Refereeing at the World Cup

[SuperFreeman]

I've watched enough games in the WC to now know that the standard of refereeing is way better than anything we're used to.
The biggest grumble we have as fans is the complete lack of consistency that we see in England. Not at the world cup it seems, they've all been primed by Pierluigi Collina, possibly one of the best international refs I remember.

The game is flowing way more, quite often with refs refusing to blow for the slightest contact. The knock-on effect is that play-acting is fast disappearing; players go down, the ref gives nothing so they get up and do a pretend hobble for 5 yards then carry on as normal.

VAR too seems a bit of a step ahead of what we're used to; quick, decisive and consistent.

Is it too much to hope that it carries over to the Premier League?

Generally agree but feel sorry for Egypt who had a perfectly good goal disallowed by VAR and England were denied a penalty v Norway. But that said, VAR worked well to chalk off Norway's goal after Haaland's push on Stones. The game is so fast now, that VAR is necessary.

[Arthur]

Generally agree but feel sorry for Egypt who had a perfectly good goal disallowed by VAR...

This is what Pierluigi Collina, the most respected referee of recent decades, has to say about it:

'There is no defined limit regarding either the distance from goal or the amount of time between the incident and the goal.
An example of this came in the Argentina v Egypt game where Egypt No. 19 Marwan Attia clearly treads on the foot of Argentina No. 6 Lisandro Martínez.'

https://inside.fifa.com/refereeing/news/pierluigi-collina-we-are-not-influenced

[Jim©]

Generally agree but feel sorry for Egypt who had a perfectly good goal disallowed by VAR...

This is what Pierluigi Collina, the most respected referee of recent decades, has to say about it:

'There is no defined limit regarding either the distance from goal or the amount of time between the incident and the goal.
An example of this came in the Argentina v Egypt game where Egypt No. 19 Marwan Attia clearly treads on the foot of Argentina No. 6 Lisandro Martínez.'

https://inside.fifa.com/refereeing/news/pierluigi-collina-we-are-not-influenced

Which to my mind is crazy. It opens the doors for VAR to re-referee the game even more, going back as far as they want to find a foul.

[Woolly Mammoth]

It's been rigged from the first ball that was kicked.

[Arthur]

This is what Pierluigi Collina, the most respected referee of recent decades, has to say about it:
'There is no defined limit regarding either the distance from goal or the amount of time between the incident and the goal.
An example of this came in the Argentina v Egypt game where Egypt No. 19 Marwan Attia clearly treads on the foot of Argentina No. 6 Lisandro Martínez.'

Which to my mind is crazy. It opens the doors for VAR to re-referee the game even more, going back as far as they want to find a foul.

What would you advocate?

It seems to me that an arbitrary length of time to go back - such as 10 seconds - would seem ridiculous if an offence took place a fraction of a second before. Surely it has to do with the passage of play that occurs in between the foul and the goal.  Had Argentina, for instance, after the foul on Martinez, regained control of the ball only for Egypt to win it back legitimately and then score, I don't think VAR would intervene. It was the fact Egypt turned defence into attack into a goal in succession that saw the involvement of VAR.

[v]

This is what Pierluigi Collina, the most respected referee of recent decades, has to say about it:
'There is no defined limit regarding either the distance from goal or the amount of time between the incident and the goal.
An example of this came in the Argentina v Egypt game where Egypt No. 19 Marwan Attia clearly treads on the foot of Argentina No. 6 Lisandro Martínez.'

Which to my mind is crazy. It opens the doors for VAR to re-referee the game even more, going back as far as they want to find a foul.

What would you advocate?

It seems to me that an arbitrary length of time to go back - such as 10 seconds - would seem ridiculous if an offence took place a fraction of a second before. Surely it has to do with the passage of play that occurs in between the foul and the goal.  Had Argentina, for instance, after the foul on Martinez, regained control of the ball only for Egypt to win it back legitimately and then score, I don't think VAR would intervene. It was the fact Egypt turned defence into attack into a goal in succession that saw the involvement of VAR.

Yes, I think that's right.
It's to do with 'passage of play'. As I understand it, if the passage of play changes and a team loses possession, the contested foul is scrubbed from the record and doesn't weigh on the eventual goal.

[Jim©]

What would you advocate?

It seems to me that an arbitrary length of time to go back - such as 10 seconds - would seem ridiculous if an offence took place a fraction of a second before. Surely it has to do with the passage of play that occurs in between the foul and the goal.  Had Argentina, for instance, after the foul on Martinez, regained control of the ball only for Egypt to win it back legitimately and then score, I don't think VAR would intervene. It was the fact Egypt turned defence into attack into a goal in succession that saw the involvement of VAR.

Well by not stating a time or "same passage of play" it is immediately open to interpretation. That interpretation of the rules is what is dangerous as it won't always be fair.
If it was 10 seconds, then so be it, it is a rule and it is a fixed point where you at least know where the line is drawn.

My concern is that there has, in any game I've watched, never been a rewind so far from the goal being scored. Was it a clear and obvious error? Not really, it was a touch, so not clear and obvious.

