The Big Shiny World Cup thread

[Prufrock]

The ref wasn't over-ruled - he was asked to look at it and draw his own conclusions.

I don't think this has come down to "jumping against him." I think it's more to do with whether you believe the challenge was careless and whether the opponent was impeded with contact. In the case of them both going up for a 50/50 header, you likely wouldn't assess it as being careless..

Given how far away from the ball the keeper was, I could see a route to giving the spot kick.

The bar for which is supposed to be a clear and obvious error, which is why there's then pressure on the refs and so why they almost always then change their mind.

What you're describing is a system where they're told "you might not have seen this properly so go and have a fresh look". Which I can understand (I'm personally against it, but it seems reasonable enough) but isn't what they're told, and would be a development from how VAR was and is sold as being light touch for major errors.

[Worthy4England]

It was under any circumstances harsh, no way would kerbsize mucky have got his head on that ball even with steps so was he impeading the keeper

Anyway irrelevant, short arse missed to great cheers in my lounge anyways

I always thought fouls had to be intended not accidental, especially with penalties at stake. . Silly me.

To Hoboh's point about Messi having no chance of heading it. He did actually head it.

To TD's point, they're is nothing in the laws about "intent" to commit a foul, irrespective of whether a penalty is at stake or not...the judgement for a direct free kick is whether it's careless, reckless or using excessive force. Obviously within some of those there could be "intent" but careless for example might not show any intent (such as coming for the ball and getting nowhere near it). I assume that's what the ref felt after looking at it again as the other two would have needed a card to be shown...

[Worthy4England]

The ref wasn't over-ruled - he was asked to look at it and draw his own conclusions.

I don't think this has come down to "jumping against him." I think it's more to do with whether you believe the challenge was careless and whether the opponent was impeded with contact. In the case of them both going up for a 50/50 header, you likely wouldn't assess it as being careless..

Given how far away from the ball the keeper was, I could see a route to giving the spot kick.

The bar for which is supposed to be a clear and obvious error, which is why there's then pressure on the refs and so why they almost always then change their mind.

What you're describing is a system where they're told "you might not have seen this properly so go and have a fresh look". Which I can understand (I'm personally against it, but it seems reasonable enough) but isn't what they're told, and would be a development from how VAR was and is sold as being light touch for major errors.

I'm not suggesting there's any sort of consistency (certainly around the re reffing of incidents). Maguire was clearly rugby tackled in our first match and they didn't even bother to.look at it. I'm just saying that given he was asked to take another look, how it's not totally barking that he adjudged it a foul, for I suspect, the reasons I mentioned...

[Prufrock]

I also genuinely don't know what he's asking himself. Once VAR send them over, is he just deciding is it a foul or not, or is he asking himself "have I made a clear and obvious error?"

If it's the former, there's just no point sending them over. The VAR should just change the decision. There should be no circumstances where two referees look at the same footage and one decides that is clearly and obviously a foul and the other decides on balance it's not. If they do it wasn't clear and obvious.

If it's the latter, aside from being a bonkers concept, then we should be seeing far more refs stay with their initial decision.

[BWFC_Insane]

It was under any circumstances harsh, no way would kerbsize mucky have got his head on that ball even with steps so was he impeading the keeper

Anyway irrelevant, short arse missed to great cheers in my lounge anyways

I always thought fouls had to be intended not accidental, especially with penalties at stake. . Silly me.

To Hoboh's point about Messi having no chance of heading it. He did actually head it.

To TD's point, they're is nothing in the laws about "intent" to commit a foul, irrespective of whether a penalty is at stake or not...the judgement for a direct free kick is whether it's careless, reckless or using excessive force. Obviously within some of those there could be "intent" but careless for example might not show any intent (such as coming for the ball and getting nowhere near it). I assume that's what the ref felt after looking at it again as the other two would have needed a card to be shown...

There’s always one! It’s not and never has been a penalty. Forget intent, it’s not a foul. Messi heads it. Keeper touches Messi following that as he dives across his goal. It’s not a foul. The ball had gone and it’s obviously entirely the same as a defender going for the ball and heading a strikers head by accident in the process.

[Worthy4England]

I also genuinely don't know what he's asking himself. Once VAR send them over, is he just deciding is it a foul or not, or is he asking himself "have I made a clear and obvious error?"

If it's the former, there's just no point sending them over. The VAR should just change the decision. There should be no circumstances where two referees look at the same footage and one decides that is clearly and obviously a foul and the other decides on balance it's not. If they do it wasn't clear and obvious.

If it's the latter, aside from being a bonkers concept, then we should be seeing far more refs stay with their initial decision.

It's absolutely possible for the same ref (let alone 2 refs) to come to a different conclusion based on the new "view" that VAR has presented, which is typically not the view the ref had on the field and has the benefit of slo-mo etc. and how you interpret clear and obvious. The view he had on the pitch might lead him to conclude that he'd clearly and obviously made the best decision available to him, in real time from the angle he saw the incident at full speed. But the VAR replay shows a different angle with slo-mo's etc. I'm not sure that's "bonkers" nor that more refs would stay with their initial decision (as the reason it's been drawn to their attention is based on data that they've probably not had)

[Worthy4England]

It’s not and never has been a penalty.

Clearly and factually incorrect! I can post the video of him taking it!

[Prufrock]

I also genuinely don't know what he's asking himself. Once VAR send them over, is he just deciding is it a foul or not, or is he asking himself "have I made a clear and obvious error?"

If it's the former, there's just no point sending them over. The VAR should just change the decision. There should be no circumstances where two referees look at the same footage and one decides that is clearly and obviously a foul and the other decides on balance it's not. If they do it wasn't clear and obvious.

