MLS - September 22 - Red Bulls (Away) [Rescheduled]
- Thread starter LionNYC
- Start date
Saw this mentioned elsewhere but I agree.
There should be a timer for VAR review. As soon as the ref gets to the monitor, there should be a timer. Let's say, 30 seconds. If they can't make a decision in 30 seconds then it's not clear and obvious and the call on the field must stand.
VAR is a useful tool, but these refs who want to spend 5 minutes picking apart frames of a slow motion replay is just insane.
There should be a timer for VAR review. As soon as the ref gets to the monitor, there should be a timer. Let's say, 30 seconds. If they can't make a decision in 30 seconds then it's not clear and obvious and the call on the field must stand.
VAR is a useful tool, but these refs who want to spend 5 minutes picking apart frames of a slow motion replay is just insane.
they should also record the VAR conversation and make it available to the media. I think there was one tournament where they played the audio on the VAR conversations and it was amazing.
I think the podcast guys were wrong. After the red, Parks spent 90 seconds on the field drinking water and talking to Sibiga, the 4th official. Nobody was pushing or urging him to leave. Then Sibiga pauses, and says something to Parks that causes him to react with disbelief. Also, the RB announcer said "The red is confirmed" at pretty much the same time Parks reacted, so they probably were given the same info when Sibiga got it.
I'm reasonably certain that the play was being reviewed and Sibiga told him to stand next to him to await the results. But at 90 seconds, it wasn't enough time for booth review followed by Elfath review. If the booth review took 20 seconds, Sibiga would have told Park to get off the field much earlier. If Elfath reviewed it, Parks would not have been talking to Sibiga to learn the decision - he would have been watching Elfath. I think the booth review took a while but it was only booth review.
While I follow your logic, I think both can be true. When they first announced VAR I remember reading that the VAR ref can recommend a review and the Ref in the middle can just decide not to review it and allow the call to stand. I think that’s dumb because obviously there’s something worth looking at if the other official says so. But I digress. My point is I think the Var may have recommended a review like
canchon said and still not have Elffaf review it, leading to his first decision being the only decision as
mgarbowski said. So when Elffaf decided to make the call stand, the fourth official told Parks “check complete”
That is true. The video review only makes a recommendation for the main referee to go to the monitor. The referee can reject that recommendation. That policy is terrible, because a smug referee can just stand with their original, wrong call.While I follow your logic, I think both can be true. When they first announced VAR I remember reading that the VAR ref can recommend a review and the Ref in the middle can just decide not to review it and allow the call to stand. I think that’s dumb because obviously there’s something worth looking at if the other official says so. But I digress. My point is I think the Var may have recommended a review like
A lot's already been said in the thread, but what I cannot comprehend for the life of me is how there's a clear and obvious error if it takes 3 refs (VAR, AVAR, and center ref) 4 minutes to make a decision. How many times did they look at it on loop? If you can't tell on the 1st or 2nd look, it's by definition not a clear and obvious error and the call on the field should stand.
If Elfath woulda blown for a PK, I'd be pissed but I'd understand if VAR didn't overturn it. The real salt in the wound is that Elfath waved it off on the field, then they took 4 minutes to reverse it. That's what puts that decision into anti-NYCFC conspiracy territory for me.
This was also my main concern with implementing VAR; that it would turn from something only meant to correct obvious errors into nitpicking every little thing.
If Elfath woulda blown for a PK, I'd be pissed but I'd understand if VAR didn't overturn it. The real salt in the wound is that Elfath waved it off on the field, then they took 4 minutes to reverse it. That's what puts that decision into anti-NYCFC conspiracy territory for me.
This was also my main concern with implementing VAR; that it would turn from something only meant to correct obvious errors into nitpicking every little thing.
Every red card is checked, but a VAR check doesn't necessarily mean the ref will go to the monitor.
Yes -- at the very least, that play was not clear and obvious. No way that call should have been overturned at the end like that. Especially after a soft red card earlier in the game.
The history of NY-RB calls is bad enough that even I'm willing to complain, but the discussion has reached embarrassing levels.
Wrong, but had to be outdone.
Smug? So we're mind readers now. And apparently believe that officials revel in the possibility they can be wrong and not reversed. They actually enjoy it. They're not just, regretfully, occasionally in error. They're not even incompetently, often in error. They get calls wrong on purpose and enjoy it.
Wrong, but had to be outdone.
The review took 1 minute. One. Not four. Not even three. One. It's not hard to measure. He reaches the review monitor at 98:43 and walks away at 99:46. Plus, he waited about 10 seconds at the monitor before they started running video for him so his review time was maybe 53 seconds. And those weren't the first complaints on the board about how long it took. They're just the ones on this page. And it led to a bit of a discussion about review lengths overall. We're pretty damn close to it being the collective opinion on the board that the review took some extraordinary multiple of minutes, when it took one. All based on facts that are completely wrong and easily checked.
