Video Technology (Again)

People are mentioning clear and obvious because that is what it is meant to be used for. It is meant to be used to overturn clear or clear and obvious errors.

Yet the words 'clear and obvious' are not mentioned once in FIFA's explanation of VAR https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/media-tiles/video-assistant-referees-var/

The term was used early on and I don't know where it came from but it is confusing the issue. The FIFA guidance is clear and It doesn't take long to read, but professional pundits and commentators obviously haven't bothered. After one of these incidents journalists get excited straight afterwards, then by the next morning they calm down and generally say it was implemented properly, presumably after actually reading the rules.

Yet the words 'clear and obvious' are not mentioned once in FIFA's explanation of VAR https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/media-tiles/video-assistant-referees-var/

 

The term was used early on and I don't know where it came from but it is confusing the issue. The FIFA guidance is clear and It doesn't take long to read, but professional pundits and commentators obviously haven't bothered. After one of these incidents journalists get excited straight afterwards, then by the next morning they calm down and generally say it was implemented properly, presumably after actually reading the rules.

The FIFA document uses the words "Clearly wrong" with regard to penalties. Clear and obvious is a simple clear and obvious extension of this is wording. The term clear and obvious may have emanated from Howard Webb and subsequently been understood by referees and professionals, including pundits at least in this country.

Anybody know if the VAR pictures were relayed to the fans in the stadium?

That was obviously accidental and not the reason that the Italian went down. The significant thing is that not one of the other Italian players appealed for it. They were asking for a corner.

Accidental or not, appeals or not, it's a penalty. Intent only matters with handballs. Video refs review every case whether or not players/the ref asks for it to be reviewed, they looked at this and gave the ref a word in his ear.

If you're running in a straight line and someone sticks their foot under yours because they are trying to dive at an odd angle it isn't a foul.

VAR is going to benefit clubs like ours. The big clubs have got more than their fair share of dodgy refereeing decisions, including Man United against us in the EFL Cup Final. I thought the refereeing performance for the England v Italy game was one of the best I've seen for a long time and that the ref reacted to what he was told through his earpiece in the correct way. Any referee reviewing that video would have awarded a penalty and if it had been for England, there wouldn't have been any criticism of the decision on here.

"From the Telegraph, a fairly patriotic newspaper: "It was the right decision too, the German referee Deniz Aytekin going to the pitch-side monitor to review a run by substitute Federico Chiesa which was ended by the Burnley defender James Tarkowski accidentally stamping on his Italian opponent’s foot. Once the referee had seen it slowed down he could hardly do anything other than give the penalty."

VAR is going to benefit clubs like ours. The big clubs have got more than their fair share of dodgy refereeing decisions, including Man United against us in the EFL Cup Final. I thought the refereeing performance for the England v Italy game was one of the best I've seen for a long time and that the ref reacted to what he was told through his earpiece in the correct way. Any referee reviewing that video would have awarded a penalty and if it had been for England, there wouldn't have been any criticism of the decision on here.

"From the Telegraph, a fairly patriotic newspaper: "It was the right decision too, the German referee Deniz Aytekin going to the pitch-side monitor to review a run by substitute Federico Chiesa which was ended by the Burnley defender James Tarkowski accidentally stamping on his Italian opponent’s foot. Once the referee had seen it slowed down he could hardly do anything other than give the penalty."

Wrong.

Accidental or not, appeals or not, it's a penalty. Intent only matters with handballs. Video refs review every case whether or not players/the ref asks for it to be reviewed, they looked at this and gave the ref a word in his ear.

Rubbish! Never a penalty in a million years. Blatant dive and should have been left to the ref on the pitch who had the best view of it.

The Italian dived and stuck his foot out where another player trod on it.

It's a penalty. Young knocks him off balance and Tarkowski stands on his foot. It might not have been deliberate but it's still a foul.

It wasn't a clear and obvious error though, the referees in the truck were obviously bored and wanted to have an influence on the game.

