Could be that Eric, although unclear what the referee gains by not giving a penalty which is subsequently corrected. A false award can be overturned too.
An alternative view is that Sweden were awarded a penalty and probably the winning goal as a result that they would have otherwise been unfairly denied
But if you assume that every decision corrected by VAR would have been got right correctly without VAR, then VAR is of course pointless.
Surely, as in cricket, for a referees decision or non-decision to be overturned, there has to be conclusive evidence under VAR.
Consequently it does matter whether a referee gives a penalty if the offence is a 50/50 decision. In such a situation, if the on field ref gives it, VAR won't (or shouldn't) overturn it and vice versa if he doesn't give it.
If VAR didn't exist, Ref would have still given Tunisia a penalty.
If VAR didn't exist, ref would still not have given Kane a penalty.
VAR made no discernible difference to the game.
Justifiable argument against VAR is that the disruption to flow of game is not worth the times when it corrects bad referring decisions. Not sure I'd agree but I understand the point.
An argument that we should ditch VAR because it only corrects some not all bad referring decisions seems illogical to me.
We already had a completely arbitrary system, we’ve just augmented that with a more expensive arbitrary system so that someone at FIFA can line their friends’ pockets with zero gain for the game.
If you think that’s happening you’ll see that happening. It’s not provable either way. I can’t see any reason why (advice to assistant referees excepted) that would be the case.
I've come out against the VAR system previously simply because football is all about opinion and seeing some bad decisions is, for me, part of that experience. That being the case you just have to suck it up if you don't always get the decision you want.
Maybe there was a foul on Kane, maybe it wasn't a foul by Walker, however that's not how the officials saw it. However if you have to take all the fun out of the match by going to VAR to get every decision (that is subject to VAR) correct then I'd rather watch the match without VAR and see some incorrect decisions sometimes. As it is with VAR now not everyone watching agrees with every decision anyway and I doubt that's ever going to change.
And just to be clear it's not the VAR official who makes the final decision - it's always the on field referee who makes the final decision after watching the video review. The VAR official can only suggest to the on field that they review the incident.
I think VAR just proves that no one likes England. How they can decide, with the benefit of plenty of time to look at the footage, that Tunisia deserved a penalty and England didn't deserve either is conclusive evidence that we are hated. The fouls on Kane seemed much worse to me than whatever Walker did. How can having your arm at shoulder height be worse than grappling someone to the ground?
My opinion on use of video technology has not changed:
To quickly provide 'Yes'/'No' information on strictly objective matters such as whether the ball did or did not completely cross the goal line or touch line I am fully in favour.
For anything that has an element of subjectivity to it I am not in favour at all.
If the technology can be proven sufficiently accurate, I would be in favour of it being used to provide an objective 'True'/'False' indication of whether a player is in an offside position when the ball is played. This information could be passed as advice (not instruction - see below) to the on-pitch referee.
Decision-making on whether a free kick should be awarded as a result of the player having been identified as being in an offside position should remain with the on-pitch referee, who would base that decision on whether he/she believed the offside player to have become involved in active play. This is consistent with the current situation in which assistant referees raise their flags to advise the referee, but only the referee can make the decision whether to award a free kick or wave play on.
After last night I have to say that I think the way that VAR is being implemented is not really fit for purpose.
The Tunisia penalty was rightly reviewed and rightly given (stupidity should be a penalty offence and Walker showed that in spades). Whether Kane's were or were not penalties is a bit subjective - I thought the first was, the second not - but there appeared to be no SIGNIFICANT review unlike the Tunisia one.
The purpose of VAR was to remove doubt for players and fans alike. I don't think any of us understand the laws of foul play at set pieces anymore.
I would agree that there needs to be clear rules on what is allowed at corners and set pieces and what is not. In recent years increasing levels of holding and now outright wrestling seems to be permitted.
Comments
Yet another referee bottling the responsibility of giving an on-field decision in this game
Clear as day penalty to Sweden, ref didn't give it and instead handed over responsibility to others miles away
It's so shit
Could be that Eric, although unclear what the referee gains by not giving a penalty which is subsequently corrected. A false award can be overturned too.
An alternative view is that Sweden were awarded a penalty and probably the winning goal as a result that they would have otherwise been unfairly denied
But if you assume that every decision corrected by VAR would have been got right correctly without VAR, then VAR is of course pointless.
Surely, as in cricket, for a referees decision or non-decision to be overturned, there has to be conclusive evidence under VAR.
Consequently it does matter whether a referee gives a penalty if the offence is a 50/50 decision. In such a situation, if the on field ref gives it, VAR won't (or shouldn't) overturn it and vice versa if he doesn't give it.
