last man" and should be taken into the equation . Now from the photos and clips I've seen , the guy is still off, what I don't get is why take the keeper out? Makes me think they have made a mistake thinking the guy in red above, is the last man. 

  

Crap grab, but you can see a defender closer to goal than the keeper. I do think the strikers foot is just offside.
I hope that VAR have better images because I'm still not sure who actually gets the touch, but allowing for them having clear footage, it looks like it's the right decision.

I don't feel any better, as it just feels like excuses , rather than explanations for the Penalty decisions. I do worry that VAR will play a big part in who wins the World Cup, and that has to be wrong. 
Lets hope today is free of VAR arguments .

I understood that VAR was brought in to correct clear and obvious mistakes by the referee.

If they have to go into such detail to disallow goals or give penalties, then it is being used incorrectly imo.

[2015]

Ecuador definitely took their foot off the gas in the 2nd half against Qatar, I think to keep the scoreline respectable and to not humiliate Qatar.

It was probably one of the worst World Cup performances I have ever seen. Qatar looked like they'd struggle in League 2.

[1960maaan]

 

11 minutes ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

I gel the Var us ok it's down poor use by referees and Var officials. They show no transparency and need to be on sound to hear their conversations . consistency has to be shown 

From what I've seen so far, and allowing for the language difficulties, it is more like a secret society than ever. Like I said about that 3D representation , the clips before weren't clear , the cartoon didn't show the last man/men so you couldn't follow their reasoning .

11 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

I understood that VAR was brought in to correct clear and obvious mistakes by the referee.

If they have to go into such detail to disallow goals or give penalties, then it is being used incorrectly imo.

I like the Cricket version, the Umpire makes a decision and it is changed if it's wrong. Because of the difference in the game Football has to play on while it's checked (offsides etc) , but then you do get instances where Refs give nothing so they don't get it wrong.
I get it's harder, as I've said it won't help us if a VAR conversation is in Spanish or German, but at least we should be able to see what they are looking at so we can try and follow the reasoning.
I don't agree with much of that piece from ESPN, but at least they explain things. I may be wrong, but at least after reading the article ,  I know why I might be .

[Davefevs]

@1960maaan thanks for the earlier post.

The fact that they showed the image without the keeper is worrying though.  How many times do we as footie fans have to reiterate the rule that it’s the last two players, not the last player and the goalie.  It looks like they got lucky that the striker’s boot was just goalside of the keeper’s arse too.

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, 1960maaan said:

Taking my feelings out of the discussion, I found this piece from ESPN. Actually quite good, whether you agree with it or not, it does go some way to explain the thinking.  

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/fifa-world-cup/story/4807433/var-review-why-iran-got-a-penalty-but-harry-maguire-was-not

For the Iran Pen;
"With Pouraliganji, the ball was crossed in close proximity to him, which meant the shirt pull from Stones was deemed to prevent the opponent from challenging for the ball"
For England non Pen;
"In the case of Maguire, it was deemed that even with the holding offence by Cheshmi, the ball was not in immediate playing distance. Therefore, the England player was not prevented from competing from the ball."

"So, what's the difference for the VAR? One key consideration is whether an attacking player is prevented from being able to challenge for the ball; ergo, would he have had a chance of playing the ball without the challenge? It's not the only factor, as a penalty could still be awarded for holding, but the VAR will put a great amount of stock on this."
Added to that, Maguire also had his arm around Cheshmi, which will also be taken into account by the VAR as a holding offence by both players.

I would argue that Maguire tries to run past the marker and his arm (being attached to his body) has to go somewhere when he is Rugby tackled. As for not being in playing distance, if you are stopped from running by being pulled to the ground, there is little chance of getting close to playing the ball. But at least it gives some idea of the thought process.

The Ecuador disallowed goal;
This was the correct decision, though it wasn't at all clear for fans and it took quite some time for the 3D visualisation to be shown.

I actually agree with this , my problem is elsewhere.

When the free kick was played into the area, Ecuador defender Felix Torreschallenged Qatar goalkeeper Saad Al-Sheeb. The ball fell to Michael Estrada, who headed it back to Torres for him to create the goal for Valencia.However, when Torres got a touch on the ball (the direction it travels, forwards or backwards, is irrelevant) Estrada had one foot ahead of the second-last defensive player, who was Abdelkarim Hassan.
The review took longer than a regular offside check because the offside VAR, Tomasz Listkiewicz, had to be certain that the ball came off Torres. Without that, Estrada would not have been offside.

So my take , at least now as at the time I was convinced he was ok and the VAR shown was useless , is the decision is right. That said , and this annoyed me at the time, the 3D image from VAR takes the Keeper out of the picture when clearly he is a player and involved.

