Iran v Portugal

[GraemeS]

No offence to what I read earlier. But, I would rather hear it from much higher powers. It defies logic that VAR can/should only be used for a certain situation, yet you can still recieve a punishment for a different offence!

Seems far less logical for me that a ref could look at a "potential red card", decide he missed the offence but in his opinion it was only yellow, but then not be empowerd to act on that decision?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Sorry Ronaldo, protocol says I can only use this for violent conduct. I have viewed it, and you are not guilty of violent conduct.
But cos i had to go view it, have a token yellow anyway!

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Seems far less logical for me that a ref could look at a "potential red card", decide he missed the offence but in his opinion it was only yellow, but then not be empowerd to act on that decision?

I agree. And other than Mr Grove saying so, do we have the actual document?
The procedure as i read it, is to check for vc
Not check for it then decide to issue a card for something completely different

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Dozens of referees on here virtually agreeing in virtual disbelief of some of the simplist decisions gone wrong ...... What has VAR done when the top boys seem hamstrung!

 

[RustyRef]

Ronaldo's arm movement wasn't part of a play for the ball, it was long gone and rather was an intentional attempt to strike an opponent in the face. That is as clear a red card as you are likely to see, and I was astounded that VAR called a review and the referee said caution. And this is where conspiracy theories come in, does anyone think it would have been a caution had the tables been reversed and it had been an Iranian player accused. I'm not suggesting bias here, but rather the undoubtable pressure on the referee of ruling out the best player in the World for potentially the rest of the tournament for something that he hadn't seen himself in real time?

 

[GraemeS]

Ronaldo's arm movement wasn't part of a play for the ball, it was long gone and rather was an intentional attempt to strike an opponent in the face. That is as clear a red card as you are likely to see, and I was astounded that VAR called a review and the referee said caution. And this is where conspiracy theories come in, does anyone think it would have been a caution had the tables been reversed and it had been an Iranian player accused. I'm not suggesting bias here, but rather the undoubtable pressure on the referee of ruling out the best player in the World for potentially the rest of the tournament for something that he hadn't seen himself in real time?

I'm a long way from his biggest fan, but I genuinely don't see a strike. I see him trying to grab his opponent and pull him back in order to get around him towards the ball, and because he's not paying enough attention he catches the opponent's face. There's no pointed elbow, there's no swing and although there is forearm-to-face contact, it's pretty minimal. Yellow feels right to me - although I have to admit that I'm struggling to use the word "reckless" while describing it, and don't know what caution code I'd use!

 

[Big Cat]

VARSE

Very funny. It's subtle humor like this which could stick and seriously damage the image of VAR(SE)

 

[Peter Grove]

I agree. And other than Mr Grove saying so, do we have the actual document?
The procedure as i read it, is to check for vc
Not check for it then decide to issue a card for something completely different

Direct quote from the VAR protocol:

If during a review, a yellow card offence is identified, can the player be cautioned (YC)?

If during a review for a goal/penalty/red card a clear yellow or red card offence is identified, the referee must take the correct disciplinary action. For example:
[...]
• a review for a potential red card for serious foul play, clearly shows that the offence was ‘reckless’ and not ‘serious foul play’

I really do think it behooves us all, if we're going to have these repeated and lengthy discussions about VAR, to actually read the protocol. It would save a lot of quibbling over things that are already clearly stated therein.

 

[one]

My issue is not with if it is within protocol to issue a yellow. Its if withing the LOTG to issue a yellow. LOTG says when not challenging for the ball any strike to the head is a red unless negligible. Clearly it wasn't negligible because the referee took action, but by law the only action you can take is a red card for that offence.

 

[Kes]

My issue is not with if it is within protocol to issue a yellow. Its if withing the LOTG to issue a yellow. LOTG says when not challenging for the ball any strike to the head is a red unless negligible. Clearly it wasn't negligible because the referee took action, but by law the only action you can take is a red card for that offence.

Tell me about it !
I have some bloke over on another forum telling me that it couldn't be a red because Ronaldo didn't do it excessively!

 

[one]

Tell me about it !
I have some bloke over on another forum telling me that it couldn't be a red because Ronaldo didn't do it excessively!