Everyone around the world is feeling that Argentina have had fixed games, I hope tonight's match doesn't provide further evidence.

 

[LittleErn]

I have a theory that the above approach is designed to "sell" the game to Americans, who are unlikely to fall in love with the stop/start football that we often suffer in the UK.

Not sure I agree, Americans watch NFL which is possibly the most stop start game you'll ever see. Apart from baseball.

Fair point.

[v]

Hypothetical but serious question:

last night Spence was apparently caught by Messi's foot while attempting to clear his penalty area and stayed down, seeming to be injured. Play resumed, VAR didn't intervene and a goal resulted from the cross.

If the referee had blown for a foul which had Spence rolling around in agony and the ref booking Messi (or whomever) for dangerous foul play, and then VAR intervened to tell the ref to re-examine the incident because there was little or no contact and Spence had feigned injury to get a free kick...would the referee be forced to apply the mistaken ID rule, rescind Messi's yellow and book Spence instead?

And because this playacting offence took place in the penalty area, award a penalty to Argentina?

Interested to know what you all think but seems to me this is a possible future scenario in any match with VAR, and maybe a time-bomb in the waiting? 💣

[cookieg]

I thought Argentina were very lucky not to get several yellows. The ref seemed very lenient to some of the barging, Anderson getting g punched in the back of the head.

[john dempsey]

Argentina were just like a Don Revie leeds team,
used to see this type of game week in week out.
Some real hard players about in those days.

[Arthur]

What would you advocate?
It seems to me that an arbitrary length of time to go back - such as 10 seconds - would seem ridiculous if an offence took place a fraction of a second before. Surely it has to do with the passage of play that occurs in between the foul and the goal.  Had Argentina, for instance, after the foul on Martinez, regained control of the ball only for Egypt to win it back legitimately and then score, I don't think VAR would intervene. It was the fact Egypt turned defence into attack into a goal in succession that saw the involvement of VAR.

Well by not stating a time or "same passage of play" it is immediately open to interpretation. That interpretation of the rules is what is dangerous as it won't always be fair.
If it was 10 seconds, then so be it, it is a rule and it is a fixed point where you at least know where the line is drawn.
My concern is that there has, in any game I've watched, never been a rewind so far from the goal being scored. Was it a clear and obvious error? Not really, it was a touch, so not clear and obvious.

What matters is whether it is the same passage of play. In the case of Egypt's disallowed goal, this passage began when the Egyptian player trod on the Argentinian player's foot.

Returning to FIFA's Chief Refereeing Officer Collina: 'After every goal is scored, the VAR checks the attacking possession phase (APP). If a foul is identified in the build-up and is deemed to have had an impact on the goal, the VAR will recommend an on-field review. There is no defined limit regarding either the distance from goal or the amount of time between the incident and the goal.
'We believe that a foul is a foul. Regardless of whether the foul appears 'obvious', if the referee did not see it on the field of play, the VAR can intervene.'

[v]

Hypothetical but serious question:

last night Spence was apparently caught by Messi's foot while attempting to clear his penalty area and stayed down, seeming to be injured. Play resumed, VAR didn't intervene and a goal resulted from the cross.

If the referee had blown for a foul which had Spence rolling around in agony and the ref booking Messi (or whomever) for dangerous foul play, and then VAR intervened to tell the ref to re-examine the incident because there was little or no contact and Spence had feigned injury to get a free kick...would the referee be forced to apply the mistaken ID rule, rescind Messi's yellow and book Spence instead?

And because this playacting offence took place in the penalty area, award a penalty to Argentina?

Interested to know what you all think but seems to me this is a possible future scenario in any match with VAR, and maybe a time-bomb in the waiting? 💣

What I'm trying to say is: if the Almiron and Embolo incidents happened inside their own penalty area, would the result be a booking for them plus a penalty?

[Willham]

Hypothetical but serious question:

last night Spence was apparently caught by Messi's foot while attempting to clear his penalty area and stayed down, seeming to be injured. Play resumed, VAR didn't intervene and a goal resulted from the cross.

If the referee had blown for a foul which had Spence rolling around in agony and the ref booking Messi (or whomever) for dangerous foul play, and then VAR intervened to tell the ref to re-examine the incident because there was little or no contact and Spence had feigned injury to get a free kick...would the referee be forced to apply the mistaken ID rule, rescind Messi's yellow and book Spence instead?

And because this playacting offence took place in the penalty area, award a penalty to Argentina?

Interested to know what you all think but seems to me this is a possible future scenario in any match with VAR, and maybe a time-bomb in the waiting? 💣

What I'm trying to say is: if the Almiron and Embolo incidents happened inside their own penalty area, would the result be a booking for them plus a penalty?

I am also interested in the answer to this and am slightly sad that we haven't an answer 😂

My guess would be yes, but we have recently got rid of the red card and penalty if you are the last man (do away with the double punishment is the rhetoric) so in thatsense this would be a double punishment, maybe even threefold. You dont just lose the free kick, but you gaive away a penalty too, plus a yellow for the other team is now a yellow for yous.