It's a penalty. Young knocks him off balance and Tarkowski stands on his foot. It might not have been deliberate but it's still a foul.

Possibly, but football is also a contact sport, if going shoulder to shoulder with Young 'Knocks you off balance', that doesn't make it a foul.

The foul occurred when Tarkowski stood on his foot. I'd argue that his foot was in a completely natural position and it was the Italians foot that wasn't, causing Tarkowski to step on it (I'm not convinced that the step on his foot caused him to fall either). Also, the Italian was never getting on the end of his touch.

This is one of those occasions where slowing it down made it look worse than it was. By the letter of the law perhaps it was a pen, but I would be very upset if that was given against Saints when playing in the Semi Final.

Possibly, but football is also a contact sport, if going shoulder to shoulder with Young 'Knocks you off balance', that doesn't make it a foul.

Should have expanded on that, the reason he was off balance was because of Young knocking against his hip, hence people are saying he was already going down. That on it's own wouldn't be a foul but standing on his foot is.

I've seen plenty of dives where the attacker threw his leg out sideways to make contact and bought a penalty but this wasn't one of those. His foot was planted on the floor when the foul happened. It was clumsy from JT and it was a definite foul.

Yet the words 'clear and obvious' are not mentioned once in FIFA's explanation of VAR https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/media-tiles/video-assistant-referees-var/

 

The term was used early on and I don't know where it came from but it is confusing the issue. The FIFA guidance is clear and It doesn't take long to read, but professional pundits and commentators obviously haven't bothered. After one of these incidents journalists get excited straight afterwards, then by the next morning they calm down and generally say it was implemented properly, presumably after actually reading the rules.

Actually, the term is used by FIFA in this explanation of the use of VAR at the World Cup: https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/innovations/var-at-the-world-cup/ (in the section VAR Explained)

Actually, the term is used by FIFA in this explanation of the use of VAR at the World Cup: https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/innovations/var-at-the-world-cup/ (in the section VAR Explained)

The irony of being endorsed by Diego Maradonna.

Actually, the term is used by FIFA in this explanation of the use of VAR at the World Cup: https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/innovations/var-at-the-world-cup/ (in the section VAR Explained)

Good spot, it does confuse the situation because people have adopted it as the threshold when VAR gets involved. That's not how FIFA have set it up, VAR is specifically used for checking goals, penalties and red cards when they occur and when they should be given. What we have now is reffing by slo-mo.

When people claim 'it wasn't a clear and obvious mistake' what they mean is it would have been difficult to see in real time. Whereas FIFA are saying it is a clear and obvious error because you can see it was in this slo-mo. And this is where the conflict and confusion is.

The beat explanation I heard was from Gab Marcotti. He reckons this obsession with "clear and obvious " is confusing everyone.

When it comes to facts , VAR overrules the referee and it doesn't have to be "clear or obvious ", because a fact is a fact. You're either off side or you're not offside. Was it offside, was the foul in the box or not etc. Subjective decisions the VAR can't over rule the ref but can advise him to go and have a look on the pitch side monitor. The referee then decides if he's made an error. Only he can decide if he's made a clear and obvious error as it's a subjective thing. A clear and obvious error implies that 9 or 10 out of 10 people will agree its an error, whereas in reality the only thing that matters is whether 1 person thinks it's an error, the referee.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.goal.com/en/amp/news/what-is-var-the-video-assistant-referee-systems-world-cup/19m696jq7onm618n3v9oqs02ab

This article says "for a decision made on the pitch to be overturned it must be a clear error".

Not just an error but a "clear error". What does "clear" mean? It must have been intended to mean something otherwise why say it?

I think what is clear, is that FIFA will need to be very clear - and so will the FA cup, Prem etc. - about what the terms of reference are and make sure the officials stick to them.

Thoughts on Sané's disallowed goal? Looked a fairly obvious mistake to me as it was Milner who played it back.

Thoughts on Sané's disallowed goal? Looked a fairly obvious mistake to me as it was Milner who played it back.

It was a terrible decision and one that would have been quickly corrected by VAR.