Confederations Cup 2017 - Starts Saturday 17th June

pjohnson

The Backwards Man wrote: »

This video ref craic has ruined football for me, no more controversial decisions

Did you miss Varga's goal?

The Backwards Man

citytillidie wrote: »

Well that VAR is controversial as it is onside

Nope, the video ref looked at it and said it was offside, putting an end to arguments in TV studios, pubs and living rooms around the globe. I switched to the U21 match at halftime, did the pundits just talk about the weather?

omega man

Video ref must have access to other angles there.

Vincent Vega

Questionable overruling there.

You'd nearly want to change the definition of offside so that it requires the player to be 'fully' offside in order to implement VAR properly. Like the goal line tech.

Also, early in the other match for Portugal's 2-1 goal they stalled resuming the match for a decent amount of time for no apparent reason.
Looking at it again, it seems like it was to decide who to credit the goal to because it had been deflected in.

Surely things like this don't warrant a stoppage?

pjohnson

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Nope, the video ref looked at it and said it was offside, putting an end to arguments in TV studios, pubs and living rooms around the globe. I switched to the U21 match at halftime, did the pundits just talk about the weather?

Theyspoke about the video ref being wrong... as they normally would any wrong decision.

Rekop dog

He was 100% offside.

I still don't like it. It's the mental leap to go from thinking your team have scored, not seeing any flag or whistle but then have it cancelled a good bit after. It's a new element that just doesn't sit right with my head. Whether or not I'll get used to it I don't know

Charlie19

I think he was just offside but not enough to overrule the pitch officials. Too close to call.

The Talking Bread

In a way, I hope Chile lose this so it will get the huge controversy it deserves.

Harsh on Chile but needs must.

Chile winning 3-0 and it will be "somewhat" overshadowed.

pjohnson

Ooooof inches from Moukandjo. That would really set things off.

Kirby

Shown there with the lines. No doubt the three idiots in the RTE studio will still claim he was onside. :rolleyes:

citytillidie

Yep after seeing that with the line his knee and shoulder was offside, i guess it will take some getting use too

Kirby

citytillidie wrote: »

Yep after seeing that with the line his knee and shoulder was offside, i guess it will take some getting use too

It's the low standard of broadcasting at this particular event. The world cup, even in the same place, will be far superior. This is a tester.

pjohnson

Chile warming up Alexis

citytillidie

Kirby wrote: »

It's the low standard of broadcasting at this particular event. The world cup, even in the same place, will be far superior. This is a tester.

Would be better if you could hear them talking so you know what is going on like in other sports

The Talking Bread

A better, more technical image will be around soon I would imagine but it was the most marginal of decisions. It is a rule that is going to play with the emotions of players. Unless they get a screenshot in the stadium straight away to prove it, players will protest and it could get ugly.

The Talking Bread

Kirby wrote: »

Shown there with the lines. No doubt the three idiots in the RTE studio will still claim he was onside. :rolleyes:

It is easy to call them idiots in hindsight. All they were shown was video evidence with a whisker in it . I don't really get your venom. Can't all be right like yourself.

It is the sort of marginal decision which will cause the ruination of the game. 3 minutes of celebrating a goal and then being told you were a hairpin offside. As ex pro footballers at the very top level, I can understand Duff and Hamman hating such an ugly rule

The Talking Bread

The Talking Bread wrote: »

It is easy to call them idiots in hindsight. All they were shown was video evidence with a whisker in it . I don't really get your venom. Can't all be right like yourself.

It is the sort of marginal decision which will cause the ruination of the game. 3 minutes of celebrating a goal and then being told you were a hairpin offside. As ex pro footballers at the very top level, I can understand Duff and Hamman hating such an ugly rule

Absolutely. There needs to be instant feedback and transparency here

ERG89

Watching this it's kinda eye opening these are the best teams in South America & Africa. Its the Confed Cup & all but still it's poor stuff.

ERG89

ERG89 wrote: »

Watching this it's kinda eye opening these are the best teams in South America & Africa. Its the Confed Cup & all but still it's poor stuff.

I wont put too much value on the ACN because thats a dire tournament but Chile won back to back Copa Americas in 15 and 16 as well as having an excellent world cup in 2014. They also have some top class players. They should be putting this crowd away

dfx-

The Talking Bread wrote: »

It is the sort of marginal decision which will cause the ruination of the game. 3 minutes of celebrating a goal and then being told you were a hairpin offside. As ex pro footballers at the very top level, I can understand Duff and Hamman hating such an ugly rule

This is it (as well as Vincent Vega's point). The problem is not necessarily about the hairline decisions being right or wrong.

