World Cup SCO ARG - The Timekeeper

[Peter Grove]

It's not just the WWC, it was the same in the U20 WC. But you're right--UEFA is already not enforcing. So we have two major tournaments at the same time using completely different standards (and some of the VARs even overlap).

As I mentioned over in another thread, the current UEFA competition where they're not following the same super strict enforcement is being played under a different set of laws (2018/19). Those laws carry with them a different set of assumptions and operating parameters. In fact you could argue that super strict enforcement on this while still using the old laws could be seen as inconsistent since in all other games played under those laws in the past, including the earlier rounds of this very competition, super strict enforcement was not the accepted norm. You would in one sense, be applying the new parameters retroactively.

The IFAB is evidently intending to make a clean break with the past by only requiring the higher level of enforcement when the 2019/20 laws are in force, along with its new (and more lenient) law on goalkeeper movement.

 

[es1]

I was questioning whether VAR should have made the decision in this match where they where using a 2d screen to make the judgment. However, I would like to read more about this technology you mentioned; do you have a link by any chance?

i saw a YouTube video while back, i'll see if i can dig it out

i have dug it out!

 

[one]

The Scotland goalkeeper was actually in the air when the ball was struck so part of her foot may have been over the goal line. It is impossible to analyse 3 dimensions with a 2 dimensional image and I think VAR forgets this (even with some offside calls).

In short, it is impossible to say whether the goalkeeper was over the goal line or not; therefore, how can VAR say a clear and obvious error had been made?

C&O is not used for factual incidents. Foot over line is factual. It's either over it it's not. No opinion involved (in theory anyway).

 

[frank_ref]

In short, it is impossible to say whether the goalkeeper was over the goal line or no

Not really; looks absolutely clear to me that she was in front of the line. But, again, she only left the line part way through the penalty taker's downswing.

 

[The Referee]

Not really; looks absolutely clear to me that she was in front of the line. But, again, she only left the line part way through the penalty taker's downswing.

I've seen two images from different angles; one implies the keeper is on the line and one implies the keeper is well off the line. This is because the keeper was actually in the air (jumping) at the time. It's impossible to tell if the keeper was over the line or not.

 

[The Referee]

C&O is not used for factual incidents. Foot over line is factual. It's either over it it's not. No opinion involved (in theory anyway).

But what if it's impossible to tell from the camera angles available? Surely, they should stick to referee's original decision?

 

[Peter Grove]

The time keeping was infuriating last night. No team should be throwing away a 3-0 lead but Scotland had effectively lost over 5 minutes of playing time.

88th - VAR awards penalty
90th - Penalty taken
94th - Penalty retaken
96th - Full time

How they managed to work out the added time there is beyond me.

It was actually worse than that. The game was initially stopped on 86 minutes and 1 second for the VAR check. The board apparently went up at some point showing a minimum of 4 minutes additional time. This was already wrong - there should have been a minimum of 4 just for the VAR check and there had been substitutions and some fairly blatant time-wasting (mostly by Scotland, it has to be said).

So I reckon the initial number should have been more like 6 or 7 minutes. Even if you allow some time for the penalty being taken and the little bit of play after the penalty before they stopped for another VAR check, once play restarted there should still have been at least five minutes. They didn't show the actual moment of the kick off, but from the moment the penalty was finally scored (93' 20") until the referee blew for time on 95' 11", less than 2 minutes had elapsed.

I think the kindest thing we can say is that the timekeeping left a lot to be desired.

 

[one]

But what if it's impossible to tell from the camera angles available? Surely, they should stick to referee's original decision?

I'd agree with that and with the images I have seen as well it suggests this to be the case. But they may have had other angles or better resolution for conclusive deviance.

 

[AlexF]

I'd agree with that and with the images I have seen as well it suggests this to be the case. But they may have had other angles or better resolution for conclusive deviance.

Each World Cup venue is required to have a camera set on each goal line, looking directly down it.

Those fixed cameras would be available to VAR, they're not always available to the broadcaster at the time of broadcast.

 

[ladbroke8745]

Each World Cup venue is required to have a camera set on each goal line, looking directly down it.

Those fixed cameras would be available to VAR, they're not always available to the broadcaster at the time of broadcast.

And if they want the general public to trust them, then show those images to us all.

 

[Big Cat]

i saw a YouTube video while back, i'll see if i can dig it out

i have dug it out!

I was aware of this FIFA presentation
Considering this video is quite old, it shows how far the technology has advanced in the short space of time since we've had VAR thrust upon us. @zarathustra , this illustrates the (type of) technology we were debating last week. I see no reason why the offside call will need a human adjudicator given the potential of this system. They absolutely must speed up offside calls (to <5s imo). That would be a big step towards getting me back onside with VAR

 

[socal lurker]

Each World Cup venue is required to have a camera set on each goal line, looking directly down it.

Those fixed cameras would be available to VAR, they're not always available to the broadcaster at the time of broadcast.

I have also read, but cannot confirm, that at least some of the cameras the VAR has access to have a higher frame rate than the TV cameras.

I am pretty sure that the WWC fields are outfitted with the same technology in the MWC, which includes an anaytic tool, which I believe uses a computer to calculate from multiple cameras, that can essentially drop a line down to show precisely the spot on the ground that a body part is over. That's how they make the lines for VAR review of OS. Presumably they would use that if they didn't have an exact camera angle. (I don't know what the margin of error for the technology is.)

 

[socal lurker]

As I mentioned over in another thread, the current UEFA competition where they're not following the same super strict enforcement is being played under a different set of laws (2018/19).

OK--I haven't watched any of those games and had read elsewhere assumptions they were also using the new Laws. Must be a bit mind bending as a VAR to use the new ones and then go back to the old ones.

 

[Peter Grove]

Interesting to note that in both the Sweden vs USA and Thailand vs Chile games yesterday, the referees allowed 7 minutes additional time at the end of the second half, despite there being much, much less time lost (especially for VAR stoppages) than in the Scotland vs Argentina game, as far as I could tell. It almost looked as if they might have been advised to ensure the absolute full amount of all time lost, should be added on.