World Cup — Day 13

After the ball takes the barest of brushes in passing of a players arm after being headed down from a range of about 18 inches... ball to hand if ever there was, resulting in a penalty; VAR is now not fit for purpose and needs a total rethink.

Derek, it's the 2/3rd incident of ball to hand VAR has converted to penalty.

The continuing rash of set piece goals has definitely been influenced by VAR. More pens from corners and free kicks, and defending players now losing their marker for fear of being caught.

No mistake the influence in play is there from the lads upstairs in the VAR box.

John Pierce @2; This is my whole point, the studio in Moscow seems to be refereeing the game, not the actual ref on site. He should be asking them did I see what I thought I saw – they show him, like in cricket and rugby, the pictures and angles, hot spots etc they have and he decides accordingly.

VAR is the tail wagging the World Cup dog here.

Previously, any brush of a hand or arm was dealt with by the ref; now, the players will clamour for the VAR and because it's there the ref will have to use it.

It's only a trial thing, I hope; up to now the Scottish verdict of 'Not Proven' has it covered. The whole system needs a rethink.

Football will never be suitable for the deployment of VAR. It is far too fluid a sport and far too subject to differing opinions on what constitutes foul play.

What we're seeing at the moment was totally predictable – as many good decisions being turned into bad as the reverse; refs being scared to make judgements in real time; as much inconsistency in decisions as there is without VAR; players continually harassing officials looking for VAR to be used etc.

Goal-line technology no-one can have a problem with. But anything that still requires subjective judgement to be used simply does not constitute an overall improvement. If there is a case for the expanded use of technology/VAR, then it's in using it to determine offsides. And that looks simple enough, with the adjudicator only needing to have the current 'line across the pitch' technology in front of him. Even for this there would be some element of subjectivity because of the law over when a player is interfering with play or not – but then maybe that nonsensical caveat needs erasing from the rule books anyway.

I'm hoping Iceland can beat Croatia and the Argies beat Nigeria by only a goal to put the Vikings into the knockout round. The 2 pm EDT kickoffs will be fun.

Twice, the ref in the Portugal - Iran game made a correct decision and then overturned them with incorrect decisions following a VAR review. I have never seen that in any other sport with a review system.

At least the refs could review and change their decisions, while Premier League refs can't. So bad decisions will continue to mar the Premier League until VAR is introduced.

The game is not meant to be perfect, that's in part why it has huge popularity. VAR sanitizes the game. The open-ended nature of VAR is adding increasing pressure to the referee.

It allows players to continually harangue the official to the point where his own judgement becomes twisted.

Yesterday, a poor official called two decisions and was asked to review them. The implication being he was wrong. He was not.

Like any referee, VAR should not insert itself into a game just to get it right – there's zero nuance to that and it fails to take the rest of the game as a baseline to judge a decision in the round – not as a microscopic, almost binary decision, as VAR is doing.

Perhaps limiting the use of it and leaving the players to ask for it will make them think twice about asking for it. One referral is plenty; it limits the tactical use of VAR, but helps retain the authority of the referee who, in its current iteration, now is undermined, and it places doubt into their decision-making process.

It works well in hockey, cricket and rugby. They also have defined parameters to help streamline the process; you get a consistent, prompt result from it. Marginal decisions stay with the onfield official retaining authority.

So, for me, it's simple: if you cannot frame a question for the incident you want reviewed, then it should be left on-field.

Football will get there but it will be painful. Any bets VAR screws us in derby or cup game? Odds on.

I knew there would be teething problems with VAR, but that was four minutes last night and the worst possible decision was arrived at despite all the evidence.

Agree with John @8, about putting limitations on the amount of times a team can ask for a review. We all want things to be right, but it's just taking too much emotion out of the game at the minute.

It was similar with the Golden Goal (which was a great idea on paper) but it just ended up having the completely opposite effect on the game.

I'm gonna swim against the popular tide here and support VAR. Certainly the "teething problems" (nice metaphor, Darren) are aggravating, but they were predictable. It'll take a few years before all the issues are sorted out. We Yanks have been through this with baseball, the NFL, hockey and now the NBA, and as the process has been adjusted and streamlined, most fans have come to embrace it and even enjoy the drama.

I welcome any efforts to do a better job of getting it right. Look how many years we've been agonizing over bad calls that crushed us (fucking Collina), and time would only add to the list. Yesterday's example was odious, but the problem ultimately was a lousy ref, not the VAR system. The system will undoubtedly be changed to take the process out of the field referee's control, and things will get better.

Besides, it's inevitable. VAR is here and there's no getting rid.

No issues at all with the VAR. One thing that is going unnoticed is that it has almost wiped out all diving in the box, because they know it would be reviewed. Of course even when they review it, as they did when Neymar dived and VAR overruled it, they failed to card Neymar.