Goals like that one have been scored for decades without controversy or much comment even.

caviardreams

I think the only way it can be implemented without significantly ruining the game is if team's have a max of say 1 or 2 VAR calls per game, which they can use if they feel a goal/red card/or other significant decision has been made by the ref incorrectly - this would ensure it is only used when there is a significant enough doubt over the referee's original decision, and not over every single goal. And when the calls are used up, that's it. The thought of having to wait after every goal for 60-90 seconds for confirmation is ridiculous.

Rekop dog

There should be some sort of footballing kind of referendum among all players, owners, and possibly ex pros whether to bring this through or not after a fair trial period. Football people should have the final say on whether this comes through or not and not just Fifa.

For me it's the biggest change in football in my lifetime (born 87) and requires something appropriately fitting before bringing in.

The Talking Bread

Rekop dog wrote: »

There should be some sort of footballing kind of referendum among all players, owners, and possibly ex pros whether to bring this through or not after a fair trial period. Football people should have the final say on whether this comes through or not and not just Fifa.

For me it's the biggest change in football in my lifetime (born 87) and requires something appropriately fitting before bringing in.

Does Joey Barton get a vote?

Rekop dog

FARCICAL

Hollister11

WTF was that. I'd rather have mistakes then video referees.

The Backwards Man

Do they have to do the YMCA thing every time they change the decision?

dfx-

Was Sanchez leaning offside? The lines on the pitch were only by the Cameroon defender's foot...

citytillidie

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Do they have to do the YMCA thing every time they change the decision?

If the Video ref over rules the decision on the pitch they have to draw a box in the air to represent the video ref

bennyl10

Rekop dog wrote: »

FARCICAL

If it was disallowed they'd have said it's an awful call?..

At least with the VAR we have correct calls in the sport., not a bad thing!

NIMAN

Pele hasn't a clue.

An African team will never win a thing.

Vincent Vega

I'm guessing it was the VAR who called to blow up 3m22s into the minimum of 4mins added time. :rolleyes:

The Backwards Man

citytillidie wrote: »

If the Video ref over rules the decision on the pitch they have to draw a box in the air to represent the video ref

The ref didn't make a decision though, he went all village people as soon as the linesman rose his flag, he should draw something else in the air to signify he's copping out of making a call himself . . twirl his fingers at both sides of his heard or something:pac:

Guy:Incognito

What did the linesman give offside for in the first place? His flag went up very late.

Rekop dog

Players will literally never stop for a flag anymore. If they know it can go to an appeal why stop? This is probably more open to abuse than we even realise right now.

Benimar

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What did the linesman give offside for in the first place? His flag went up very late.

I noticed that too. It looked as if he (incorrectly) gave Vargas offside for the follow up shot, and not for Sanchez initial run.

If that's the case the problem isn't with the VAR, it's with the linesman!!

dfx-

bennyl10 wrote: »

If it was disallowed they'd have said it's an awful call?..

At least with the VAR we have correct calls in the sport., not a bad thing!

Not necessarily. Decisions not given, penalties and goals are reviewed it seems.

Cameroon were denied an opening goal with a soft free kick that the referee awarded against them. It could've been overturned and goal given had it gone to be reviewed...

LuckyLloyd

The Talking Bread wrote: »

A better, more technical image will be around soon I would imagine but it was the most marginal of decisions. It is a rule that is going to play with the emotions of players. Unless they get a screenshot in the stadium straight away to prove it, players will protest and it could get ugly.

Superb overturn - clearly offside

Mr.Nice Guy

I see two big problems with how they are utilising the technology. First of all, there is a lack of an interactive element with the audience watching. Secondly, the referees aren't communicating straight away to the players that there is a question mark over a goal.

I watch NRL (Rugby League in Australia) and the system is quite similar to what is being used now in football. They call the area where questionable tries get reviewed 'The Bunker'. If there is a questionable try in NRL, say it's unclear whether the ball was grounded, the referee (who is mic'd up) will signal that he wants the decision reviewed, but the ref will also give his own take on what he saw in real time. For example, "I have a try. Just need you to check the grounding for me."

It will then go to The Bunker and they have to review the incident, and because the ref has deemed it a try from his perspective, there must be clear evidence from The Bunker that the ref has got it wrong to overturn his decision. If there is any uncertainty, the ref's decision takes precedence.

