A&H

VAR protocol question

The Referee

Well-Known Member
In England's loss to Sweden yesterday, an England goal was correctly disallowed for handball since the ball touched an attackers hand just before the attacker scored the goal after an on-field review.

This particular handball offense is independent of intent or arm position since a goal has been scored; therefore, the decision is a matter of fact rather then opinion. So, why did the referee require an on-field review? I thought on-field reviews aren't used for matters of fact?
 
The Referee Store
When to or not to do OFR (on field review) is not a hard rule. It's a guideline and the referee can choose to go against it if the circumstance dictates. One reason can be to help sell the decision.
 
When to or not to do OFR (on field review) is not a hard rule. It's a guideline and the referee can choose to go against it if the circumstance dictates. One reason can be to help sell the decision.
What's to sell? Either the VAR spotted handball (as ridiculous as it may be) or not...make the decision and lets get back to the play.....
 
Let's not forget here that with the new law there is no requirement for intentional handling when a goal is scored, rather it is black and white and if the ball hits the hand or arm, even if totally unintentional, it must be penalised. I would guess VAR has said something like I'm 99% sure it has hit her arm, have a look and see what you think".

Ellen White's argument seemed to be that it deflected onto her opponent and then hit her arm, which I don't disagree with, but that is now irrelevant if a goal is scored or an goal scoring opportunity created.
 
Watching the Brazil v Peru game, and the referee gives a penalty for handball. The Brazil player literally lent back to try and make himself bigger when blocking a shot, put his arm to the ground and the ball strikes his arm....
Penalty. No doubt about it in my opinion.
After telling the kicker and keeper what he expects, VAR is in his ear telling him to review it.
So he blows to indicate he is off to watch the screen. Gets there, watches 1 - yes ONE! - highlight and goes back and still gives the penalty.
This was a penalty for Peru by the way which was scored to make it 1-1 (currently 2-1).
After the accusations that Brazil are the favoured team etc, VAR asked the referee to go check the screen to confirm his decision. Surely VAR should only get involved if they think he has made a clear and obvious error. This was not that. This would back up Argentinas claims that VAR etc are doing their best to help Brazil. In this case the referee, after viewing, said no to them and still gave it.

VAR was a good idea at first, seemingly not used as often but now it seems like it is used for literally EVERYTHING!

In cricket, their use of VAR is very limited. Even in Rugby it is sparsely used.
So why is it used for literally everything in football? It is seemingly being used to confirm every decision made by a referee. The guys in the VAR room should shut up a lot of the time and accept the referees decision unless it is blatantly obvious they got it wrong.
 
I would imagine the review is because the new language of handling says it is usually not an offense “when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body.” I’ve only seen a still pic of the play, but that sounds like a pretty good description of what I see in the still picture.

I’d also point out that you don’t know that the VAR asked the R to take a look. The way it works, only the R can decide to go to the monitor. That can be either because the R thinks he needs to or because the VAR recommends that he do so. And the VAR will never recommend he do so to confirm a decision. The VAR is only authorized to recommend a review for clear error or a missed incident.

I’m no apologist for VAR—I’d like to see it go away. But your suggestion it is used for everything is simply wrong.
 
Given all the discussions on here after only a month of the new handball law, I think ANY decision at grassroots is going to be an easy sell.

When player queries, just say 'Its the new law mate'! No way on earth are they going to be any the wiser after reading said law, which they won't of course!:p
 
That was previously been given though, was it not... where a player handles with a trailing arm because that player commits to risk by going to ground, in doing so making themselves bigger. Not saying i agree with this, but has the secret teachings changed?

Not secret now: http://theifab.com/presentation-of-ifab-log-2019-20/

But yes, I believe there was a not-so-public instruction about "taking a risk" that looked at the bottom arm differently than the new LOTG do
 
But yes, I believe there was a not-so-public instruction about "taking a risk" that looked at the bottom arm differently than the new LOTG do
There were two, depending on where you were:

The UEFA style (arm from elbow down bad, arm from elbow up not so bad)
The CONCACAF/CONEMBOL style (arm bad)

This is, of course, for the support arm when sliding.

The new writing of the Laws takes the two of them, kinda tries to split the difference a bit, and makes it so that support of body ok, trailing behind body not ok.
 
Does this make you think there is divide (politics maybe) between IFAB and individual confederation/FIFA referee bodies? Nothing new. I wont be surprised if there individual confederation/FIFA come out with their own interpretations which is not quite the same as what IFAB says. Kind of like the interpretations of what a clear and obvious error means for VAR. Every implementations has it's own.
 
I wont be surprised if there individual confederation/FIFA come out with their own interpretations which is not quite the same as what IFAB says. .

I mean Mike Riley basically just admitted they will do as much in England this fall in recent comments.
 
I wont be surprised if there individual confederation/FIFA come out with their own interpretations which is not quite the same as what IFAB says.
FIFA has already pushed out material that is precisely in line with what IFAB published (not a real surprise, as what's found in the Law books now is very close to what FIFA has been using as interpretation for the last 2-3 years).

UEFA has typically been the confederation that tinkers the most, and the tinkering is, for obvious reasons, on one of the largest visible stages (Champions League + Europa League + EURO between World Cups). I honestly wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the tinkering is with the explicit consent of FIFA so that things can be tried out with the world's "biggest superstars".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nij
FIFA has already pushed out material that is precisely in line with what IFAB published (not a real surprise, as what's found in the Law books now is very close to what FIFA has been using as interpretation for the last 2-3 years).

UEFA has typically been the confederation that tinkers the most, and the tinkering is, for obvious reasons, on one of the largest visible stages (Champions League + Europa League + EURO between World Cups). I honestly wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the tinkering is with the explicit consent of FIFA so that things can be tried out with the world's "biggest superstars".

Don't quiet agree with that analysis but if so, let me get this right. IFAB release 'the LAW', FIFA changes expectations of what it should be, IFAB changes the LAW to match expectations, FIFA give consent to try new 'tinkering' on the new LAW (that matches expectations) on the world's biggest stages. FIFA changes expectations, IFAB changes the LAW... and round and round we go.

And you wonder why everyone is confused about what constitutes a deliberate handball. I am not denying change is part of any system but something defensively wrong with the process above. Anyone out there thinks FIFA needs help with changes management and process improvement?
 
Back
Top