Wrong.
The incident happened at 96:53 and Elfath, standing less than 10 yards away and looking straight at Chanot, waved it off. By 96:58 the ball is out of bounds. At 97:07, Elfath points to his year and up, indicating that the call is under review, which I'm assuming was decided a few seconds before, so 97:03 is the start of the video review process.
97:46, 40 seconds later, Elfath is seen telling Sean Davis "they're checking, they're checking", tells them again at 97:58. By now, it's already been almost a minute, which should be more than enough time for the VAR to determine if the call on the field was a clear and obvious error. 98:11, now clearly over a minute, Steve Cangelosi and Shep Messing, the RB commentators, say "looked worse the first time", meaning that when they kept looking at the replay, it seemed like less of a handball than their initial look. AT 98:26, a minute and a half of the 2 VARs looking upstairs, Elfath says he's going to the monitor. Elfath makes the PK call at 99:47, 2 minutes and 44 seconds after the VAR check was initiated.
Fine, I was off by 1 minute. That's still an absurd length of time for a video review. Clear and obvious errors mean it should take less than 30 seconds to tell that the call was wrong.
A few things.
The process starts with the VAR checking a call - and telling the referee, so that the referee does not restart play. Then, the VAR can recommend to the referee that he thinks there has been a clear and obvious error. As mentioned above, the referee can then decide to look at the monitor, not look at the monitor and accept the VAR's change or not look at the monitor and stick with the original call.
When IFAB introduced VAR, it felt it was very important to keep control of everything in the hands of the match official. He has the final decision and can elect to wave off the recommendation to look at the monitor if he wants. That might have been what they were referring to on the podcast.
Also, the conversations between the VAR and the referee ARE recorded, and PRO Referees release a weekly video of calls that include some or all of these conversations. This video series is titled "Inside Video Review", and you can find it on the PRO Website and on YouTube. It doesn't cover all the incidents - and it is less likely to cover the situation where the referee does not go to the monitor - but it is interesting and educational. I highly recommend.
The process starts with the VAR checking a call - and telling the referee, so that the referee does not restart play. Then, the VAR can recommend to the referee that he thinks there has been a clear and obvious error. As mentioned above, the referee can then decide to look at the monitor, not look at the monitor and accept the VAR's change or not look at the monitor and stick with the original call.
When IFAB introduced VAR, it felt it was very important to keep control of everything in the hands of the match official. He has the final decision and can elect to wave off the recommendation to look at the monitor if he wants. That might have been what they were referring to on the podcast.
Also, the conversations between the VAR and the referee ARE recorded, and PRO Referees release a weekly video of calls that include some or all of these conversations. This video series is titled "Inside Video Review", and you can find it on the PRO Website and on YouTube. It doesn't cover all the incidents - and it is less likely to cover the situation where the referee does not go to the monitor - but it is interesting and educational. I highly recommend.
I think I saw Tutul mention this on Twitter. 45 seconds tops for the initial check whether or not to recommend the ref to go to the monitor and then an additional 45 seconds at the monitor. Anything more is likely not clear and obvious.
It does get a bit trickier enforcing something like that when something happens that doesn't result in a stoppage of play (corner, throw, etc.) as live action continues, who knows when the VAR official is beginning their review.
Damn you Malte, you could have saved us pages of conversation about VAR by taking the damn ball to the corner.
The more I think about this the more it irks me. I remember a game a couple of years ago where Man City was winning by a goal and literally spent the entire five or so minutes of stoppage time winning throw ins and keeping the ball in the corner. Professional game management.
Especially when you are deep deep into stoppage time, if the ball is deep in their half they can’t score. Just kill time. Especially if you have a card happy ref who wants to put his stamp on the game. Ugh.
The more I think about this the more it irks me. I remember a game a couple of years ago where Man City was winning by a goal and literally spent the entire five or so minutes of stoppage time winning throw ins and keeping the ball in the corner. Professional game management.
Especially when you are deep deep into stoppage time, if the ball is deep in their half they can’t score. Just kill time. Especially if you have a card happy ref who wants to put his stamp on the game. Ugh.
Couldn't agree more. If Ronny is a good coach he will hammer this point home for future games.
I'm from Australia, and haven't been there in a while so I'm not 100% sure, but I think that all the 4th official/sky judge conversations in rugby are broadcast live for audiences. Incredible insight into the thinking and leaves little doubt for interpretation. You hear them say exactly what they're looking at, why, and how.
[this also could have been a one off......but I don't think it is....]
I believe this transparency would be SO welcome in this sport across the board.
