World cup Var

[Davefevs]

England were specifically told pre-tournament that they were going to be watched for blocking on set pieces. Says a lot to me!

[Rocking Red Cyril]

4 minutes ago, !james said:

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

Yes in this situation it's the Vat bias and not Argentina's cheating I agree. But that does hide the fact Argentina with Italy y are the biggest cheats in the game . Which is proberly a different thread 

[chinapig]

3 minutes 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. 

PGMOL are the gold standard. So the FA will receive a letter of apology 2 weeks after the tournament has finished.

[Harry]

I must say, Saudi Arabia’s defensive line is superb, much like Arsenal of the 80’s and 90’s.

  Offside offside, offside offside  

[Maltshoveller]

2 minutes ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

Yes in this situation it's the Vat bias and not Argentina's cheating I agree. But that does hide the fact Argentina with Italy y are the biggest cheats in the game . Which is proberly a different thread 

Sorry but they are no worse than every other team

Only my OPINION (Not a fact!!!)

[Rocking Red Cyril]

Just now, Harry said:

I must say, Saudi Arabia’s defensive line is superb, much like Arsenal of the 80’s and 90’s.

  Offside offside, offside offside  

Yes something that needs to be noted for teams playing Argentina in later rounds of the tournament . 

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Harry said:

I must say, Saudi Arabia’s defensive line is superb, much like Arsenal of the 80’s and 90’s.

  Offside offside, offside offside  

More like the Full Monty’s interpretation of it….hot stuff baby!!!

(in fairness, they’ve got it spot on so far)

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Davefevs

[Rocking Red Cyril]

1 minute ago, Maltshoveller said:

Sorry but they are no worse than every other team

Only my OPINION (Not a fact!!!)

 

Ok I accept it's only my opinion . 

but I really feel the dark arts in football are so abused in high stakes games by Argentina and Italy to a level beyond other teams .  Which is such a shame as they both contain such fine football players 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

England were specifically told pre-tournament that they were going to be watched for blocking on set pieces. Says a lot to me!

More unfair bias 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

29 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. 

Where was the zero tolerance guidance in Macquire penalty appeal 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

Reference half time souness/Keane ref directive spat.

Did the ref directive  come before or after the England Macquire incident ? 

[1960maaan]

Souness & Keane kicking off

I can see both sides of that Pen. Defender isn't looking at the ball blocks and grabs at striker, but the striker holds onto the defenders arm and drags him down . 

First time I've seen it as I was late switching on, it is a Pen IMO. GS & RK are both right though 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

2 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Souness & Keane kicking off

I can see both sides of that Pen. Defender isn't looking at the ball blocks and grabs at striker, but the striker holds onto the defenders arm and drags him down . 

First time I've seen it as I was late switching on, it is a Pen IMO. GS & RK are both right though 

I think we going to see lot more attackers making contact with defenders and then diving and dragging defender down from now on  

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Souness & Keane kicking off

I can see both sides of that Pen. Defender isn't looking at the ball blocks and grabs at striker, but the striker holds onto the defenders arm and drags him down . 

First time I've seen it as I was late switching on, it is a Pen IMO. GS & RK are both right though 

Argie striker grabs Saudi arm

[1960maaan]

10 minutes ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

I think we going to see lot more attackers making contact with defenders and then diving and dragging defender down from now on  

When you can get dragged down and nothings given, then you would wouldn't you. 
It started with not getting a Pen or free kick when tripped and staying up, to going down as soon as you "feel contact "

[1960maaan]

Just now, Davefevs said:

Argie striker grabs Saudi arm

I agree, I also think the defender makes first contact and tries to block him

[Rocking Red Cyril]

1 minute ago, 1960maaan said:

When you can get dragged down and nothings given, then you would wouldn't you. 
It started with not getting a Pen or free kick when tripped and staying up, to going down as soon as you "feel contact "

Contact is not necessarily a foul. It's a physical game 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

Loving the game at the moment 

Come on Saudi

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, 1960maaan said:

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. 

Yes, the issue is not VAR itself, the issue is that the fundamental Laws of the Game are not written with VAR in mind. In my opinion there are two fundamental issues with the Laws currently, both are set out in IFAB's preamble to the Laws, and are as follows:

• "...the Laws of the Game are the same for all football throughout the world, from the FIFA World Cup through to a game between young children in a remote village..."; and
• "The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game and the Laws – this often involves asking the question, “what would football want/expect?".

These two statements are incredible in their own right. Firstly you have a clear statement that the Laws are being written so that your man in the middle on the Downs on Sunday can use the same rulebook as the bloke reffing the World Cup final. That's a lovely notion, but when you then equip one of those referees with slow motion replays, digital rulers, and a team of 6 assistants, whilst the other has his own eyes and Barry on the touchline yelling at him, it seems absurd to expect them to fairly and equally apply the Laws. You naturally have to draft the Laws to account for the least well equipped referee, and so you create huge confusion when the bloke with VAR does something differently.

The second statement then says that at the end of the day the referee's personal interpretation of the "spirit" of football is the deciding factor. Again, a beautiful notion that I am sure we all admire, but it introduces an inevitability that someone's personal interpretation of a Law might conflict with the digital wizardry of VAR. Which is to prevail?

To my mind these two statements fundamentally create an issue with the application of the Laws when you then introduce an incredibly sophisticated, but also harshly objective tool such as VAR. That mismatch then causes confusion when fans see two referees apply the laws differently , despite both using VAR. It's not VAR that is the issue, it's the laws not being designed to be so harshly applied, yet still with subjective opinion being a factor.

