RefSix

VAR (again)

es1

RefChat Addict
#1
I think a perfect example of it in action tonight.

Swiss attack, potential foul in the area not given

Potugal go up the other end and get a clear pen themselves.

Ref speaks to VAR for some time (perhaps the only down point, this part took a while)

Ref goes and checks on the monitor and gives pen

One of the often talked about what if scenarios and it was handled well with, I think, the right decision at the end.
 

spuddy1878

RefChat Addict
#4
Ive only seen it on my phone and French commentary so not the greatest view but looked like he tripped himself, i thought it was given for a slight push.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#6
Absolute correct decision. This was always going to be a risk of VAR, in that a team gets a goal, or in this case a penalty, ruled out and in place gets a penalty awarded against them.

Felix Brych handled it brilliantly, making it clear to all that he was looking at a potential foul in the Portugal penalty area as opposed to the penalty that he had then gone on to award.
 
#7
On a different forum, the question was raised whether the penalty favoring the Swiss is ever even given an on-field review if the stoppage isn't a penalty in favor of Portugal on the other end of the field. I'm not sure the Swiss penalty was a clear and obvious error, but when the stoppage is a penalty at the other end it sure makes it difficult to rule the Swiss play as something other than a penalty.

In other words, had the next stoppage been a free kick at mid-field or a throw-in, is Brych's no-call on the Swiss penalty ever reversed or called down for an OFR?

Fortunately, this will be little more than a talking point today and a footnote given Ronaldo doing Ronaldo things.
 
Last edited:

spuddy1878

RefChat Addict
#8
Its looked at automatically isnt it in the VAR office, even if play isnt stopped they will contact referee and tell him to have a look (i think)
 
#10
Yes. But his point is does VAR reccomend a review in another stoppage situation.
Correct. Given that the penalty favoring Portugal was probably not going to be overturned via VAR (that sure seemed like the right call on the field to me), that's a potential two-goal swing if VAR doesn't recommend a review and Brych doesn't overturn his original decision. I know that each call SHOULD be made on its own merits, but there has to be some sub-conscious consideration of, "If we don't award Switzerland this penalty, even if it may be kind of soft, then we have to award Portugal its penalty."

I'm not saying it's right, but there had to be at least some thought of that for the crew as they were reviewing.
 

es1

RefChat Addict
#11
I get what you're saying, but all you can do as a Ref (or VAR) is get the decision right, whatever the circumstances. You can apply sub-conscious bias to many other situations in open play as well of course.
 

JH

RefChat Addict
#12
Fair play to Xhaka the Swiss captain, as soon as the Portugal penalty was given he went up to Brych and immediately knew he was consulting with VAR, he then calmed his players down around him, that's what a captain should do. He obviously has some knowledge of the protocol, didn't overreact and helped the referee out. Wouldn't be surprised to see another captain going mental in the referee's face and not listening to what the referee was saying.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#13
I get what you're saying, but all you can do as a Ref (or VAR) is get the decision right, whatever the circumstances. You can apply sub-conscious bias to many other situations in open play as well of course.
Good in principle but not in VAR protocol. All penalty decisions are checked but not reviewed unless there was a C&O error on the decision or lead up to it when the attacking team gains possession.

In other words, had the next stoppage been a free kick at mid-field or a throw-in, is Brych's no-call on the Swiss penalty ever reversed or called down for an OFR?
If they followed the protocol correctly then answer would be yes.

So I think this is how it went.

1. first foul, VAR checks while play continues.
2. VAR thinks it's a C&O error but lets play continue just in case the referee turns down a recommendation for review and play is not in a neutral position.
3. play stops. The reason here is irrelevant but it was due to a pen decision at the other end.
4. VAR recommends a review for the foul at the other end, NOT for the penalty decision at the other end (he would have done that no matter what the stoppage was)
5. Referee accepts the recommendation, does OFR and changes his mind on the first foul and awards a penalty.

The decision on the penalty for Portugal becomes irrelevant for any check or review now. But had the first foul decision not been changed then the pen decision for Portugal been checked and unlikely to have been reviewed because it was the correct call.

1559792734201.png
 

lincs22

Supply League Observer
Staff member
Observer/Tutor
#15
The only afterthought I have - instead of the easy tackle for the Portugal penalty, what would result have been for SFP/VC attempt for the penalty?

I know that the RC should still be issued and then we go back for the Switzerland penalty, but the "sell" would be impossible both for the player dismissed and of the Portugal player got injured.
 

es1

RefChat Addict
#16
The only afterthought I have - instead of the easy tackle for the Portugal penalty, what would result have been for SFP/VC attempt for the penalty?

I know that the RC should still be issued and then we go back for the Switzerland penalty, but the "sell" would be impossible both for the player dismissed and of the Portugal player got injured.
The red card stands as far as I'm aware! It's bound to happen at some point in the future
 

ladbroke8745

Well-Known Member
#17
Someone brought up something I could not actually answer and was thinking why not.

Basically, they said they understood the VAR is only there to overrule a goal by virtue of a foul preceding it (like Wilson in England game), a handball, or offside or to verify if a goal scored is legit, or, finally, to award/not award a penalty for a foul.
The question being is why would they look at a foul in the box but not outside? A defender could genuinely stop a promising attack the at the officials see but VAR can not suggest, but that same offence if committed by an attacker outside the area, missed by all officials, can be looked at outside if a goal is scored.
This benefits defenders massively.
They effectively can foul and hope it's missed outside the area and get away with it, or be fouled anywhere and VAR will pick it up if a goal is scored. But if they foul inside it's always looked.
I'd be instructing my team to make any foul outside the box as much as possible, basically don't let them in. By fouling outside VAR won't even look at all so if missed great, if ref spots you risk a caution. If they are allowed in then you run a high risk of a penalty if arm is out (so a lot more players will now hold their arms behind their back) or if a foul occurs VAR will look.

I'm not saying VAR should ref the whole game, but I think it should really be for clear and obvious errors.
And this I mean, if they have to look more than once then it is clearly not clear and most certainly not obvious.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
#19
Someone brought up something I could not actually answer and was thinking why not.

Basically, they said they understood the VAR is only there to overrule a goal by virtue of a foul preceding it (like Wilson in England game), a handball, or offside or to verify if a goal scored is legit, or, finally, to award/not award a penalty for a foul.
The question being is why would they look at a foul in the box but not outside? A defender could genuinely stop a promising attack the at the officials see but VAR can not suggest, but that same offence if committed by an attacker outside the area, missed by all officials, can be looked at outside if a goal is scored.
This benefits defenders massively.
They effectively can foul and hope it's missed outside the area and get away with it, or be fouled anywhere and VAR will pick it up if a goal is scored. But if they foul inside it's always looked.
I'd be instructing my team to make any foul outside the box as much as possible, basically don't let them in. By fouling outside VAR won't even look at all so if missed great, if ref spots you risk a caution. If they are allowed in then you run a high risk of a penalty if arm is out (so a lot more players will now hold their arms behind their back) or if a foul occurs VAR will look.

I'm not saying VAR should ref the whole game, but I think it should really be for clear and obvious errors.
And this I mean, if they have to look more than once then it is clearly not clear and most certainly not obvious.
All of that's technically correct, but it relies on the players having perfect knowledge of what the referee can and cannot see. If you know the ref can't see you, then of course a missed foul outside the box is better than letting an opponent into the box where a penalty might occur. But telling your players to foul when they otherwise would make a clean tackle or direct the opponent into another defender is only going to lead to more yellows than before, on the assumption that most referees will be getting 95+% of decisions right even without the aid of VAR.
 
Top