There's some benefits, but I don't like that every goal scored is reviewed. I thought it was meant to be only "Obvious" missed/wrong calls?
VAR is bullshit.
If that’s a penalty Matt Bloomfield will be having fun next season.
On the plus side England have looked as good as any team so far.
Tunisia look like they've be Wycombeised
var was brilliant in that game and all you var lovers have clearly been right all along.
If VAR didn't exist, Ref would have still given Tunisia a penalty.
If VAR didn't exist, ref would still not have given Kane a penalty.
VAR made no discernible difference to the game.
Justifiable argument against VAR is that the disruption to flow of game is not worth the times when it corrects bad referring decisions. Not sure I'd agree but I understand the point.
An argument that we should ditch VAR because it only corrects some not all bad referring decisions seems illogical to me.
It’s completely arbitrary, so what’s the point?
We already had a completely arbitrary system, we’ve just augmented that with a more expensive arbitrary system so that someone at FIFA can line their friends’ pockets with zero gain for the game.
It corrects some bad refereeing decisions. That's better than none, obviously.
Not seen anything so far to allow me to support it so NO TO VAR for me!
I’ve got no strong feelings towards VAR either way. I think it will be a good thing in the future.
I’ve yet to see that proven either given that the refs are all too scared to give anything because they can just rely on var.
If you think that’s happening you’ll see that happening. It’s not provable either way. I can’t see any reason why (advice to assistant referees excepted) that would be the case.
I've come out against the VAR system previously simply because football is all about opinion and seeing some bad decisions is, for me, part of that experience. That being the case you just have to suck it up if you don't always get the decision you want.
Maybe there was a foul on Kane, maybe it wasn't a foul by Walker, however that's not how the officials saw it. However if you have to take all the fun out of the match by going to VAR to get every decision (that is subject to VAR) correct then I'd rather watch the match without VAR and see some incorrect decisions sometimes. As it is with VAR now not everyone watching agrees with every decision anyway and I doubt that's ever going to change.
And just to be clear it's not the VAR official who makes the final decision - it's always the on field referee who makes the final decision after watching the video review. The VAR official can only suggest to the on field that they review the incident.
I think VAR just proves that no one likes England. How they can decide, with the benefit of plenty of time to look at the footage, that Tunisia deserved a penalty and England didn't deserve either is conclusive evidence that we are hated. The fouls on Kane seemed much worse to me than whatever Walker did. How can having your arm at shoulder height be worse than grappling someone to the ground?
Neither of them were penalties.
What @Twizz said.
And really @Chris? One was (it was given) but maybe shouldn’t have been. One wasn’t given but if seen by the referee should have been.
That kind of thing happens at every corner.
My opinion on use of video technology has not changed:
To quickly provide 'Yes'/'No' information on strictly objective matters such as whether the ball did or did not completely cross the goal line or touch line I am fully in favour.
For anything that has an element of subjectivity to it I am not in favour at all.
Offsides?
If the technology can be proven sufficiently accurate, I would be in favour of it being used to provide an objective 'True'/'False' indication of whether a player is in an offside position when the ball is played. This information could be passed as advice (not instruction - see below) to the on-pitch referee.
Decision-making on whether a free kick should be awarded as a result of the player having been identified as being in an offside position should remain with the on-pitch referee, who would base that decision on whether he/she believed the offside player to have become involved in active play. This is consistent with the current situation in which assistant referees raise their flags to advise the referee, but only the referee can make the decision whether to award a free kick or wave play on.
Dev C lite
After last night I have to say that I think the way that VAR is being implemented is not really fit for purpose.
The Tunisia penalty was rightly reviewed and rightly given (stupidity should be a penalty offence and Walker showed that in spades). Whether Kane's were or were not penalties is a bit subjective - I thought the first was, the second not - but there appeared to be no SIGNIFICANT review unlike the Tunisia one.
The purpose of VAR was to remove doubt for players and fans alike. I don't think any of us understand the laws of foul play at set pieces anymore.
Here's the estimable David Squires' take on VAR (final frame, bottom right):
https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2018/jun/19/david-squires-on-england-var-and-the-rest-of-world-cup-2018-so-far
That makes it OK then does it? So if LON rugby tackles his opposite number in the middle of the pitch, it's not a foul and not a yellow card? DOFL!
I would agree that there needs to be clear rules on what is allowed at corners and set pieces and what is not. In recent years increasing levels of holding and now outright wrestling seems to be permitted.
None of which is an argument for or against VAR.