If it's the latter, aside from being a bonkers concept, then we should be seeing far more refs stay with their initial decision.

It's absolutely possible for the same ref (let alone 2 refs) to come to a different conclusion based on the new "view" that VAR has presented, which is typically not the view the ref had on the field and has the benefit of slo-mo etc. and how you interpret clear and obvious. The view he had on the pitch might lead him to conclude that he'd clearly and obviously made the best decision available to him, in real time from the angle he saw the incident at full speed. But the VAR replay shows a different angle with slo-mo's etc. I'm not sure that's "bonkers" nor that more refs would stay with their initial decision (as the reason it's been drawn to their attention is based on data that they've probably not had)

I think the first bit conflates my two points - which come about because I don't know what test the on-field ref is supposed to be applying when he goes over to the screen.

I agree two refs could come to a different conclusion based on live vs the "new view". My point is that *if* the ref is being asked anew when he goes over, "what is the right decision?" (rather than, "have I made a clear and obvious error?") it's pointless. At this stage they're looking at the same footage, slo-mos angles. If it's clear and obvious, there's no point sending the ref over. If he disagrees with the VAR, it wasn't clear and obvious. Just save time and overturn it.

If on the other hand, he's being asked "have I made a clear and obvious error?" it just seems a mad question to me. "I think I'm wrong, but to what degree am I wrong. I've already made this decision which I now accept was wrong, but how wrong was it? It was wrong enough for my colleague to decide it was clear and obvious, but I'm not sure. No, on balance, while I think I was wrong, I wasn't clearly and obviously wrong."

There have been enough very ropey VAR referrals that refs have *still* decided to overturn when they were well within their rights not to, that it seems clear to me that the very fact of being sent over is influencing refs.

On the Messi one, I really don't think it's a pen. Enough that if he'd given it I'd probably have sent him over and recommended he overturn it (or in a sensible system just overturned it myself). It just is not for me.

But, given the ref didn't give it it's an insane decision. There's just not enough there to say it clearly and obviously was a pen. The VAR ref definitely got it hugely wrong. The match ref got it either slightly or hugely wrong depending on what test he was supposed to be applying.

But at least VAR has quietly stepped in to get rid of the obvious injustices.

I can't work out which has been the worst, the Messi one, the Portugal penalty, or (probably) the Iran penalty (given the same VAR ref, in the same game didn't refer the Maguire one).

A shambles.

[TANGODANCER]

What a World Cup? Italy and Sweden don't even qualify and now Belgium, rated second best in the world, are out and head homewards. A total shocker on predictions if not on performance. They played the football they're capable of but only for the last thirty minutes and Croatia played for 94 minutes and kept them from qualifying in a group topped by Morocco. Bringing Eden Hazard on and giving him the captain's arm-band with six minutes left to play, what was all that about? Lakuka tried to hypnotise the ball home from six feet when all he had to do was bend his head. These guys are not Belgian chocolate packers, but millionaire footballers. You wouldn't think so off this performance. Credit to Croatia for a totally competent professional display.

Are there more shocks in store as Spain face Japan, and Costa Ria and Germany clash tonight?

[Worthy4England]

It's not difficult to conflate the two points as determining something from a different angle now deemed a foul which previously wasn't leads to "so the initial decision was incorrect." Clear and obvious is also not without its own interpretations, as what's clear and obvious to one person isn't clear and obvious to another. The other half of that equation is a serious missed incident in relation to amongst other things a penalty/no-penalty.

I can only assume last evening, that the VAR asked the ref to double check as they thought there was a clear and obvious error and the referee on reviewing it agreed. Whether we think it's clear and obvious is almost irrelevant. What the guidance does say is that for subjective decisions an on-field review is appropriate (which would seem to contradict "clear and obvious" )

It often works the other way in RU (Ref decision more likely to be overturned, than upheld.) Usually from a "ahh but did you see it this way" - not that it's without its own controversies of consistency and things "missed" on one occasion and picked up on another. But it's still ultimately up to the ref on the field to make the call (unlike cricket where the TMO directs for changes to be made, if required)

More up to date, there is a larger question from this evening's games which is "How the fcuk did Lukaku not manage to put at least one of them in the net."

[KeyserSoze]

Embrace the chaos.

[Worthy4England]

ITV commentary has been shite. All about a team that's getting beat and what Spain would choose to do. They're getting beat you fckuing idiot.

[Prufrock]

Madness

[BWFC_Insane]

That’s delicious. Love hearing commentators moan about a decision and not showing the evidence yet not be able to talk about a monumental effort from Japan to win a group with Spain and Germany in it.

[BWFC_Insane]

ITV commentary has been shite. All about a team that's getting beat and what Spain would choose to do. They're getting beat you fckuing idiot.

Absolute nonsense the commentary. Spain didn’t even realise they had gone through at the end. So I’m sure they were losing with ten minutes to go and worrying about whether they’d like to score and put Japan out or not and leave them in..,utterly ridiculous.

[Worthy4England]

They also seemed to forget the England goal from Lampard? That hit the back of the net and wasn't given v Germany...fcuk 'em.

[TANGODANCER]

They also seemed to forget the England goal from Lampard? That hit the back of the net and wasn't given v Germany...fcuk 'em.

You just jogged Sol Campbell into my mind?

[Worthy4England]

They also seemed to forget the England goal from Lampard? That hit the back of the net and wasn't given v Germany...fcuk 'em.

You just jogged Sol Campbell into my mind?

Disallowed goal v Portugal?

[Prufrock]

And Argentina in '98.

[Hoboh]

Well started off watching the Germany game, thought this is sh*t turned to Spain and finished the first half then seriously considered switching off.

So pleased I didn't