IFAB's VAR Protocol sets out when and how VAR is used, but it does nothing to alter the base Laws of the Game to account for the fact that a referee has VAR at his disposal. It also reinforces the idea that the referee's opinion - which is going to be personal and subjective - is final when it says "The final decision is always taken by the referee, either based on information from the VAR or after the referee has undertaken an ‘on-field review’". So it hands the referee an empirical and harsh machine tool, and then says "oh but ultimately it's your human opinion that counts". No wonder we still discuss VAR inconsistency!

The only solution, for me, is for IFAB to create additional or supplementary Laws of the Game that can be used when VAR is present. A part of that would, for me, be to remove the "referee's opinion" element of the Laws for which VAR is used". Obviously doing that runs contrary to the stated objective that the Laws be the same for all football, but when the tools available are different, it is absurd that the Laws should be the same.

[Bristol Oil Services]

54 minutes ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

 

Ok I accept it's only my opinion . 

but I really feel the dark arts in football are so abused in high stakes games by Argentina and Italy to a level beyond other teams .  Which is such a shame as they both contain such fine football players 

Maybe that's why they produce the sort of talent we don’t? Because you have to survive and come through all that argie-bargy. 

Whereas all our children now emerge from organised, coached, safe practice on smooth all weather pitches 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Worth remembering that the last incumbent of FIFA presidency- a broken clock is right twice a day- was anti VAR because of that reason, basically how can you have VAR at the top and not lower down.

He was also just stubborn, pigheaded on certain issues too.

It does disrupt the flow of the game? It's not going anywhere but is it worth it?

Edited November 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rocking Red Cyril]

Just now, Bristol Oil Services said:

Maybe that's why they produce the sort of talent we don’t? Because you have to survive and come through all that argie-bargy. 

Whereas all our children now emerge from organised, coached, safe practice on smooth all weather pitches 

Interesting point . Not sure I agree or disagree. But food for thought 

[chinapig]

26 minutes ago, Bristol Oil Services said:

Maybe that's why they produce the sort of talent we don’t? Because you have to survive and come through all that argie-bargy. 

Whereas all our children now emerge from organised, coached, safe practice on smooth all weather pitches 

On the other hand I would argue that the technical and tactical ability of young English players has improved considerably since the introduced of the academy system.

[Bristol Oil Services]

29 minutes ago, chinapig said:

On the other hand I would argue that the technical and tactical ability of young English players has improved considerably since the introduced of the academy system.

Very true. But we were undone in last year's final by the crafty Italians and those canny old three bastards at the back, we got no-one like them three. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Bristol Oil Services said:

Very true. But we were undone in last year's final by the crafty Italians and those canny old three bastards at the back, we got no-one like them three. 

They dominated tactically and technically. Lot more ball, lot more shots- pressure was building etc although we contributed to this by taking a step back after scoring early.

Had shades of the Croatia semi final in that respect- they (Italy) also went 4-3-3 not a back 3.

Granted what you say has a lot of historical resonance but they (Italy) largely a possession and pressing side in that Euros.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Bazooka Joe]

4 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

The Ecuador disallowed goal;

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. 

 

WTF is this?

Why are they using  crappy CGI depictions, when the actual image is good enough (at least for me) to show it was onside.

Using the unnecessary CGI representation, they have very conveniently removed the goal-keeper and another defender who. potentially, kept the attacker onside.

I'm surprised they didn't use this graphics technology to superimpose a picture of Darth Vader, Mickey Mouse or Gianni Infantino into this ridiculous image.

 

 

When Qatar play Holland the VAR official will probably use this creative technology to extend a Dutch attacker's leg, making it appear twelve feet long, in order to rule out another perfectly good goal.

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Bazooka Joe

[Bristol Oil Services]

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They dominated tactically and technically. Lot more ball, lot more shots- pressure was building etc although we contributed to this by taking a step back after scoring early.

Had shades of the Croatia semi final in that respect- they (Italy) also went 4-3-3 not a back 3.

Granted what you say has a lot of historical resonance but they (Italy) largely a possession and pressing side in that Euros.

I just think that, yes, we have improved "technically and tactically," but that we're still missing some thing, not quite sure what, it might be one truly great player (a Maradona '86, or a Zidane '98 say) or a canniness or whatever it is the Italians have, along with technique and tactics. 

 

[frenchred]

1 hour ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

Contact is not necessarily a foul. It's a physical game 

not any more it isnt

[MarcusX]

13 hours ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

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 

 

Why would VAR not be for disallowing a goal that came from an offside?

I suppose you could argue how far back does it go to review.

Always found it odd that a goal could be disallowed for an offside in the build up (or foul) but if someone scored directly from a corner that was incorrectly given, VAR doesn't overrule it

Edited November 22, 2022 by MarcusX

[MarcusX]

5 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.

Maguire was absolutely just trying to get past his man and free himself from the holding. I'd also say he gets close to the ball if he's not held back. Fouls don't matter how far you are from the ball - else you could just trip someone up who runs past you!

5 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

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.

5 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

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 .

The keeper was removed for visability that's all... it was just a visual animation of why the player is offside - it would still have been compared against the keeper for the terms of offside.

The problem for the fans will always be getting their head around angles and perception. You have to forget what your eyes tell you and trust the geometric lines (though they didn't share them with the viewers). The angle of those screenshots make it impossible to tell how far beyond the keeper the Ecuador player actually was