A&H

JAM ITA penalty mess

The Referee Store
It's not the first time we've seen them try to clamp down on GK movement at PKs
However, football itself is able to reject such change. The Women's World Cup is a soft touch, but experienced Champions League players will react and behave in such a way to completely disrupt games forcing FIFA or UEFA or whoever to quickly relent in inevitable defeat
 
es1 said:
if true, makes a mockery of the whole thing. football with VAR has to be the same in every competition. sure individual officials interpretation will differ but protocols like this need to be followed consistently through the whole game for it to work
Click to expand...
We seem to have several parallel discussions going on, on the same subject but let me just point out again that - at least according to David Elleray, this claim comes as a surprise to the IFAB and is not based on any official announcement that they're aware of. He also implied to me in an email that reports of the EPL/FA placing severe limits on the use of on-field reviews may also be wide of the mark.
 
all i want is consistency!

fans / players / refs etc. can all live with changes in interpretation and law if everyone does the same

one association doing their own thing, no matter how sensible, would not work well in the long run (if that's something that happens of course)
 
es1 said:
as it happens, i'd much prefer a similar challenge based system rather than one where everything is reviewed
Click to expand...

I agree. I just witnessed a whole team surround the referee in an attempt to initiate a video review. This wouldn't be necessary if they could use a 'challenge' to initiate the review themselves.
 
The Referee said:
I agree. I just witnessed a whole team surround the referee in an attempt to initiate a video review. This wouldn't be necessary if they could use a 'challenge' to initiate the review themselves.
Click to expand...

Or if the players understood how VAR works—every potential PK is checked by the VAR. And in this case the VAR properly concluded there was no handling. (And note that the R telling the players she was already listening to the VAR did nothing to stop their protestations...)
 
The Referee said:
I agree. I just witnessed a whole team surround the referee in an attempt to initiate a video review. This wouldn't be necessary if they could use a 'challenge' to initiate the review themselves.
Click to expand...
The IFAB's reasoning has already been given as to why a fixed number of challenges is not suitable in football. There were several reasons given, but one was that the whole idea was that gross miscarriages of justice were occurring and that football had to find a way to prevent them. If a blatantly, obviously unfair and game-deciding goal is scored in a game with VAR, that the on-field officials somehow missed, but a team's challenges had all been used up, you would have to allow a blatantly unfair outcome to stand, even though you had a system right there that was designed specifically to prevent this from happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Peter Grove said:
The IFAB's reasoning has already been given as to why a fixed number of challenges is not suitable in football. There were several reasons given, but one was that the whole idea was that gross miscarriages of justice were occurring and that football had to find a way to prevent them. If a blatantly, obviously unfair and game-deciding goal is scored in a game with VAR, that the on-field officials somehow missed, but a team's challenges had all been used up, you would have to allow a blatantly unfair outcome to stand, even though you had a system right there that was designed specifically to prevent this from happening.
Click to expand...
And this is why challenge systems are used only for the fairly obvious errors....they don't waste them on nonsense......
 
Peter Grove said:
The IFAB's reasoning has already been given as to why a fixed number of challenges is not suitable in football. There were several reasons given, but one was that the whole idea was that gross miscarriages of justice were occurring and that football had to find a way to prevent them. If a blatantly, obviously unfair and game-deciding goal is scored in a game with VAR, that the on-field officials somehow missed, but a team's challenges had all been used up, you would have to allow a blatantly unfair outcome to stand, even though you had a system right there that was designed specifically to prevent this from happening.
Click to expand...

(Successful challenges should be retained, just like in other sports)

Blatantly unfair outcomes would stand in tennis if they wasted all of their challenges (which doesn't happen).

I feel that if a team were to waste all of their challenges, the outcome cannot be considered unfair.
 
Last edited:
The Referee said:
Blatantly unfair outcomes would stand in tennis if they wasted all of their challenges (which doesn't happen).
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. I've seen it happen more than once where a player who was out of challenges, has lost a point in the final game of a match (I've even seen it happen on match point) which was then shown on a Hawkeye replay to have been wrong.

Now, one difference with tennis is that there are literally hundreds of points in a typical 3-set match so it could be said that any one single point is perhaps not totally decisive (although on match point most players might think it was). However in football where the entire outcome can hinge on a single goal, allowing (for instance) an illegally-scored goal to stand when you have a VAR system would be unjustifiable, in my opinion.
The Referee said:
I feel that if a team were to waste all of their challenges, the outcome cannot be considered unfair.
Click to expand...
I feel it can be considered unfair and would be unfair. If the infamous Maradona 'hand of God' goal had happened in a game with VAR where England had already used all their challenges, would you consider that to be a fair and equitable outcome? Or the Thierry Henry handball - would that suddenly have become a fair way for a match to be decided just because it occurred in a game with VAR where Ireland had used all their challenges?