While The Bunker reviews the incident, the paying crowd and the viewers at home hear the analysis as it happens. e.g. "We see the player was onside as the ball was played, the player takes possession of the ball cleanly, we see the player has grounded the ball. I have a decision and am going to the board."

The fans then see on screen that a try has either been awarded or not; so the fans and players are kept aware of everything that is happening and ideally this takes no more than 60 seconds. (Situations vary)

Now contrast this with what we're seeing in football - a goal gets scored, players run away and celebrate, the fans are convinced a goal has been scored, but wait...hang on...the referee is only now checking the decision after all. What's with the hold up? The referee should make it clear right away that the decision is being checked. It should be just as fast as when a linesman raises his flag for an offside.

Furthermore, the crowd and the viewers at home need to be kept engaged with the thought process behind why a goal has or hasn't been given. Just like what happens in both rugby codes. Instead, we've seen decisions get made and then we have to wait until the next break of play to figure out why the goal wasn't given. This is too frustrating.

The process just needs to be kept simple and in a way that keeps the fans involved.

Donnielighto

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I see two big problems with how they are utilising the technology. First of all, there is a lack of an interactive element with the audience watching. Secondly, the referees aren't communicating straight away to the players that there is a question mark over a goal.

I watch NRL (Rugby League in Australia) and the system is quite similar to what is being used now in football. They call the area where questionable tries get reviewed 'The Bunker'. If there is a questionable try in NRL, say it's unclear whether the ball was grounded, the referee (who is mic'd up) will signal that he wants the decision reviewed, but the ref will also give his own take on what he saw in real time. For example, "I have a try. Just need you to check the grounding for me."

It will then go to The Bunker and they have to review the incident, and because the ref has deemed it a try from his perspective, there must be clear evidence from The Bunker that the ref has got it wrong to overturn his decision. If there is any uncertainty, the ref's decision takes precedence.

While The Bunker reviews the incident, the paying crowd and the viewers at home hear the analysis as it happens. e.g. "We see the player was onside as the ball was played, the player takes possession of the ball cleanly, we see the player has grounded the ball. I have a decision and am going to the board."

The fans then see on screen that a try has either been awarded or not; so the fans and players are kept aware of everything that is happening and ideally this takes no more than 60 seconds. (Situations vary)

Now contrast this with what we're seeing in football - a goal gets scored, players run away and celebrate, the fans are convinced a goal has been scored, but wait...hang on...the referee is only now checking the decision after all. What's with the hold up? The referee should make it clear right away that the decision is being checked. It should be just as fast as when a linesman raises his flag for an offside.

Furthermore, the crowd and the viewers at home need to be kept engaged with the thought process behind why a goal has or hasn't been given. Just like what happens in both rugby codes. Instead, we've seen decisions get made and then we have to wait until the next break of play to figure out why the goal wasn't given. This is too frustrating.

The process just needs to be kept simple and in a way that keeps the fans involved.

Exactly that, don't think you need challenges, just use the system that rugby uses. Football would have less need to go for them as there are less incidents where the ref and assistants can't see clearly (rugby union a lot of bodies around etc).

I think and hope it can work as if it can improve officiating without slowing down the play it will be a success.

Ps I'd take little delays to stamp out diving as well, pet peeve.

ArmaniJeanss

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

While The Bunker reviews the incident, the paying crowd and the viewers at home hear the analysis as it happens. e.g. "We see the player was onside as the ball was played, the player takes possession of the ball cleanly, we see the player has grounded the ball. I have a decision and am going to the board."

..........
Furthermore, the crowd and the viewers at home need to be kept engaged with the thought process behind why a goal has or hasn't been given. Just like what happens in both rugby codes. Instead, we've seen decisions get made and then we have to wait until the next break of play to figure out why the goal wasn't given. This is too frustrating.

What language will it be in (there seems to be an assumption in many posts that it'll be English which would be convenient for us). Soccer is much more international than rugby. How do you keep the crowd engaged with the ongoing VAR thought process in say a China v Romania group game?

Kirby

sugarman wrote: »

I think everyone whos up in arms about it so far from fans, the media, pundits to players and mangers ...are the ones just set in their ways and will always be against it.

Its a trial system FFS! Its not going to just work from the get go, it needs to be used in minor tournaments like this for everyone to get a feel for it, to work on mistakes, to take feedback and generally work on improvements.

Im a fan of it so far.

