[BostonCard]

There are three separate issues here.

1) Was there a “clear and obvious error” (ie, was it clearly a foul by the Egyptian player) [probably, IMHO, but debatable]
2) Is it within the remit of VAR to review a potential foul on the other side of the field. [Yes, under current guidelines]

For decisions/incidents relating to goals, penalty/no penalty and red cards for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO), it may be necessary to review the attacking phase of play which led directly to the decision/incident; this may include how the attacking team gained possession of the ball in open play

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/vide...procedures

It is clear that reviewing whether Egypt gained possession of the ball that led to a goal through a foul is clearly within the guidelines for use of VAR.

3) Should that be the case?  That is something that is fair to discuss.  Here’s an article in the WSJ (gifted) that use of VAR should be reigned in: https://www.wsj.com/sports/soccer/var-re..._permalink


He also alludes to the earlier disallowed goal in the Croatia match.  I am sympathetic to that argument.  It does disrupt the flow.  It can give the illusion of false precision (ie the rendered visualizations of a player crossing the offsides “plane”, and the technology has gotten so good that it’s now more focused on enforcing the letter of the rule rather than its spirit.  However, I would say that in the case of a goal they are rare and high stakes enough that it may be appropriate to see whether the possession was gained legally (and, in any case, the goal, ensuing celebration, and restart from the centerline stop the flow of the game anyways, so a VAR review in those cases doesn’t actually bite into the flow).  So, the best argument winds up being that an otherwise beautiful goal (Egypt, Croatia) sometimes winds up being called back after the fact.  I kind of agree, but not that strongly, since I think once you give the refs discretion on whether, say, a deflection was “significant”, there’s going to be all sorts of accusations that “significant” is not being applied evenly across teams.

Almost no matter what, there’s is not going to be a way to satisfy everyone.

BC

[BostonCard]

There are three separate issues here.

1) Was there a “clear and obvious error” (ie, was it clearly a foul by the Egyptian player) [probably, IMHO, but debatable]
2) Is it within the remit of VAR to review a potential foul on the other side of the field. [Yes, under current guidelines]

For decisions/incidents relating to goals, penalty/no penalty and red cards for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO), it may be necessary to review the attacking phase of play which led directly to the decision/incident; this may include how the attacking team gained possession of the ball in open play

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/vide...procedures

It is clear that reviewing whether Egypt gained possession of the ball that led to a goal through a foul is clearly within the guidelines for use of VAR.

3) Should that be the case?  That is something that is fair to discuss.  Here’s an article in the WSJ (gifted) that use of VAR should be reigned in: https://www.wsj.com/sports/soccer/var-re..._permalink


He also alludes to the earlier disallowed goal in the Croatia match.  I am sympathetic to that argument.  It does disrupt the flow.  It can give the illusion of false precision (ie the rendered visualizations of a player crossing the offsides “plane”, and the technology has gotten so good that it’s now more focused on enforcing the letter of the rule rather than its spirit.  However, I would say that in the case of a goal they are rare and high stakes enough that it may be appropriate to see whether the possession was gained legally (and, in any case, the goal, ensuing celebration, and restart from the centerline stop the flow of the game anyways, so a VAR review in those cases doesn’t actually bite into the flow).  So, the best argument winds up being that an otherwise beautiful goal (Egypt, Croatia) sometimes winds up being called back after the fact.  I kind of agree, but not that strongly, since I think once you give the refs discretion on whether, say, a deflection was “significant”, there’s going to be all sorts of accusations that “significant” is not being applied evenly across teams.

Almost no matter what, there’s is not going to be a way to satisfy everyone.

BC