Video Assistant Referee

[SoupInNYC]

A player being held that happens to hit the face while swinging his arms is definitely a card. The hold is a foul if noticed, but any hands to the face is a red card.

I think Gotham Gator point is that some of that contact may not be meant for the face. For example, Alex Ring holds up an opponent from behind and the opponent swings his arm back to grab Ring's shoulder (who he doesn't know its Ring) and push off of him to create space, seems fine.

Maxi Moralez holds an opponent from behind and the opponent swings his arm back to grab Maxi's shoulder (who he doesn't know its Maxi) and push off of him, but because Maxi is 5'2" he catches him in the chin. Now all of a sudden that's a red card.

Or the above contact with Ring, and Ring happens to lower his head for one reason or the other and gets caught in the face, now its a red.

 

[Gotham Gator]

I think Gotham Gator point is that some of that contact may not be meant for the face. For example, Alex Ring holds up an opponent from behind and the opponent swings his arm back to grab Ring's shoulder (who he doesn't know its Ring) and push off of him to create space, seems fine.

Maxi Moralez holds an opponent from behind and the opponent swings his arm back to grab Maxi's shoulder (who he doesn't know its Maxi) and push off of him, but because Maxi is 5'2" he catches him in the chin. Now all of a sudden that's a red card.

Or the above contact with Ring, and Ring happens to lower his head for one reason or the other and gets caught in the face, now its a red.

Exactly.

And I think it is correct that in the Maxi case, it is a red card by the letter of the rule, which I don't think takes into account intent. I think it is also the case that it is a red card that would rarely be awarded because the referee would either have missed all the details or have convinced himself that he can't be sure what happened. Now, with video review, he will award the red card.

To put it another way, the rule is absolute because it anticipates there will be gaps in enforcement and a certain amount of off the books judgment by the referee. Now, VAR will remove the gaps and the judgment. The result will be a lot more red cards, including cards that nobody really thinks are necessary.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

To put it another way, the rule is absolute because it anticipates there will be gaps in enforcement and a certain amount of off the books judgment by the referee.

You're possibly, maybe even probably, right. But if the intention is that some contact to the face go overlooked while other contact is punished with a red, then I don't know how you call that anything other than exceptionally poor legislative drafting.

Practically the whole of the "laws of the game" and promulgations thereunder are blighted by this shit. Someone at FIFA should have used some of their buckets of cash to bring in a consultant.

 

[Ulrich]

I think Gotham Gator point is that some of that contact may not be meant for the face. For example, Alex Ring holds up an opponent from behind and the opponent swings his arm back to grab Ring's shoulder (who he doesn't know its Ring) and push off of him to create space, seems fine.

Maxi Moralez holds an opponent from behind and the opponent swings his arm back to grab Maxi's shoulder (who he doesn't know its Maxi) and push off of him, but because Maxi is 5'2" he catches him in the chin. Now all of a sudden that's a red card.

Or the above contact with Ring, and Ring happens to lower his head for one reason or the other and gets caught in the face, now its a red.

Exactly.

And I think it is correct that in the Maxi case, it is a red card by the letter of the rule, which I don't think takes into account intent. I think it is also the case that it is a red card that would rarely be awarded because the referee would either have missed all the details or have convinced himself that he can't be sure what happened. Now, with video review, he will award the red card.

To put it another way, the rule is absolute because it anticipates there will be gaps in enforcement and a certain amount of off the books judgment by the referee. Now, VAR will remove the gaps and the judgment. The result will be a lot more red cards, including cards that nobody really thinks are necessary.

The rules are the rules - one is supposed to be in control of their body/actions on the field. Swinging arms around without knowing your surroundings is at best careless and at worst intentional. Maxi shouldn't have to be concerned about a hand to his face because he's short. And the ref is not there to be making opinions on what is intentional - he should enforce the rule as written.

 

[ktdNYCFC]

There have been so many big game bad calls lately that VAR is getting a lot of attention now. If you watch the EPL/CL post game shows, someone is begging for it almost every time. Example: Aguero's goal the other day that was ruled out of bounds on the cross, but everyone watching at home seeing it clearly not cross the line over and over on replay.

Then they have Webb on to get his take, and he's obviously selling the shit out of it. I think while we experimented in preseason and will pick it up again in the back half of this season (which I think is great), the big game bad calls are going to expedite this on a much higher level. It's almost got a "Wenger out" type momentum now. I don't think it's going away.