Agreed. Some of the stuff coming out, especially from people IN football, is absolutely hilarious!

"Yes, they got the right decision in the end....but the poor players and their emotions! The VAR was wrong to disallow the goal...even though he was right....because the players had celebrated it. Look how upset he is!"

:rolleyes:

When millions ride on a game of football, i'd rather they get the decisions right to be honest. If it takes a minute and a footballer has a temper tantrum, so be it.

The Talking Bread

sugarman wrote: »

I think everyone whos up in arms about it so far from fans, the media, pundits to players and mangers ...are the ones just set in their ways and will always be against it.

Its a trial system FFS! Its not going to just work from the get go, it needs to be used in minor tournaments like this for everyone to get a feel for it, to work on mistakes, to take feedback and generally work on improvements.

Im a fan of it so far.

Disagree, speaking for myself and many others I anticipate, I was completely for it before this but they have had plenty of experts behind this for a couple of years now to assess little things like what happened after Varga's non goal. Surely one topic of discussion would have been over the months the fact that a 2/3 minute break before the goal is ruled out will completely take away from the euphoria that a ball hitting the back of the net creates, both for players and fans.

Little things like that should have been fine toned and it is hard to celebrate its introduction or state you are a fan of it so far (from my perspective) if these things aren;t implemented. We only saw the image of the reason it was ruled out 25 minutes after it happened??

Look at the Chilean players' reactions after the goal was ruled out. Until they are given an expedient reason, via an onscreen technical image with the lines, their will be issues.

I am not saying things like that are not addressable and hopefully they will take it on board, similarly taking on board the referee's communication with the panel throughout, but I would have liked to see them addressed already as they are big issues.

I would have thought, with such work put into it already, these aspects would have been foreseen to cause a negative feedback. I mean, it is not as if they just threw this together last week. It has been on paper and studied for a few years

Hyzepher

The confusion over the second Chilean goal was more to do with the ineptness of the linesman than any issue over the VAR.

Tigerandahalf

I saw this last night.

Why don't they follow the example of rugby with the replays on tv screens and the ref miked to the tv audience.

For me unless the ref can be heard this is going to cause trouble.

English is used by all the referees so I don't see that being an issue.

dfx-

Hyzepher wrote: »

The confusion over the second Chilean goal was more to do with the ineptness of the linesman than any issue over the VAR.

It would've been checked anyway had he not put up his flag leading to confusion anyway.

Still not convinced Sanchez was onside. The lines on the pitch are not enough. The 'wall' in the image posted by The Talking Bread is much more clear and should be around for the second goal too..

The Talking Bread

Hyzepher wrote: »

The confusion over the second Chilean goal was more to do with the ineptness of the linesman than any issue over the VAR.

Oh, come on, for a decision that ridiculously close, basic human error, especially in a very fast moving incident, should be allowed for. Calling the linesman inept for that is very unfair, despite the experience he should have in such a role.

It is all hindsight to the "fan experts" who claim they knew straight away it was definitely offside, but the forward always has and should have the benefit of the doubt when the view of the incident is that minute.

We also see it at a different angle, in this situation with no players obstructing our view as well as having a dozen replays on offer.

I can't believe for a moment many people saw that as offside straight away.

Arghus

Shock, as revolutionary technology fails to work perfectly right from the get-go.

Hyzepher

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Oh, come on, for a decision that ridiculously close, basic human error, especially in a very fast moving incident, should be allowed for. Calling the linesman inept for that is very unfair, despite the experience he should have in such a role.

It is all hindsight to the "fan experts" who claim they knew straight away it was definitely offside, but the forward always has and should have the benefit of the doubt when the view of the incident is that minute.

We also see it at a different angle, in this situation with no players obstructing our view as well as having a dozen replays on offer.

I can't believe for a moment many people saw that as offside straight away.

I am actually saying the opposite.

He wasn't offside imo. The linesman kept his flag down all the way to the point that the ball ended up in the net and then raised it. I suspect he thought Vargas was offside for some reason.

The Talking Bread

Arghus wrote: »

Shock, as revolutionary technology fails to work perfectly right from the get-go.

"revolutionary" ???

The Talking Bread

Hyzepher wrote: »

I am actually saying the opposite.

He wasn't offside imo. The linesman kept his flag down all the way to the point that the ball ended up in the net and then raised it. I suspect he thought Vargas was offside for some reason.

When did he raise it?? Are you talking about the initially allowed goal which was then ruled out? I don't think he raised it at all? Open to correction.