Argentina v Brazil (Copa America)

[ladbroke8745]

Not seen highlights of the appeals but a long thread on Twitter suggests that Argentina have complained that the referee has refused to go watch reviews following VAR telling him to check for TWO possible penalties.
Also that the Brazilian presidents own radio frequency interfered with the VAR wavelengths too causing further controversy.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1146530545846947840

 

[ladbroke8745]

Also, the assistant flagging for offside leaving him well out of position when the player did not play or attempt to play the ball...

Around the 7:40 minute mark....

 

[es1]

The one on otamendi is as clear as they come! Can't believe it wasn't given

 

[Peter Grove]

Interesting article in the Grauniad looking at what controversies like this reveal about the impact and implications of VAR use in general.

I think the writer makes some valid and thought-provoking points.

What is a foul? VAR controversy at Copa America

 

[one]

The article is based on a misunderstanding that VAR was introduced to reduce controversy which is not the case. I had thought it was introduced to reduce obvious errors but that is not necessarily the case either. It was introduced (according the LOTG) to bring greater fairness and improve player behavior. Greater fairness... yeah, maybe to some extent. Improve player behavior... I think it did from my observations... well unless you are in the Cameroon National Women's team. But it has come at a cost of much increased controversy because the expectations on 'getting the decision right' has dramatically increased but in many cases what is the right decision depends on which team you support.

 

[Peter Grove]

The article is based on a misunderstanding that VAR was introduced to reduce controversy which is not the case. I had thought it was introduced to reduce obvious errors

I'm not sure that's a misunderstanding or that you are wrong either. I think it was brought in partly for those reasons - and also the reasons the IFAB talks about. The IFAB (as is their wont) has tried to make the reasons behind it sound as noble and disinterested as possible but I think the real reasons are a combination of all the various different factors so far mentioned.

Anyway, whatever the real reason (or reasons) for its introduction, I think the article is correct in saying that in many cases, the focus of attention and discussion is shifted away from the football itself and onto VAR, which is an unwelcome development and I'm sure was not the intended outcome. I think it's also right when it says that a quite significant sea-change has occurred in how offences (and especially offences leading to penalties) are being judged.

I think that whereas VAR was indeed touted as a way to eliminate unfairness by catching the more egregious incidents like the Maradona 'hand of God' goal or the Thierry Henri handball, we've got to the situation where all kinds of minor contact which would have never been called before, end up as penalties. I don't think that many of the things we see being called because of VAR now (infinitesimal offsides, debatable handballs, minimal contact penalties) are making games (or the game of football itself) fundamentally fairer.

 

[Peter Grove]

I was just looking at the VAR protocol again and I think the main area where it's failing is on the principle and the promise) of:

“minimum interference – maximum benefit”

In way too many of the games I've seen recently, there's been an excessive amount of interference and delay for just minimal amounts of (often quite debatable) benefit.

 

[JH]

I am shocked that any referee, nevermind an international referee would deem the clear shoulder charge in the PA to not be a clear and obvious error. I would expect 99/100 trainee referees to say that was a penalty.

If the referee really did refuse to look at the review, why?

 

[Big Cat]

I was just looking at the VAR protocol again and I think the main area where it's failing is on the principle and the promise) of:


In way too many of the games I've seen recently, there's been an excessive amount of interference and delay for just minimal amounts of (often quite debatable) benefit.

Phrases like these; which are intended to sell something (max impact min interference), have a habit of becoming antipodes

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
Watched these instances again plus a third one that got no attention. In all three in my opinion the Argentinian players ran at / into Brazilian players. In all three the ball was not near the contact area. Now we know that is not relevant yet we also have to now take into account the var factor of players now looking for fouls with contact that on video replay can look an offence.
On the corner one it was just a blatant run imo into opponents hoping for VAR to call a penalty. The one just before the 2nd Brazil goal there was no clear replay to show a foul or otherwise. I suspect the player was also looking for it.
Messi came out to criticise the referee saying he did not go to VAR on these yet he certainly did on the corner kick one so both the referee and var ref did not see that as a foul. I suspect the 2nd one before the goal also had a review.
Players need to know that incidents are checked all the time and that it is does not require a monitor view by the referee. I was interested in a game that I saw where the referee was miked up and to sell a decision he told the VAR that he would look at it on the monitor to help *sell* the call even though he knew the VAR ref was correct.
Had the ref gone to the monitor here in Brazil it would have helped *sell* the decision rather than just holding up the game, which also included a substitution at that time, to listen to the VAR ref on the ear piece who confirmed to him no foul either. He then restarts with the throw in at half way.