It's funny that the argument used against VAR is that we want the imperfections of the game, yet VAR is criticized for not being perfect. Of course there are still judgement calls, nobody will ever agree 100% on every call. That's not the point. The point is to try to get more of those critical calls correct and so far it has done that.

You are a wicked TW rebel, Mike G!

Rock ' Droll

John,

You seem to be suggesting here that the validity of a referee's judgement for any given incident can rightly be coloured by the context of the game as whole:

"... it fails to take the rest of the game as a baseline to judge a decision in the round..."

Am I reading that correctly? You think other events in a game should rightly affect the referee's judgement? While there may be some inevitable "totting up" and "evening out" going on in the referee's head, I'm not sure that is the intent the Laws of the Game.

David, there's mileage in what you say, there are significant side affects to VAR at this level. The incidence of diving has been reduced perhaps because players believe if they are fouled and it is missed it will get pick up upstairs? Plus they look like absolute ‘melts when they do it!

Defenders are being exposed to set plays as they are in the main no longer allowed to wrestle, block and ‘feel up' players, that freedom is leading to more chances & goals from set plays, no doubt.

On the surface these are good sides effects. It certainly will reduce the effectiveness of Portugal or Uruguay who thrive off this stifling style of grappling.

But it has and will change the referee's approach to decision making, in theory you officiate and VAR mops up behind you to get the clangers out of the way, ie, the hand of god etc. Henry's handball. It shouldn't be there for marginal shit.

I really hope they take the data from this World Cup and use it well.

I'm with Gaynes and Barks.

There's been quite a few (most!) correct VAR decisions we are seemingly conveniently forgetting about.

It's here to stay. As time marches on the process will improve and be streamlined. We need to get the important call correct. No more Hand of God dibocals.

And it has definitely cut down on the flopping and diving – an absolutely marvelous thing.

No, Michael, the phrases you used are not what I was driving at.

As a game develops, the temperature of the game goes up as does the levels of contact. Your management of the game should reflect that; a ladder of control where you can go down as well as up.

For example, the standards you set in a game which have high levels of contact from the get-go are much different to that where little or no management is required.

Therefore you get a consistent approach to things, you account for the temperature of the game, the type and style of foul. You do not want the VAR incident to be an outlier.

If you do, then the decision becomes incongruous with the entire game, which at the moment I believe VAR is creating.

Who cares about VAR? This idiot commentator just asked after Cahill's volley was blocked, “Instead of going for the far post, shouldn't he be going for the near post?”

I'm beginning to think football's biggest barrier in America is the idiotic commentators.

Please-please-please, let Tim Cahill score and join an elite group of 4 others who have scored at 4 different World Cup Finals.

John, I appreciate there are going to be different styles and 'personalities' of refereeing that potentially influence how the game develops, and how marginal in-field decisions are called by the referee.

I think the intention of VAR was to look at a sub-set of decisions that have a major influence on the game: penalty calls, offside goals, red-card fouls that do – in and of themselves – have a binary outcome that can be established without reference to the context of the rest of the game.

Without doing a full recap, I can't remember too many (any?) VAR decisions that are not in the above relatively clear-cut categories... ones that could affect – or be affected by – the overall temperature of the game? Perhaps the Ronaldo forearm smash that was yellow and not red? Could you argue that sending him off would have been rather harsh in the context of the game... or in the wider context of the Fifa Moneyfest?

I think I understand the concern you're putting out there. I just don't see much evidence of it so far in this World Cup.

Booooo! x 2.

First, for the France-Denmark bore draw. I was really hoping we would have a World Cup with goals in every game.

Second, that Tim Cahill (in possibly his last international game..?) couldn't get on the score sheet.

Now cummon, Nigeria – put the Argentinians out.

On the question of VAR, I actually think VAR calls are proving overwhelmingly correct. What is 'failing' for me is the live ref either not asking for clarification on a marginal decision, or making the wrong call on the video evidence he views.

I don't know if it is a direct result of the presence of VAR, but there are more penalties and more goals resulting from corners and free kicks at this World Cup which, by its conclusion, may well beat previous records. England was not the beneficiary of it in their first game, but the grappling at corners is being picked up and punished.

I think because it's so new to everyone, football spectators in particular are not accustomed to it as they are in other sports with video review systems – rugby, cricket, tennis for example. I believe eventually the process will improve and – as it has in the other mentioned sports – will eventually add to the drama, tension and enjoyment of the game as all await the VAR decision with bated breath.

Let's also not overlook the fact that match day referees are 'learning on the job' with VAR. FIFA – as they do every four years at their flagship tournament – introduce a radical rule change previously not applied, are using VAR at Russia 2018 without a thorough testing by those who refer to and apply it, the refs.