Exactly, Careless, reckless or excessive force categorising don't apply for strike to the head when not challenging for the ball. The only categories are negligible or not negligible.

 

[ARF]

LOTG says when not challenging for the ball any strike to the head is a red unless negligible. Clearly it wasn't negligible because the referee took action, but by law the only action you can take is a red card for that offence.

LOTG doesn't actually say that negligible contact means no action can/should be taken, it just says that it's red unless the contact is negligible...

 

[Peter Grove]

My issue is not with if it is within protocol to issue a yellow. Its if withing the LOTG to issue a yellow. LOTG says when not challenging for the ball any strike to the head is a red unless negligible. Clearly it wasn't negligible because the referee took action, but by law the only action you can take is a red card for that offence.

I would agree that it should have been red but the only point I was addressing (since it kept getting challenged) was whether the VAR protocol allows for a yellow card when reviewing for a potential red.

 

[one]

LOTG doesn't actually say that negligible contact means no action can/should be taken, it just says that it's red unless the contact is negligible...

In the absence of a lotg definition, a term is interpreted in its general language meaning. Negligible mean "so small or unimportant or of so little consequence as to warrant little or no attention". I am sure no one would argue a yellow card is way more than "little or no attention".

 

[Kes]

LOTG doesn't actually say that negligible contact means no action can/should be taken, it just says that it's red unless the contact is negligible...

But that was the point some geezer is trying to make to me. There was no "contact" as such and so it's negligible. We all saw how Ronaldo tried to elbow him but the fact that he failed (so I'm told) and it was only the Iranian play-acting that highlighted it, means that it can't be red. (?)

 

[one]

But that was the point some geezer is trying to make to me. There was no "contact" as such and so it's negligible. We all saw how Ronaldo tried to elbow him but the fact that he failed (so I'm told) and it was only the Iranian play-acting that highlighted it, means that it can't be red. (?)

No contact? How would a mouth, lips get deformed through no contact? The referee would have had a higher quality video than me.

 

[ASM]

In the absence of a lotg definition, a term is interpreted in its general language meaning. Negligible mean "so small or unimportant or of so little consequence as to warrant little or no attention". I am sure no one would argue a yellow card is way more than "little or no attention".

But the LOTG do have a definition!

Negligible
Insignificant, minimal

If we’re goung to make sweeping statements please take the effort to check them before posting

 

[one]

But the LOTG do have a definition!

If we’re goung to make sweeping statements please take the effort to check them before posting

I stand corrected on my "sweeping statement". However the point of the statement still stands with the Lotg definition. It doesn't make sense to yellow card on something insignificant (while no yellow card is required on a careless challenge).

 

[Peter Grove]

LOTG doesn't actually say that negligible contact means no action can/should be taken, it just says that it's red unless the contact is negligible...

That's not what it actually says. It says it's red "unless the force used was negligible." You could have a player whose arm is outstretched and an opponent runs into it. So the player whose arm makes contact with the opponent's face has exerted no force whatsoever, yet you still have fairly significant contact. It's not the amount of contact, it's the amount of force used by the player in making the contact.

It doesn't make sense to yellow card on something insignificant (while no yellow card is required on a careless challenge).

Again, the law doesn't talk about 'something' (or the overall challenge itself) being insignificant, it talks about the force used being negligible. For me you could have an incident where even though the amount of force used is negligible, the actions leading to the contact occurring could still be considered reckless - or constitute an act of unsporting behaviour.

I don't think that was the case here, just that theoretically it could be.

 

[Yampy]

That's not what it actually says. It says it's red "unless the force used was negligible." You could have a player whose arm is outstretched and an opponent runs into it. So the player whose arm makes contact with the opponent's face has exerted no force whatsoever, yet you still have fairly significant contact. It's not the amount of contact, it's the amount of force used by the player in making the contact.

Again, the law doesn't talk about 'something' (or the overall challenge itself) being insignificant, it talks about the force used being negligible. For me you could have an incident where even though the amount of force used is negligible, the actions leading to the contact occurring could still be considered reckless - or constitute an act of unsporting behaviour.

I don't think that was the case here, just that theoretically it could be.

I guess the penalty conceded by Kyle Walker against Tunisia is another case in point?
Strikes opponent in the face, negligible force but deemed reckless. Penalty kick, caution.