 

[Nij]

Hi
Watched these instances again plus a third one that got no attention. In all three in my opinion the Argentinian players ran at / into Brazilian players. In all three the ball was not near the contact area. Now we know that is not relevant yet we also have to now take into account the var factor of players now looking for fouls with contact that on video replay can look an offence.
On the corner one it was just a blatant run imo into opponents hoping for VAR to call a penalty. The one just before the 2nd Brazil goal there was no clear replay to show a foul or otherwise. I suspect the player was also looking for it.
Messi came out to criticise the referee saying he did not go to VAR on these yet he certainly did on the corner kick one so both the referee and var ref did not see that as a foul. I suspect the 2nd one before the goal also had a review.
Players need to know that incidents are checked all the time and that it is does not require a monitor view by the referee. I was interested in a game that I saw where the referee was miked up and to sell a decision he told the VAR that he would look at it on the monitor to help *sell* the call even though he knew the VAR ref was correct.
Had the ref gone to the monitor here in Brazil it would have helped *sell* the decision rather than just holding up the game, which also included a substitution at that time, to listen to the VAR ref on the ear piece who confirmed to him no foul either. He then restarts with the throw in at half way.

They know that the decisions are checked. They're not so stupid as to not know the rules of the game, especially if it means having an edge. But it doesn't suit their narrative about the referee taking the game away from them, rather than acknowledging their own insufficient performance, to show their awareness of that.
There's selling a decision as credible, and then there's pandering to idiocy. Going to the monitor for what should be, and has been for a long time, just a routine "washout" "no foul!" signal makes no sense at all. If we want to see better from players, we actually have to actually expect it first.

 

[Peter Grove]

They're not so stupid as to not know the rules of the game

Oh, I don't know about that - in my experience players are very often totally ignorant of the laws, as are their coaches, along with commentators, pundits etc, on many occasions.

 

[one]

There was a VAR video from Jarred Gillett on A-League doing the rounds a few months ago when he said "should I check it on the screen myself to sell it? I better because the players expect it". That was not received too well on this forum. The value of it becomes very clear now. It's a powerfull tool if used correctly and at the right times.

 

[Nij]

Oh, I don't know about that - in my experience players are very often totally ignorant of the laws, as are their coaches, along with commentators, pundits etc, on many occasions.

When we're talking grassroots, of course, but at the (semi-)professional level, these are very definitely focused people who will look at everything that might make a difference, the LOTG included.

 

[socal lurker]

When we're talking grassroots, of course, but at the (semi-)professional level, these are very definitely focused people who will look at everything that might make a difference, the LOTG included.

I think you overestimate the expertise of players when it comes to the Laws, and especially when it comes to the intricacies of VAR. All you have to do is listen to some of the players turned commentators to know that even many elite players have fundamental misunderstandings of the Laws.

 

[Peter Grove]

When we're talking grassroots, of course, but at the (semi-)professional level, these are very definitely focused people who will look at everything that might make a difference, the LOTG included.

You might think that would be true - and it really ought to be. However, experience shows us that it just isn't so. Time after time, players, managers, coaches and as @socal lurker mentions recently retired (or even still current) players appearing as pundits, show an absolutely shocking level of ignorance of the laws.

Why they don't pay more attention when, as you say, they could potentially get all kinds of benefits from knowing the laws thoroughly, is a bit of a mystery to me but it remains a fact, demonstrated day after day, that (in many, if not most cases) they don't.

 

[JH]

When we're talking grassroots, of course, but at the (semi-)professional level, these are very definitely focused people who will look at everything that might make a difference, the LOTG included.

That just isn't true.