For me, allowing either of those incidents to decide a game where VAR was available but couldn't be used due to a rule about limited challenges would not be fair.

It took me a while but I found the actual wording the IFAB used so for what it's worth, here it is.
As every possible reviewable incident is automatically ‘checked’ by the VAR there is no need for challenges as a coach or player will not see something that has not been seen by one of the TV cameras.
In addition, a challenge system would have practical difficulties (e.g. how would a challenge be indicated? Would the referee have to stop play immediately?) and, more importantly, one of the reasons to introduce VARs is to increase fairness so it would be wrong to have a system where a team has used all its challenges and is then disadvantaged by a ‘clear and obvious error’ which can not be reviewed.
Click to expand...
I dare say you won't agree with how the IFAB expressed this any more that you did my attempts to explain it but I think they are right in saying that if you don't allow VAR to check all clearly and obviously wrong decisions in the key match-changing categories they have identified, you've defeated the whole object of the exercise.
 
Mintyref said:
And this is why challenge systems are used only for the fairly obvious errors....they don't waste them on nonsense......
Click to expand...
I didn't really want to get to this debate but hey, this is a debate forum.

They brought VAR to ensure fair and Just. What you are saying is "you only deserve fair and just if you can identity obvious errors". Players are not the arbiters of the game. Referees are. And "fair and just" should not be conditional or come at a cost.
 
If these are the real reasons IFAB decided against a challenge based system, they should have come to me for the answers!
Let's dissect their concerns:

How would a challenge be indicated?
Tell the referee "I'd like a review, please"

Would the referee have to stop play immediately?
No. Only stop play when play is neutral, just as is currently the case.

it would be wrong to have a system where a team has used all its challenges and is then disadvantaged by a ‘clear and obvious error’ which can not be reviewed.
A team would never run out of challenges if they only reviewed obvious errors and both teams would know this.

Other benefits of a challenge based system include:
- No need to delay the restart of play for a check neither team wants.
- VARs/Rs cannot be accused of inconsistency or bias for reviewing or failing to review similar incidents.
- There will be no VAR intervention based on who the VAR is, how much they've had to drink, or how much of a jobsworth they are.
- Less dissent. No need to crowd the referee to demand a review. Use your right to request a review.
- Since there is no need to 'check' everything, labour costs will be reduced (not all leagues can afford to pay three refs to watch the match on TV).
 
Last edited:
one said:
I didn't really want to get to this debate but hey, this is a debate forum.

They brought VAR to ensure fair and Just. What you are saying is "you only deserve fair and just if you can identity obvious errors". Players are not the arbiters of the game. Referees are. And "fair and just" should not be conditional or come at a cost.
Click to expand...

What you are saying is "you only deserve fair and just if you can identity obvious errors".

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. If three match officials, eleven players, seven substitutes (twelve subs in WC), the manager and the coaching team do not spot a so-called 'obvious error', it cannot be considered an obvious error.

All major mistakes I can recall before VAR's introduction were spotted by players on the pitch and resulted in protests to the referee.
 
The Referee said:
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. If three match officials, eleven players, seven substitutes (twelve subs in WC), the manager and the coaching team do not spot a so-called 'obvious error', it cannot be considered an obvious error.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly think you have not been following the debates around VAR here for the last two years. What is an obvious error to one, is a 50-50 to another and a correct call to a third.

Anyway you miss the point. "Fair and just" should not be conditional or come at a cost.
 
This is a bit of a pointless discussion, as they will never switch to a challenge based system, certainly not while the current senior FIFA people are in place.
 
The Referee said:
Almost poetic, but perhaps you'd like elaborate on what exactly is conditional or costly about a challenge based system?
Click to expand...
  • An obvious error by the referee would only be reviewed on the condition of the team being hard done by has reviews left AND decides to use them
  • Challenging for a review of what you think is an obvious error can cost you if the officials don't agree with you.
You don't have to agree with above, I am merely answering your question.
 
If the officials are "fair and just", the game will be "fair and just" under any system. If the officials disagree with a team's view, it cannot be considered unfair or unjust.

Referees/umpires are always the arbiters in sports with challenge based systems; teams/players can only ask them to have a second look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top