Question Number: 32051

League Specific 11/25/2017

RE: REC Adult

russell of Sydney, Australia asks...

VAR " examples of it in use.

Here are two example of where VAR was used in an Australia A-League match today.
(the A-League is one of a few national competitions that is currently trialling the technology,

THE FIRST VAR INCIDENT
http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2017/11/25/leagues-var-problems-plain-see-joyce-says?cx_navSource=related-side-cx#cxrecs_s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4NANoY3UEM
Watching the telecast live, I thought to myself of the incident " was there something there. it looked kind of bad, but not convincingly, certainly a solid 'coming together', but nothing that stood out as an obvious penalty foul - at least not from the angle shown live in the telecast, it did make me wonder, but I was certainly unsure.

However, as the angle from behind the goal line indicates, there was 'something' there.

Importantly, it took a different view then that of the CR who looked to be obscured by the bodies to see the contact.

As it was a potential Penalty incident, it attracted the VAR review, with the result a Penalty (and straight Red).

While the man purpose of this post is to simply show a VAR incident " and when it can be used, as an aside, I would like some clarity around the straight red.

Presumably it is for Serious Foul Play, as it would seem not right to say it was DOGSO as the contact came AFTER the play at the ball by the attacker and it would be fair to say there was genuine attempt to play the ball (just very poorly executed !! ).

THE SECOND VAR INCIDENT
In this incident, an AR looked to have been the one to have suggested to the CR to go to the VAR. The incident was an off the ball spit by a defender towards an opponent, who retaliated.

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/video/1103301699538/Sydney-FC-v-Brisbane-Roar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gYXuBcTCQ8
Both defender and opponent receive straight reds.


So with a lot f debate around the pro's & con's of the VAR " I thought you (and the site visitors) might like to see two incident of it in actual use.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
The content of the videos are not viewable outside Australia. We have added in a YouTube version.
On the first one it is certainly a penalty and one that could be missed without VAR (which it was).
I also believe that it is technically a red card as the player has his studs high / showing making contact with the opponents thigh. There was no malice in the challenge and it is hard to judge excessive force from the video. The fact that the player falls towards the raised boot does not help either. I can see why a red card was given yet to go from a goal kick to a red card is somewhat difficult for the game as it basically says the referee could not see a SFP challenge in real time quite close to it? The fact that the ball went out of play made it somewhat easier as had it been saved and played upfield what would happen. The VAR protocol tells us that if the referee wants a review when play has not stopped, the referee will stop play as soon as it is in a ‘neutral zone/situation’ (area/situation) i.e. when neither team has a good attacking possibility. A punt / throw on to a one on one into the other half is a good attacking possibility? I think I recall such a scenario in another VAR scenario where play had to be brought all the way back to the first offence from the other penalty area. This could have happened here quite easily with the right circumstances as no foul was first seen by the referee.
On the second one there is no question that it is two red cards one for spitting and the other for violent conduct. It shows though that players have not yet grasped the VAR concept. The White player instead of retaliating could have asked the referee under VAR to deal with this. Instead he does the stupid thing of taking VC action himself and getting sent off along with the initiator.
So I think there is a good ways to go on the VAR system with many changes and iterations to be made in the months ahead. It is a new concept and it will take a good deal of use to get it into a fully workable robust system. I am certain there are plenty of issues being identified including the time taken in using it when can be up to two minutes and other unusual situations. Two minutes plainly is too long and it will throw up all sorts of unusual situations that were never envisaged. On balance having the ability to review the four areas as set out in the protocols is beneficial. We just have to be careful though that it does not become refereeing by video with every big decision getting reviewed.