From my seat, it has not disrupted the flow or excitement of the game as much as I feared. There was a dreadful example of just that in a high-scoring cup game Spurs were involved in last season in which there was an interminable delay – without just cause – as each goal was reviewed before being confirmed, with the matchday crowd not kept in the loop as to what the hell was going on.

For me, the big 'missed' calls to date at the World Cup have been two clear all-in wrestling fouls on Harry Kane vs Tunisia and the double 'waist and head lock' on the Serbian player vs Switzerland.

I also thought if there is a serious foul and possible red card review – as with CR7's elbow vs Iran last night – the decision was no card, or red card, not an in-betweeny yellow card as the ref flourished to the very lucky Portuguese icon.

So my vote is 'Yes' to VAR.

I think VAR will take 5 seasons to become smooth and more accurate. I still think it could make the rugby defending and Olympic 10/10 diving reduced and that I would welcome so so much.

As for Tim... go to VAR and just make up the goal we all wanted!

First 0-0 after 36 games today, I hear.

If true, not bad.

Also, hear fans cannot sing pro-Brexit chants.

No comment.

Michael, there some excellent points there, especially Ronaldo's card – in the context of the game, a yellow could easily be appropriate. Barely a poor foul in the game.

So you ask why in that context the VAR team felt they need to intervene? Whilst had there been times of contact and several yellows when red might have been more appropriate. That's understanding the whole thing.

The system will need time to mature, and there are some promising elements. My perspective is nearly always from that of an official, it's my day job!

I've been immersed in VA, radio comma etc for years. Football is all but adolescent in those terms. A way to go and time will help.

Dang! That was oh-so-cruel on Nigeria.

So near, and yet...

That puts Argentina up against France in the next round, Croatia v Denmark.

Although they lost, I'm pleased Gylfi Sigurdsson didn't hide or abdicate his penalty-taking duties after his woeful miss against Nigeria.

Takes a bit of bottle that.

Jay, this has been, in my view, the most cruel World Cup ever. It could have been so different... Spain, Germany, Brazil, Argentina and Spain could all have been gone.

By the way, I took your advice on South American football. I didn't bet on Brazil and backed draw and defeat for Argentina.

It has only cut my losses though I went big on first round draws and only recovered a little today.

I have high hopes for Belgium. However, as I said on another thread, I'd have moved heaven and earth to keep Stones. I will be sanctimoniously smug if he gets a winners medal.

Small margins 'n all that Andy.

I should have flagged up Uruguay to you more in my evaluation of the South American teams, all the more so that the group they were drawn in should have given you some easy pickings.

Until Tite and Brazil came together and went on a long winning run in the qualifiers, Uruguay looked as if they would be top dogs in the Latin America group.

They even came back from 2-0 down in Brazil (under Dunga) to draw 2-2, but then – in the big decider in Uruguay against Brazil, which was set up to determine who would finish top – Brazil thrashed them in grand style, with Paulinho hitting a hat-trick.

With Suarez and Cavani in attack and Godin imperious in defence, they have both potency and defensive resilience – the only team yet to concede a goal at this World Cup.

They've got a real chance in their knockout game with Portugal.

Sir John Pierce -

I actually refereed for a time, admittedly at youth level. I wish to God there had been VAR a few times for my games!

It's there to assist the ref in the center (and to a degree with offside for the ARs) to get the calls correct. The game, when you're refereeing, is so damn fast and it's so damn easy to miss certain things!

I admit that the highest level referees are much more suited than I ever was, but I don't think people who haven't refereed have a clue how incredibly difficult the job really is. And at the highest levels there are SO many "bang-bang" plays that happen in a millisecond!

The VAR system needs to be implemented and perfected as the game grows ever faster and the players use the "dark arts" to get the calls they want.

It's a must.

And in the main I'd argue it's actually worked, in it's infancy and that can't be stressed enough, pretty damn well this World Cup. Most of the calls have been correct in the end. It will never, ever stop the "individuality" of the referee. Some will still call a game tight while others let the players play more robustly.

The key is to implement it with minimal effect on the flow of the game.

They'll get there. It'll take some time but they'll get there. And we need it.

Jamie @33; I pretty much agree, but my main gripe is, given this new technology they have to sort out the difference... define it - AND STICK TO IT... between accidental ball to hand and deliberate hand to ball.

If they don't, players will just thrash the ball at anybody, the closer the better to them, in the box, and hope to find, not a team mate but rather an arm on the way. Then start drawing imaginary video screens in the air... and because it's there, the refs will have to use it.

It doesn't matter if the arm is up or down, arms be arms, they go where they go when you're moving about at high speed and if the ball is played on to it from short range, you just can't move fast enough to avoid it.