If it would be a yellow and a pen then its a little bit hypocritical when taking other rules into account. If it's an indirect free kick inside the box and the yellow to the diving player, i think thats more fair.

Really hope someone knows the answer to this or is smart enough to explain the process for AI to answer (my AI was lost)

[Jim©]

What would you advocate?
It seems to me that an arbitrary length of time to go back - such as 10 seconds - would seem ridiculous if an offence took place a fraction of a second before. Surely it has to do with the passage of play that occurs in between the foul and the goal.  Had Argentina, for instance, after the foul on Martinez, regained control of the ball only for Egypt to win it back legitimately and then score, I don't think VAR would intervene. It was the fact Egypt turned defence into attack into a goal in succession that saw the involvement of VAR.

Well by not stating a time or "same passage of play" it is immediately open to interpretation. That interpretation of the rules is what is dangerous as it won't always be fair.
If it was 10 seconds, then so be it, it is a rule and it is a fixed point where you at least know where the line is drawn.
My concern is that there has, in any game I've watched, never been a rewind so far from the goal being scored. Was it a clear and obvious error? Not really, it was a touch, so not clear and obvious.

What matters is whether it is the same passage of play. In the case of Egypt's disallowed goal, this passage began when the Egyptian player trod on the Argentinian player's foot.

Returning to FIFA's Chief Refereeing Officer Collina: 'After every goal is scored, the VAR checks the attacking possession phase (APP). If a foul is identified in the build-up and is deemed to have had an impact on the goal, the VAR will recommend an on-field review. There is no defined limit regarding either the distance from goal or the amount of time between the incident and the goal.
'We believe that a foul is a foul. Regardless of whether the foul appears 'obvious', if the referee did not see it on the field of play, the VAR can intervene.'

Well as I say that's open to too much interpretation. Werent the Egyptians facing their own goal? Is that not a defensive phase of play?

[Willham]

What would you advocate?
It seems to me that an arbitrary length of time to go back - such as 10 seconds - would seem ridiculous if an offence took place a fraction of a second before. Surely it has to do with the passage of play that occurs in between the foul and the goal.  Had Argentina, for instance, after the foul on Martinez, regained control of the ball only for Egypt to win it back legitimately and then score, I don't think VAR would intervene. It was the fact Egypt turned defence into attack into a goal in succession that saw the involvement of VAR.

Well by not stating a time or "same passage of play" it is immediately open to interpretation. That interpretation of the rules is what is dangerous as it won't always be fair.
If it was 10 seconds, then so be it, it is a rule and it is a fixed point where you at least know where the line is drawn.
My concern is that there has, in any game I've watched, never been a rewind so far from the goal being scored. Was it a clear and obvious error? Not really, it was a touch, so not clear and obvious.

What matters is whether it is the same passage of play. In the case of Egypt's disallowed goal, this passage began when the Egyptian player trod on the Argentinian player's foot.

Returning to FIFA's Chief Refereeing Officer Collina: 'After every goal is scored, the VAR checks the attacking possession phase (APP). If a foul is identified in the build-up and is deemed to have had an impact on the goal, the VAR will recommend an on-field review. There is no defined limit regarding either the distance from goal or the amount of time between the incident and the goal.
'We believe that a foul is a foul. Regardless of whether the foul appears 'obvious', if the referee did not see it on the field of play, the VAR can intervene.'

Well as I say that's open to too much interpretation. Werent the Egyptians facing their own goal? Is that not a defensive phase of play?

To add in a little thing on both sides. I am, or at least thought I was, a fan of the phrase of play rule.

But I personally thought it wasnt the same phrase of play and the goal should of stood. Just too much happened in between and the argies had got themselves back into their defensive positioning a couple times before the goal.

And now by me thinking that but reading you twos comments, im now a little more on the fence because as Jim just said, that's too open to interpretations.... i.e. myself 🫣

[Arthur]

What matters is whether it is the same passage of play. In the case of Egypt's disallowed goal, this passage began when the Egyptian player trod on the Argentinian player's foot.
Returning to FIFA's Chief Refereeing Officer Collina: 'After every goal is scored, the VAR checks the attacking possession phase (APP). If a foul is identified in the build-up and is deemed to have had an impact on the goal, the VAR will recommend an on-field review. There is no defined limit regarding either the distance from goal or the amount of time between the incident and the goal.
'We believe that a foul is a foul. Regardless of whether the foul appears 'obvious', if the referee did not see it on the field of play, the VAR can intervene.'

Well as I say that's open to too much interpretation. Werent the Egyptians facing their own goal? Is that not a defensive phase of play?

It was an attacking posssession phase for Argentina. For the purposes of this law, there are no 'defensive phases of play', only attacking possession phases for whichever team has the ball.

That you would prefer, however, for VAR to be restricted to looking back over an arbitrary yet clear-cut period of time is fair enough. It's just not how the law is applied.