That image shows the striker clear of the defender, my problem is as there is a defender much further back towards goal, the keeper is in effect the "last man" and should be taken into the equation . Now from the photos and clips I've seen , the guy is still off, what I don't get is why take the keeper out? Makes me think they have made a mistake thinking the guy in red above, is the last man. 

  

Crap grab, but you can see a defender closer to goal than the keeper. I do think the strikers foot is just offside.
I hope that VAR have better images because I'm still not sure who actually gets the touch, but allowing for them having clear footage, it looks like it's the right decision.

I don't feel any better, as it just feels like excuses , rather than explanations for the Penalty decisions. I do worry that VAR will play a big part in who wins the World Cup, and that has to be wrong. 
Lets hope today is free of VAR arguments .

Thanks, interesting. But there doesn't seem to be anything in Law 12 that justifies the Maguire decision. Perhaps there is further guidance to referees I haven't seen.

An infringement is classified as a foul when the infringement meets all the following conditions:

It is committed by a player (not a substitute);

It occurs on the field of play;

It occurs while the ball is in play;

It is committed against an opponent (for fouls concerning contact or conduct between players).

Direct free kicks are also awarded for holding an opponent, impeding them with contact, biting or spitting at other persons, throwing an object (other than the ball) at an opponent or match official, or making contact with the ball with a held object.

Direct free kicks are also awarded for holding an opponent ...

No caveats there.Time for referees to explain their decisions, even if it's some time after the game?

[Rocking Red Cyril]

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Overall incompetence and individual bias.

Only individual bias not FIFA bias as well

[1960maaan]

6 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Thanks, interesting. But there doesn't seem to be anything in Law 12 that justifies the Maguire decision. Perhaps there is further guidance to referees I haven't seen.

An infringement is classified as a foul when the infringement meets all the following conditions:

It is committed by a player (not a substitute);

It occurs on the field of play;

It occurs while the ball is in play;

It is committed against an opponent (for fouls concerning contact or conduct between players).

Direct free kicks are also awarded for holding an opponent, impeding them with contact, biting or spitting at other persons, throwing an object (other than the ball) at an opponent or match official, or making contact with the ball with a held object.

Direct free kicks are also awarded for holding an opponent ...

No caveats there.Time for referees to explain their decisions, even if it's some time after the game?

Thanks, it is interesting reading the Laws compared to what we actually see what takes place. 
I posted the article for an idea of how the VAR spooks interpret or reason out their decisions rather than a hard and fast rule/law. As you point out they are not the same thing. 

I thought our VAR has been used and applied poorly, I also thought recent Women's Tournaments have been excellent . I don't remember the last mens Euro's being too bad, it's early days but not a great start so far. 

[Davefevs]

Argentina / Saudi - proximity to ball (miles away)….that excuse (for Maguire’s) has just gone out the window.

Effing shambles.  They are making it up as they go along.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Davefevs

[frenchred]

Var at its finest again! 

[Harry]

How does the Argentina one get given and Maguire’s not. Baffling. 
They are exactly the same. 
I wondered if the England one was ‘too early in the game’ but the Argentina one is also in the first few minutes, so that excuse is also scrubbed. 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

*******. Cheats

How can Argentina have a penalty there if Macquire one is not. I mean why not give the world cup to Argentina now . Total bias . The worst bunch of cheating football players ever are Argentina,( closely followed by Italy)

Sorry I forgotten the politics here for the football and it's ******* corrupt too.

[pillred]

53 minutes ago, 2015 said:

Ecuador definitely took their foot off the gas in the 2nd half against Qatar, I think to keep the scoreline respectable and to not humiliate Qatar.

It was probably one of the worst World Cup performances I have ever seen. Qatar looked like they'd struggle in League 2.

Not sure Iran would do much better 20th in FIFA rankings my ar*e!

[frenchred]

Just now, Rocking Red Cyril said:

*******. Cheats

How can Argentina have a penalty there if Macquire one is not. I mean why not give the world cup to Argentina now . Total bias . The worst bunch of cheating football players ever are Argentina,( closely followed by Italy)

Sorry I forgotten the politics here for the football and it's ******* corrupt too.

It's not exactly Argentina s fault is it. Its the use of VAR yet again

[!james]

4 minutes ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

*******. Cheats

How can Argentina have a penalty there if Macquire one is not. I mean why not give the world cup to Argentina now . Total bias . The worst bunch of cheating football players ever are Argentina,( closely followed by Italy)

Sorry I forgotten the politics here for the football and it's ******* corrupt too.

Weird take - nothing to do with Argentina... the refs have been told to take a zero tolerance approach to holding and shirt pulling in the box. Just need consistency after the Maguire hold which was much worse than this one which was given. 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

5 minutes ago, frenchred said:

It's not exactly Argentina s fault is it. Its the use of VAR yet again

Yes var which is bias on both individuals and FIFA 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

2 minutes ago, !james said:

Weird take - nothing to do with Argentina... the refs have been told to take a zero tolerance approach to holding and shirt pulling in the box. Just need consistency after the Maguire hold which was much worse than this one which was given. 

