Talk:Video assistant referee

2018 FIFA World Cup
I know a similar edit by an IP got reverted but the Ronaldo elbow in the Portugal vs Morocco match is the biggest VAR controversy in this years World Cup so far. If a bigger VAR controversy occurs later in the tournament then that could replace the Ronaldo elbow controversy. Mobile mundo (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is not meant to list every grievance or questionable decision using VAR. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I think the whole controversies section should be removed. This is about the technology and major details, not listing every supposed controversy. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, remove the whole of the list. It is non-encyclopedic and a POV/OR nightmare (was it "controversial" or not?). WP:RECENTISM is also a matter to keep in mind... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If we want to include a "controversy" section, it would be much better to include more general information than just a list of every controversial call. A quick google search reveals a substantial amount of interesting material, for example, this AP piece which gives what appears to be the FIFA opinion on the matter (from head of refereeing Massimo Busacca) along with some statistics on the number of reviewed calls; point no. 8 in this piece from the Telegraph; this long opinion piece from the Independent, a verdict on the matter from The Guardian, and this piece which says that VAR has failed in its goals by actually creating more controversies. These are all from reputed news sources, not from some tabloid, and all make valid points without simply listing examples where VAR was "wrong" - blaming the refs can be left to the sport fans, of course. We could maybe even just let the matter cool down for a while - after all, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and we don't need to report on everything the instant it happens... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The only criticisms that should be listed are those that have a lasting effect, for instance if it causes the VAR system to be slightly modified (a few instances so far, even at the World Cup) or results in delayed adoption for a certain league/federation.  Sounder Bruce  01:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Which instances at the World Cup? The only things about the World Cup in that section right now are completely unneeded and POV. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with, the World Cup "controversies" are unnecessary and break WP:NPOV. And we should definitely avoid a "list of controversies" (VAR is now part of the Laws of the Game, and will be used for the foreseeable future), should we be listing every controversial refereeing decision in football history at Referee (association football)? This same behaviour is seen on referee articles, Wikipedia is not the place for fans to vent after feeling hard done by. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have started work on a "Controversy" (or "Criticism") section which isn't just a listing of every grievance, over here. I'll keep working on it throughout the day (though not right now cause there's a live WC match). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * FWC 2018 - Group F - KOR v SWE - VAR Display.jpg

Claims of "ref not knowing"
Those seem both: 1. ridiculous (why wouldn't a ref know why?) 2. based on bad, biased sources (it's the Nigerian player Mikel who claims that the ref didn't know...) - and the only other sources which I can find to "confirm" this are the usual tabloids: of which I'll list only one, and those again make clear the claim is from Mikel... As such, the whole text should be removed, since of course there are plenty of other penalt incidents in the WC so far, and listing reactions to every single one of them would be unencyclopedic (in addition to being a potential POV nightmare). No sources are provided which say this one was particularly relevant (I can find some that claim that the "ref not awarding the penalty cost Nigeria the game", but that is just the usual knee-jerk reaction).

Thus, summary: remove "At a 2018 FIFA World Cup match between Nigeria and Argentina, the VAR controversially denied the Nigerian team's appeals for a penalty. Referee Cuneyt Cakir acknowledged that the ball hit the Argentinian player's hand in the penalty area, but did not know why it did not count as a penalty kick.[44]"

And while we're at it, correct the picture caption from "Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal national team was shown a yellow card after challenge [...]" to (changes in bold) "Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal) being shown a yellow card after a challenge [...]" 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. Also discussion above as you’ve saw. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The sentence is still there, and the caption is still erroneous (you can't say "of Portugal national football team" - "of the Portuguese national football team" would be correct, and then, since it is obvious that this article is about football, and since captions should be concise, simply putting Portugal between parenthesis (as shown above) while using a piped link to direct the reader towards the correct page is plenty enough (in fact, we could avoid all of this and simply not mention that Ronaldo is playing for Portugal. To most, that is an obvious fact, and those who don't know can get that info from the article about the player - and in this case, the nationality of the player is largely irrelevant so it doesn't even need to be pointed out. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ Removed both of the World Cup ones. A player not agreeing with a VAR result is not a "controversy". Fish +Karate  09:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that's been reverted. I'll leave it for someone else to sort out. Expect that subjective and unencylopedic list to grow and grow as every time someone disagrees with a VAR call it gets added as a 'controversy'.  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  09:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

dear <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>, here are my proposed changes to this section's wordings as you suggested, I will try my best make it as objective as possible:

At a 2018 FIFA World Cup match between Nigeria and Argentina, the VAR denied the Nigerian team a penalty when the ball hit the Argentinian player's hand in his team's penalty area. Referee Cuneyt Cakir acknowledged that the ball hit the Argentinian player's hand in the penalty area, but said that he did not know why it did not count as a penalty shot.