Derek, you are pretty close to bob on. Each item they wish to review, as per my earlier post, needs framing in a series of clear questions to produce a slick and consistent outcome.

The handball calls by VAR in this World Cup have been nothing short of a travesty. Ironically today's one more a penalty than ever. The ball has travelled a massive distance, defender has a unimpeded view with a player directly behind him. That's a pen.

Yet the others have been given off tiny reaction times, from an attacking player forcing the ball towards them.

Handball can be most easily framed; distance and reaction time can pretty much make it black and white regardless of where the arm is. We will see.

JC, I'd prefer no VAR, but will settle for a version that only looks at clear errors. This version has produced more controversy by reviewing plays which are not even close to obviously wrong.

The French penalty, barely distinguishable in real time, was even more marginal when VAR reviewed it. Never should have been reviewed.

Three handballs gifted to teams when it's ball to hand. Called correctly in real time yet VAR says that's an obvious error? No way, José.

The missed grappling looks to have been addressed following two clear missed reviews in the England game; it's been called fairly well since.

If they frame the ‘clear and obvious', they're on the right track. ATM, every decision that is reviewed the players are hounding the referee without penalty, great look that FIFA by the way!

The Premier League have done themselves a favour, as post World Cup VAR is most likely to be refined and that year will make all the difference.

John and "DT"-

I think the handball situation in the box has been tricky.

The laws of the game are written SO ambiguously it's a joke.

The hand needs to be in a natural position for it not to be called a handball and a pen. You know this I'm sure of it. So it really comes down to the referee in question and his interpretation of the event.

If the referee wants to review it via VAR to either confirm or adjust his initial call, I see no problem with that. Again, the VAR is there to assist the referee.

I think the main thrust is to ensure that the review isn't cumbersome.

And I think your desire for a more uniform and consistent application of the laws is a great shout.

Anyone who's ever refereed realizes the laws themselves are a joke! Blanket statements made about the run of play with no real criteria! It's like a team of defense lawyers wrote the Laws of the game and wanted a ton of gray! They need to define clearly – not just for VAR but for the bleeding refs themselves – what EXACTLY constitutes a handball, a penalty, etc.

A hell of a lot of people don't even realize in a tackle, just because you "get the ball" doesn't mean it can't be a foul! If your momentum takes you all the way through the player or your studs are up, it's a foul. Period.

The rub is that criteria I just stated in the above paragraph is TAUGHT to refs and NOWHERE stated in the laws of the game!

The NFL over here has a freaking canonical code of written rules. But generally it's clear and if they detect problems with the application of their rules (and they do, nothing is perfect), they have a rules committee that reviews the rules every year and they make changes.

FIFA goes all freaking dictatorship and simply says, in the laws, the referee's decision is final. That's their catch-all get out of jail free card.

I believe you're complaining about the ambiguity of the Laws of the game and if that were cleaned up, we'd not have the issues about VAR we see in it's infancy.

Football is a sport that has steadfastly refused to update its laws in line with professionalism, greater fitness and technology ie tv and multiple cameras.

As such, the need for VAR has arisen, in part, through the laws hindering the referee.

Your point couldn't be fairer; if many of the laws were revised, VAR would be much easier to implement.

John

What about the law which says that "the referee's decision is final..."? Note: "final" – not correct.

Everyone now seems to advocate a counsel of perfection, which in turn increases the pressure on refs.

I think we all need to grow up and accept the ref's errors as human failings – unless there is evidence of corruption, in which case take stern action.

The pampered modern-day players are to blame for most of the controversies. I would use VAR after a game to review playing controversies (eg: diving, off-the-ball incidents etc) and introduce stern penalties retrospectively against offenders.

Peter, it's a great point. A quick flick through my ‘hobby horse' postings will reveal that an opened VAR is eroding the credibility of the referee. Too many marginal decisions are being referred by VAR, and lesser forget checks happen without us seeing.

A limited number of reviews puts the onus on the players not the referee allowing him to be less affected by the pressure it creates.

Nothing is being eroded. Major decisions are simply being reviewed and the ref on the field has the option to go have a second look himself. The system is working just fine.

Whether we are for VAR or not, there is no doubt the standard of refereeing and consistency needed to be improved.

To that end, I am pleased there has been more of a clampdown on holding in the box and a reduction in diving. That can only improve the game.

I think the negatives come from the teams who want to influence or intimidate the ref and I would like to see something similar to NFL where coaches are allowed two challenges per game on decisions they think were wrong.

This could be adopted to barring players from challenging the ref as all challenges would have to come from the coach to the 4th official who does a 30-second video review and advises the ref accordingly.

In your opinion David@40.