Argentina and Italy are the worst exponents of cheating on the field by far . End of story . But Var is now being sent to be just as bad 

[wayne allisons tongues]

2 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Taking my feelings out of the discussion, I found this piece from ESPN. Actually quite good, whether you agree with it or not, it does go some way to explain the thinking.  

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/fifa-world-cup/story/4807433/var-review-why-iran-got-a-penalty-but-harry-maguire-was-not

For the Iran Pen;
"With Pouraliganji, the ball was crossed in close proximity to him, which meant the shirt pull from Stones was deemed to prevent the opponent from challenging for the ball"
For England non Pen;
"In the case of Maguire, it was deemed that even with the holding offence by Cheshmi, the ball was not in immediate playing distance. Therefore, the England player was not prevented from competing from the ball."

"So, what's the difference for the VAR? One key consideration is whether an attacking player is prevented from being able to challenge for the ball; ergo, would he have had a chance of playing the ball without the challenge? It's not the only factor, as a penalty could still be awarded for holding, but the VAR will put a great amount of stock on this."
Added to that, Maguire also had his arm around Cheshmi, which will also be taken into account by the VAR as a holding offence by both players.

I would argue that Maguire tries to run past the marker and his arm (being attached to his body) has to go somewhere when he is Rugby tackled. As for not being in playing distance, if you are stopped from running by being pulled to the ground, there is little chance of getting close to playing the ball. But at least it gives some idea of the thought process.

The Ecuador disallowed goal;
This was the correct decision, though it wasn't at all clear for fans and it took quite some time for the 3D visualisation to be shown.

I actually agree with this , my problem is elsewhere.

When the free kick was played into the area, Ecuador defender Felix Torreschallenged Qatar goalkeeper Saad Al-Sheeb. The ball fell to Michael Estrada, who headed it back to Torres for him to create the goal for Valencia.However, when Torres got a touch on the ball (the direction it travels, forwards or backwards, is irrelevant) Estrada had one foot ahead of the second-last defensive player, who was Abdelkarim Hassan.
The review took longer than a regular offside check because the offside VAR, Tomasz Listkiewicz, had to be certain that the ball came off Torres. Without that, Estrada would not have been offside.

So my take , at least now as at the time I was convinced he was ok and the VAR shown was useless , is the decision is right. That said , and this annoyed me at the time, the 3D image from VAR takes the Keeper out of the picture when clearly he is a player and involved.

That image shows the striker clear of the defender, my problem is as there is a defender much further back towards goal, the keeper is in effect the "last man" and should be taken into the equation . Now from the photos and clips I've seen , the guy is still off, what I don't get is why take the keeper out? Makes me think they have made a mistake thinking the guy in red above, is the last man. 

  

Crap grab, but you can see a defender closer to goal than the keeper. I do think the strikers foot is just offside.
I hope that VAR have better images because I'm still not sure who actually gets the touch, but allowing for them having clear footage, it looks like it's the right decision.

I don't feel any better, as it just feels like excuses , rather than explanations for the Penalty decisions. I do worry that VAR will play a big part in who wins the World Cup, and that has to be wrong. 
Lets hope today is free of VAR arguments .

With the Maguire one how do they know he isn’t in the area to get the ball. If someone wins the header and heads it back to where he should be then he has been prevented from scoring. All still the same phase of play, do think they make it up as they go along.

[!james]

Just now, Rocking Red Cyril said:

Argentina and Italy are the worst exponents of cheating on the field by far . End of story . But Var is now being sent to be just as bad 

Except that was a clear penalty for holding... 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

Just now, !james said:

Except that was a clear penalty for holding... 

Yes but do was the one on Macquire.

 

[!james]

Just now, Rocking Red Cyril said:

Yes but do was the one on Macquire.

 

Yes which is my point, the issue is VAR consistency not "cheating" Argentina 

[Harry]

It’s quite simple really. 
If the Argentina one was a penalty, and the Iran one was a penalty, then the England one was a penalty. 
If some FIFA official comes out and admits that a mistake was made then we can all move on. 

[TonyTonyTony]

1 minute ago, Harry said:

It’s quite simple really. 
If the Argentina one was a penalty, and the Iran one was a penalty, then the England one was a penalty. 
If some FIFA official comes out and admits that a mistake was made then we can all move on. 

I wonder if FIFA reminded the ref's / VAR team to keep their eyes on scraps in the penalty area, since they missed the first one (which happened to be England).

As you say, if they come out and say a mistake was made we can all move on - as long as they are consistent moving forward

[2015]

VAR up to its old tricks again then