is this good enough? thanks again Grandia01 (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is the source. A player complaining about a referee decision isn't reliable nor encyclopedic. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * the source is reliable and it is not about merely a "player complaining" about a referee decision, but rather about the referee himself not agreeing with the decision. many other articles said the same thing as you have probably seen. it is just that we do our best to only cite the most reliable sources on here. Grandia01 (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what that last part means? How can the referee not know? VAR doesn't deny or give penalties. It's there to do what it says, assist referees. It does not make the final decision, the referee does. Also, I can't see that source, it doesn't let me view it for whatever reason. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 14:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * we can keep on arguing about what the referee tried to imply all day long, but that would not help. objectivity is about recording something relevant and factual as it is, without conjecturally having everyone interpreting what the facts are supposed to mean in his/her understanding. and the source is at http://www.goal.com/en/news/mikel-claims-nigeria-denied-clear-penalty-after-rojo-handled/nvxlqtpylwde1j1kgxc2sfv36

hope that helps Grandia01 (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

the point is, the referee and VAR disagreed about the legality of the penalty shot when the player's hand touched the ball (or the ball touched his hand - we are not going to argue about that now too) in the penalty area. Grandia01 (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * By the rules for the use of the system, it is the on-field referee who has final say for penalty calls. Therefore, the VAR and the on-field ref disagreeing is irrelevant (and that particular detail seems to be your own conclusion). The link still doesn't work, and the only other available sources are tabloids, i.e. see the one I linked in my original comment. That source directly quotes Mikel: "The 31-year-old said: 'The referee looked at the VAR. He said it hit the hand. I asked why he didn't give the penalty, but he said he didn't know.'". Obviously, it's hearsay and the source is a tabloid. WP:RS suggests that source fall on a spectrum. The Sun, being a tabloid, is on the low end of the spectrum. However, whatever your personal opinion on the reliability of tabloids, WP:NOTNEWS also applies and I fail to see how listing every complaint about VAR is encyclopedic. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b> that the wordings need to be improved to be clearer Grandia01 (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this instance may warrant inclusion if a better source can be found and its significance shown. I can't view goal.com sources for whatever reason, maybe it's my location, but it means others may not be able to see it either, so please see if a better source can be found. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 15:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>, I will do my best. Grandia01 (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that I can't view the source from the link either. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

ok, the closest/best reference I found is from a Canadian sports website

http://www.sportingnews.com/ca/soccer/news/mikel-claims-nigeria-denied-clear-penalty-after-rojo-handled-before-netting-argentinas-late-winner/2yqyqhnhrqoo14vrukrrnjycc

and it is affiliated with goal.com

I hope that this one is viewable by you Grandia01 (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC) 16:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I can view this. But the issue with including this is that there's so much speculation. We are hearing these things from a Nigeria player who is biased. We don't actually hear the referee say these things. For all we know he can be exaggerating or misinterpreted what he thought the ref said in that moment. It looked like he acknowledged it hit his hand, but maybe he thought it was unintentional so he didn't give it. I'm not saying it's right, we just don't know for sure. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 16:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * as I said, tons of other newspapers and websites shared this news (google "VAR", "Argentina", and "Nigeria" if you want to read it from other sources). if we want to speculate, then I am sure that the referee would have said something back if he was misquoted Grandia01 (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * But that is only speculation, and referees talk to the media, let's say, quite rarely, so even if he is misquoted, highly unlikely he would actually say something. Tons of sites sharing this doesn't make it more reliable or not, for all we know they could all be copying the same story (see WP:109PAPERS) from a common source. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for my late reply. yes, as you said, "for all we know they COULD all be copying the same story." we have been conjecturally speculating about the authenticity of this incident all along without remaining objective. but it does warrant inclusion as <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b> said above. the last two supposed controversies have been deleted so I am only asking to keep this one because of the reasons discussed earlier. I am willing to listen to all objections or agreements before re-including this again Grandia01 (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I said it may warrant inclusion, if a source was found that would support its significance, but all we really find is a Nigerian player talk about his experience, so real substance. I think unless FIFA talks about how a specific instance was wrong, then it will not be that notable in the long run. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 11:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding that particular incident, the only thing I could find from FIFA about it is a trivial mention of it (without referencing either the player or the specific game, but it is clear nonetheless) in a news conference given after the group stage (ref no. 9 here in this draft, more or less around the 20 min. mark). Pierluigi Collina (FIFA referees committee chairman) goes on to express incredulity ("it is not believable") as to such an incident actually happening. And while we're in speculation territory, I don't find it too unlikely that the referee could have said "I don't know if it was deliberate", but that for whatever reason Mikel didn't hear or deliberately ignored the rest of the sentence 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed additions to "Criticism" section
So, I have been working on this. Others have pointed out that we should not be listing every grievance against VAR. The following text has thus been added to the article (without the [comments] ). Of course, I have attempted to maintain a neutral tone and offer WP:BALANCE where possible:

"After the introduction of VAR in the 2018 World Cup, FIFA deemed it a success. Nevertheless, the use (or lack of use) of VAR has been criticised. Independent assessments [comment: i.e. not from FIFA] note that while most decisions were made correctly as a result of VAR, some were wrong despite VAR review and some decisions which were called incorrectly were not even reviewed. The Guardian concludes that VAR has been most effective for factual decisions such as offsides and mistaken identities, while subjective decisions such as penalties or the disciplining of players have fared much worse. Lack of clarity and consistency are two main areas of weakness.

Another line of criticism has been targeted at the effectiveness of the system in achieving its goal. In the opinion of Scott Stinson from the National Post, VAR, like any other replay system, fails to correct human error and instead only adds to the controversies because human judgment is still necessary. Lack of transparency is another contentious point, as teams have no way to know which incidents were reviewed by the VAR team. At a press conference held after the group stage, FIFA referees committee chairman Pierluigi Collina showed footage of the decision-making process accompanied with audio of the conversations between VAR officials and the referees. Asked if this audio could be made publicly available, as it is in rugby and cricket, Collina answered enthusiastically but cautioned that it might still be too early. [note: this is almost the same piece as that from ITV, but they don't make the comparison with rugby and cricket, so this source is in my opinion required if we want to be as informative as possible]

Others have pointed to the game-changing nature of VAR. Initial fears that using the system would lengthen the game considerably have not been confirmed, with every VAR review taking up an average of only 80 seconds. The dramatic increase in the number of penalties awarded at the 2018 World Cup has been attributed to VAR catching fouls which would otherwise have remained unpunished. Of the 146 goals scored in the tournament, 21 have been from the spot, [comment: the numbers given by the Telegraph seem outdated, I have taken those from 2018 FIFA World Cup statistics instead] beating the previous record of 17 [not explicitly said in the source, but I presume for the whole tournament? should this be clarified to the reader?] set in the 1998 World Cup. Jonathan Liew from the Independent compares the situation to the introduction of the Decision Review System in cricket and notes the changes it had on that sport, and suggests that it might lead to changes of a similar nature in football."

Any room for improvement? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

NPOV
This article doesn't seem to be neutral; maybe someone copied FIFA/IFAB's exact words from their website or social media. The lead section describes it in a very "this technology is the future" kinda way, even though it has failed multiple times in making decisions easier for the referee, and is sometimes a waste of time. NightBag10 (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like you are the one with a non-neutral point of view; the article is very neutral, and descriptions of the principles behind the technology are important to provide context. Furthermore, there is a whole section on criticism so I'm really not sure how you perceive the article to be non-neutral in any way. LeoC12 (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Commonly vandalized article
I'm in favor of semi-protecting this article from non-registered users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.164.184.51 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems to be a problem (again) now. Denvercoder9 (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Non-English sources
I want to know what to do with non-English sources. The current facts are wrong. This can easily be checked, just not in English (it seems). I am going to change it back to correct and put the translated article here. But you also have to use your head. A system that was "Invented" by the KNVB was PROBABLY also use first by the KNVB. https://www.knvb.com/news/knvb/refereeing/759/var-training-uefa-referees-knvb-arag-replay-center https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/sep/22/anouar-kali-first-player-sent-off-video-assistant-referee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankk20168 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Other sports
I think major aspects of this article may need to be rewritten to include the use of VAR in other sports. Either that or rename this article to "Video Assistant Referee in Association Football" and therefore leaving VAR in other sports to be written as a separate page as and when.

Thought? Mn1548 (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignore this the page Instant replay talks about VAR in all sports. Mn1548 (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Adelaide united vs syndey fc match
Hi,

There has been controversey surrounding the Adelaide united vs sydney fc match in which Hiroshi from Adelaide united was for some reason red carded by the ref, and was also checked by var which somehow allowed the red card to stand. It actually impacted the game as they were on a 1-0 lead before ending in a 2-2 draw. Can we put that here? 123.243.127.70 (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Omnicass (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

"Competitions using VAR" section
Do we really need to list every single league in the world that uses VAR? Seems excessive, and violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, even if it were all sources (which it doesn't look to be). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture
— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)