[Football] Euros 2024 - Matchday 8

[OzMike]

I just read the article about the referee with tatts.
So I assume only the players are allowed to be covered by them and no one else.
That ref is obviously biased then, even though his tatts do not show what team he supports.
Not a tatt man myself, but don't care who has them.

 

[kevo]

They should be working from the principal of: is there a clear and obvious reason to disallow the goal on first viewing? No- goal. The principal they seem to working on instead is: Is there any reason to disallow the goal? Not sure, let’s watch 10 replays and analyse in minute detail- 5 minutes later: not sure, goal disallowed.

The reason I despise VAR. Always looking for a technical reason to disallow a goal. We want goals. Goals are why we watch football. The benefit of the doubt should always go to the attacking side.

 

[Justice]

Is that what happened though? The assistant flagged, that's not the same as the goal was disallowed. I may have missed it, but it looked to me like no decision was made on the field as they immediately deferred it to VAR.

VAR checking goal was on the stadium monitor

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Taylor referee with Attwell on VAR The probability of a correct decision was close to zero. Why is Attwell still involved in football? It is unexplainable.

I assume atwell has some compromising photos of Howard webb stashed away.

Absolutely mental that he is still reffing in the Prem, let alone being selected for an international tournament

 

[Arthritic Toe]

This one is a bit like that Man U Coventry game in that everyone wanted it to be a goal so much that it seems to influence their view of the actual incident. Just like that Coventry player was just offside, but few could actually bring themselves to see the reality of it, in this case, the offside player was clearly (for me) hampering the keeper from making a dive towards the ball. He probably wouldn’t have saved it but that’s irrelevant.

I can see it’s arguable but on balance I think it was the correct decision and can completely see why they stuck with the on- field decision after giving it lengthy consideration.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

The reason I despise VAR. Always looking for a technical reason to disallow a goal. We want goals. Goals are why we watch football. The benefit of the doubt should always go to the attacking side.

I despise var too. But if you have it, that’s exactly what it is there for. In this case though it was completely the reverse - they were looking for a technical reason to allow the goal after it had been disallowed on-field.

 

[trueblue]

I'm happy for a qualified referee to correct me, but....

Surely there is ALWAYS an on-field decision, for anything that might occur on the field of play? The role of VAR is then to review that decision (for applicable situations) and only over-rule or advise the referee to view the monitor in instances where the VAR believes an incorrect decision has been made.

There can be no such thing as the on-field officials NOT making a decision and simply deferring to the VAR.

Fair enough, but on an offside call that's dependent on context, VAR is always going to be in a much better position to judge the player's influence. VAR has all the angles that show the player's position in relation to everyone else. Looking side on, the assistant effectively has a 2D perspective. Apart from the offside position itself, the only thing they might be able to judge as effectively is whether there was an attempt to play the ball.

My understanding from reading about semi-automated is that the system alerts that a player is in an offside position and that is communicated to the assistant. Flag is raised. VAR then checks whether the other criteria for 'offside' are met.

 

[Triggaaar]

They should be working from the principal of: is there a clear and obvious reason to disallow the goal on first viewing? No- goal. The principal they seem to working on instead is: Is there any reason to disallow the goal? Not sure, let’s watch 10 replays and analyse in minute detail- 5 minutes later: not sure, goal disallowed.

I basically agree, except that something clear and obvious may not be noticeable at all from the first camera angle viewed.

 

[Triggaaar]

It was a subjective call, but why did it take so long?

It was.

This may be the first (material) incorrect decision of the tournament, but as far poor VAR decisions go, it wasn't that bad.

After studying it for long enough, you can see that the keeper was not going to be able to save it. But how quickly can you tell that? (that's a rhetorical question, I don't need replies from all you super refs saying you knew straight away). If it takes that long, is the error clear and obvious? No.

A lot of people here (me included) say we don't want VAR spending ages to change an on-field decision - well, we got our wish, they didn't (ok, they did spent too long, but at least they didn't overturn a close call decision).

 

[Slum_Wolf]

It was.

This may be the first (material) incorrect decision of the tournament, but as far poor VAR decisions go, it wasn't that bad.

After studying it for long enough, you can see that the keeper was not going to be able to save it. But how quickly can you tell that? (that's a rhetorical question, I don't need replies from all you super refs saying you knew straight away). If it takes that long, is the error clear and obvious? No.

A lot of people here (me included) say we don't want VAR spending ages to change an on-field decision - well, we got our wish, they didn't (ok, they did spent too long, but at least they didn't overturn a close call decision).

Is there an instant notification by the semi-automated offside system to the referee that there is a player in an offside position?

 

[Bodian]

The goal was disallowed on the field. VAR didn't overturn a valid goal.

Is that what happened though? The assistant flagged, that's not the same as the goal was disallowed. I may have missed it, but it looked to me like no decision was made on the field as they immediately deferred it to VAR.

I think that's very much what happened...

1. Taylor consulted the assistant, and indicated offside.
2. At the conclusion of the VAR review, Taylor just gave a "get on with the game" gesture. He absolutely didn't draw a box in the air to indicate a VAR over-rule.

I'm happy for a qualified referee to correct me, but....

Surely there is ALWAYS an on-field decision, for anything that might occur on the field of play? The role of VAR is then to review that decision (for applicable situations) and only over-rule or advise the referee to view the monitor in instances where the VAR believes an incorrect decision has been made.

There can be no such thing as the on-field officials NOT making a decision and simply deferring to the VAR.

Looks as though the ref made the signal for direct free-kick with his left arm raised, and indicated offside with his right arm.

So, yes, an on-field decision to disallow the goal was made.

Which then ups the ante for VAR, because they would have to overrule Taylor's subjective decision. If he had given the goal, and then the linesman / VAR had indicated that there was a player in an offside position, I suspect the goal would have stood, as there wouldn't have been enough to overturn the subjective decision the other way either.

 

[trueblue]

Is there an instant notification by the semi-automated offside system to the referee that there is a player in an offside position?

More or less I think. The assistant's flag pole vibrates I believe.

The following is what IFAB says. Surprising the referee was not sent to the monitor to make the call:

• For subjective decisions, e.g. intensity of a foul challenge, interference at offside, handball considerations, an ‘on-field review’ (OFR) is appropriate

 

[drew]

Looks as though the ref made the signal for direct free-kick with his left arm raised, and indicated offside with his right arm.

View attachment 184523

So, yes, an on-field decision to disallow the goal was made.

Which then ups the ante for VAR, because they would have to overrule Taylor's subjective decision. If he had given the goal, and then the linesman / VAR had indicated that there was a player in an offside position, I suspect the goal would have stood, as there wouldn't have been enough to overturn the subjective decision the other way either.

Don't think you can say 'linesman/VAR'. The ball goes in the net the ref is always going to check with the linesman whether there's an offside before awarding the goal. He isn't going to blow for a goal unless he's done that. In this instance the player was flagged immediately and I think you'll find the goal ruled out immediately. Every goal has a VAR check, the problem here was that there was an imbecile watching the monitor!!

For what it's worth, I think the correct decision was made.

 

[Han Solo]

The fact that people still can't agree on whether it should have been allowed or not kind of explains why it took a few minutes yesterday.