 

[Tom in Fairfield CT]

This will kill soccer like it killed football. Every big play in football, you cant even get excited because you have to wait to see ten replays. This will cause the same thing. Soccer is great because you know at most within seconds the result of a play. Who wants to debate if someone's hands brushed someone's face, or if the ball was 1 mm over the line.

 

[LionNYC]

There have been so many big game bad calls lately that VAR is getting a lot of attention now. If you watch the EPL/CL post game shows, someone is begging for it almost every time. Example: Aguero's goal the other day that was ruled out of bounds on the cross, but everyone watching at home seeing it clearly not cross the line over and over on replay.

Then they have Webb on to get his take, and he's obviously selling the shit out of it. I think while we experimented in preseason and will pick it up again in the back half of this season (which I think is great), the big game bad calls are going to expedite this on a much higher level. It's almost got a "Wenger out" type momentum now. I don't think it's going away.

But would Aguero's goal even be able to reviewed. There was no foul on the play, just that the linesman viewed that the ball went out of bounds. They would have to use goal line technology for that. Webb even talked about that companies are able to use the same technology for offside.

 

[Gotham Gator]

But would Aguero's goal even be able to reviewed. There was no foul on the play, just that the linesman viewed that the ball went out of bounds. They would have to use goal line technology for that. Webb even talked about that companies are able to use the same technology for offside.

I think the litany of which plays can/cannot be reviewed is less clear than IFAB would like to think, and this is one example. They say they will review "goals" - does that mean all goals, whether counted or waived off? not clear. If they can reverse an erroneous flag for offsides, can they reverse this? not clear.

This will kill soccer like it killed football. Every big play in football, you cant even get excited because you have to wait to see ten replays. This will cause the same thing. Soccer is great because you know at most within seconds the result of a play. Who wants to debate if someone's hands brushed someone's face, or if the ball was 1 mm over the line.

I actually like it and think it will work well in the long run, but I do see a lot of issues as it is implemented and fine tuned. If it turns into something that is used every third match to fix an obvious and important error, then great. But I think it runs the risk of - at first - being used to hand out a lot of red cards and slow the game down with 1-2 stoppages a game, and that is not good.

 

[Tom in Fairfield CT]

I think the litany of which plays can/cannot be reviewed is less clear than IFAB would like to think, and this is one example. They say they will review "goals" - does that mean all goals, whether counted or waived off? not clear. If they can reverse an erroneous flag for offsides, can they reverse this? not clear.



I actually like it and think it will work well in the long run, but I do see a lot of issues as it is implemented and fine tuned. If it turns into something that is used every third match to fix an obvious and important error, then great. But I think it runs the risk of - at first - being used to hand out a lot of red cards and slow the game down with 1-2 stoppages a game, and that is not good.

What if it leads to commercial breaks every game?

 

[SoupInNYC]

What if it leads to commercial breaks every game?

I highly doubt it will.

But to answer your question, if it were to, then HELL NO

 

[Tom in Fairfield CT]

I highly doubt it will.

But to answer your question, if it were to, then HELL NO

If Garber and the MLS owners want it, I can guarantee you, GUARANTEE you it is to get commercial breaks.

 

[Keith Putnam]

What if it leads to commercial breaks every game?

In *theory* there shouldn't be any VAR break long enough to allow one. But yes, that is the big Slippery Slope fear, that VAR is the thin end of the wedge for commercial breaks.

I think what we have on our side is that soccer fandom, worldwide, is more than happy to get very loud about what they will and will not tolerate in a game experience, unlike, say, NFL fans who have basically rolled over for every game-destroying augmentation introduced to make football more profitably televisable.

I dunno... I am in favor of some amount of VAR because despite my romanticism about the human sloppiness of soccer it's undeniable that there are way too many blown calls with major impact on the matches, and with available technology it's inexcusable.

I know that David Goldblatt's opinion is that "you just have to suck up the injustice of the world", but I can't be that much of a purist.

 

[SoupInNYC]

If Garber and the MLS owners want it, I can guarantee you, GUARANTEE you it is to get commercial breaks.

I seriously doubt that. It may provide a quick opportunity to throw a decal for some sponsor on the corner of the screen, but I highly doubt there would be a commercial break.

