[Football] WC: Group H Deciders

[Stephen Seagull]

Thanks. Potentially going out by one yellow card, that would be a travesty.

Senegal have 6 YC - Japan have 4

 

[Thunder Bolt]

So why are we using VAR at all then?

Sometimes other players unsight the ref, or in the case of the Sth Korean goal yesterday, not offside, because the ball came off Kroos.
In real time, the ref cannot be expected to see everything instantly. VAR is useful to have another look.

 

[Simster]

How the hell are Senegal going out? They've been consistently the best team in this group. Comfortably beat Poland, ought to have beaten Japan and don't deserve to be behind here. Japan are dreadful and only have their win thanks to a 2nd minute sending off in the first game. Colombia have played well once so far and been gash in two.

Absolutely shocking. I know this suits England but Japan have no business being in the knockout stages and Colombia can count themselves lucky too.

 

[Stephen Seagull]

Sometimes other players unsight the ref, or in the case of the Sth Korean goal yesterday, not offside, because the ball came off Kroos.
In real time, the ref cannot be expected to see everything instantly. VAR is useful to have another look.

I get that, and I am an advocate of VAR (used correctly). What I don't get is that the rules of the game (rules are meant to be black and white to avoid confusion) state that a decision can be down to the referees interpretation. We're either happy to have another person (a room with 5 refs is a bit excessive IMO) helping the man in the midle to make the decision without the ref using a TV screen in his decision, like it is in Rugby. Or we revert back to the old style and accept that mistakes happen, it's part of the game.

 

[pasty]

So. Japan or Colombia in next round then.

 

[banjo]

Very unlucky Senegal.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

I'm disgusted by Japan. Awful, awful, awful. Some kind of irony in 'fair play' being what sends Japan through.

Can't help but feel for Senegal, if one team deserved to go through from that group it was them. Incredibly hard luck.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I get that, and I am an advocate of VAR (used correctly). What I don't get is that the rules of the game (rules are meant to be black and white to avoid confusion) state that a decision can be down to the referees interpretation. We're either happy to have another person (a room with 5 refs is a bit excessive IMO) helping the man in the midle to make the decision without the ref using a TV screen in his decision, like it is in Rugby. Or we revert back to the old style and accept that mistakes happen, it's part of the game.

In that particular case today, the defender got the ball, cleanly, well before his legs tangled with the striker.

 

[banjo]

The commentary team are complaining that Japan are through on yellow cards... but how else can it be settled? It's not as if you can have a replay in the World Cup.

I suppose it could be settled by shots/possession, but I'm not sure that would be any fairer, although it could be more entertaining.

 

[smillie's garden]

Gutted for Senegal. Japan lost to awful Poland, and are still going through. It shows that Senegal should have gone for the win today from the beginning - playing for the point is a dangerous game.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I'm disgusted by Japan. Awful, awful, awful. Some kind of irony in 'fair play' being what sends Japan through.

Can't help but feel for Senegal, if one team deserved to go through from that group it was them. Incredibly hard luck.

I have a lot of sympathy with that. Japan took a gamble but Senegal should have scored. I thought they were a bit wasteful in front of goal.

 

[pasty]

The commentary team are complaining that Japan are through on yellow cards... but how else can it be settled? It's not as if you can have a replay in the World Cup.

I suppose it could be settled by shots/possession, but I'm not sure that would be any fairer, although it could be more entertaining.

They should have had a second Japan 'keeper at the Senegal match, and a second Senegal 'keeper at the Japan match. They could then have had a penalty shoot out between Japan and Senegal, at two different stadiums to decide who goes through.

 

[McTavish]

I get that, and I am an advocate of VAR (used correctly). What I don't get is that the rules of the game (rules are meant to be black and white to avoid confusion) state that a decision can be down to the referees interpretation. We're either happy to have another person (a room with 5 refs is a bit excessive IMO) helping the man in the midle to make the decision without the ref using a TV screen in his decision, like it is in Rugby. Or we revert back to the old style and accept that mistakes happen, it's part of the game.

But the rules of football are not black and white and are not meant to be. Take hand ball - black and white would be that if the ball touches a player's hand or arm then a foul is given (as happens with feet in hockey). In football hand ball has to be deliberate and how that is decided (despite a lot of guidance for referees) is ultimately down to the ref's opinion.

What VAR is supposed to do is to correct the ref when he has made an error in fact or when a bad position or blocked view has meant that a clearly wrong decision has been made. At the moment most decisions based on fact are made by the VAR (offside for example) it is only decisions where the opinion of the referee is imporatant that it is referred to the on-field ref to make the decision (and a similar thing happens in rugby where the onfield and video ref often make decisions together whilst watching the big stadium screen)

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Much rather play Japan than Colombia. Win tonight

 

[Stephen Seagull]

But the rules of football are not black and white and are not meant to be. Take hand ball - black and white would be that if the ball touches a player's hand or arm then a foul is given (as happens with feet in hockey). In football hand ball has to be deliberate and how that is decided (despite a lot of guidance for referees) is ultimately down to the ref's opinion.

What VAR is supposed to do is to correct the ref when he has made an error in fact or when a bad position or blocked view has meant that a clearly wrong decision has been made. At the moment most decisions based on fact are made by the VAR (offside for example) it is only decisions where the opinion of the referee is imporatant that it is referred to the on-field ref to make the decision (and a similar thing happens in rugby where the onfield and video ref often make decisions together whilst watching the big stadium screen)

I may have mis-interpreted it then, but one of the guys in my office said that the onfield ref can still choose to ignore the "recommendations" of the VARs and stick to his original decision anyway. Mike up the refs, let's hear what they're saying between them all and it will at least stop conversations like these whilst we all adapt to the new (and good) improvements in the game.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

No different from taking the ball to the corner flag, or a keeper taking as long as he can to pick the ball up, in the 90th minute, in my view.

Had they lost possession, made a foul and got booked, they would be out right now. Sensible strategy, and no more unsporting than the above strategies used all the time in football.

No.

They spent the last 15 minutes playing for a 1-0 loss. They had their destiny in their own hands but decided to accept defeat and hope a result goes their way in another game. They took off an attacking player for a defensive one. It's tactical, sporting and moral cowardice. If that's your idea of good, sporting tactics then...

 

[LVGull]

It's all set up for Izquierdo to come on, score the winner, and become a Columbian legend

Or score an own goal and get shot dead?

 

[McTavish]

I may have mis-interpreted it then, but one of the guys in my office said that the onfield ref can still choose to ignore the "recommendations" of the VARs and stick to his original decision anyway. Mike up the refs, let's hear what they're saying between them all and it will at least stop conversations like these whilst we all adapt to the new (and good) improvements in the game.

They can ignore the recommendations that are not based on fact but I doubt that they are done like that. Take the Ronaldo possible sending off. Unless the VAR thought that there was a possibility of a red card, he would not have told the on-field ref to have a look but I expect he said something like, "there is a possible instance of violent conduct that you should have a look at," rather than, "you should send Ronaldo off."

On instances of fact - player ruled off side who is in an on side position for example - then the on-field ref can't ignore the VAR.