 

[LionNYC]

This will kill soccer like it killed football. Every big play in football, you cant even get excited because you have to wait to see ten replays. This will cause the same thing. Soccer is great because you know at most within seconds the result of a play. Who wants to debate if someone's hands brushed someone's face, or if the ball was 1 mm over the line.

The most efficient way to use VAR is to have a central review location in New York, like MLB does it, and have that decision radioed to the main official. This ensures the official always stays on the field. That group can see all the angles at the same time and make a decision quickly.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

If Garber and the MLS owners want it, I can guarantee you, GUARANTEE you it is to get commercial breaks.

Are we sure? Linear television is going to be mostly dead or extremely changed within 15 years anyway. As a matter of fact, the head of revenue for a prominent family of cable networks told me face to face that he expected his linear business to be dead in 5 years. I think that's too soon, but point stands.

The interesting thing to consider is whether or not live sports will turn out to be the only way left to advertise via linear. That's a possibility. But it's not one I accept.

The issue is that advertisers don't want linear. They want "audience" buys. It's really fucking dumb, frankly. Not the idea of it, but the ad industry interpretation of what buying an audience mean.

 

[mgarbowski]

The interesting thing to consider is whether or not live sports will turn out to be the only way left to advertise via linear. That's a possibility. But it's not one I accept.

In which direction? You don't think linear sports advertising will survive either, or it won't be the only one?

 

[Midas Mulligan]

In which direction? You don't think linear sports advertising will survive either, or it won't be the only one?

I think someone interrupted me by engaging in interpersonal communication at the dog park while I was trying to talk to people online and enjoy my beer I brown bagged. And now I'm not sure exactly. My mind is no longer in the same space.

Ahhhh - back now. Okay - so I don't think it will survive in anything close to the same form. To paraphrase a recent deadspin article that was actually thoughtful - ESPN looks like newspapers did 15 years ago. Amazon already took rights to a weekly NFL game, following twitters move last year. Amazon will own the world, frankly. That's the company to buy. Fuck google. Double Fuck apple. Triple Fuck Facebook. Amazon is the real deal. They don't build products. They build systems that house products that create never ending cashflow with decreasing prices and unimpaired margins as they scale.

Anyway, long term (20 years?), I think networks will be disintermediated, along with agencies. The thing is, advertisers pay to be part of content. Content takes advertising $ because it $ money to produce art/news/opinion/whatever. What value does a network or agency really provide?

I actually look at the podcast world and see a model that in many ways reflects how all distribution and consumption will probably occur in the future.

 

[Gotham Gator]

All good stuff.

Advertisers love sports because it is the last captive audience left. Most shows are consumed via DVR, with people fast forwarding through commercials, or in clips posted on line. But, viewers strongly prefer to watch sporting events live, which means they will sit through commercials. There will continue to be major changes in the production and distribution of programming, but I don't see that dynamic around sports changing, which means it will still be great for advertisers. In fact, when you see what's been going on with ESPN, you can make the argument that sports is the one place that will go back to the old model - free distribution supported by a lot of ads.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Tonight's Colorado - Vancouver game will be an "offline" test of the VAR system. They will have a full VAR crew and an extra "referee" who can review calls. None of them will be in communication with the actual officials on the field. This is to test the system and provide training.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/04/rapids-mls-var-video-assistant-referee/

 

[Midas Mulligan]

All good stuff.

Advertisers love sports because it is the last captive audience left. Most shows are consumed via DVR, with people fast forwarding through commercials, or in clips posted on line. But, viewers strongly prefer to watch sporting events live, which means they will sit through commercials. There will continue to be major changes in the production and distribution of programming, but I don't see that dynamic around sports changing, which means it will still be great for advertisers. In fact, when you see what's been going on with ESPN, you can make the argument that sports is the one place that will go back to the old model - free distribution supported by a lot of ads.

The first part is an accepted truth in advertising. It's why ESPN has traditionally had the some of, if not the, highest CPMs in cable. But what they've paid for content has killed their profit margin.

So back to my point, given how easy distribution has become (and will become easier), why would a sports league sell rights to a network if they could avoid the haircut by self-distributing and charging advertisers directly? The current model only makes sense if networks take a loss, which is only feasible for a short while if it's your loss leader or something (E.G., NBC / EPL ).