Dale Johnson Profile picture
Jul 9, 2020 11 tweets 3 min read Read on X
Few tweets on FIFA taking over the management of the VAR project from the IFAB, and what it really means the Premier League (including a mention of the Harry Kane penalty claim).

But first, remember this. FIFA says the implementation of VAR has been a "universal success".
By taking over control of the VAR project, what FIFA really wants to do it make sure all associations are doing it the same way.

So it doesn't want the Premier League not using monitors, not penalising the GK off the line on pens, etc.
The new Laws of the Game, which will come into force in the Premier League at the start of next season, had already removed ambiguity over use of monitors in the VAR protocol.

So, in effect, FIFA taking control is not a catalyst for the PL using monitors. This is already set.
FIFA taking control only really means that it will set expectations that leagues will follow the protocol.

Several comps (not just PL) do not penalise the keeper for being an inch off the line on a penalty.

It's a bad law change, but the law will likely be enforced now.
One thing FIFA cannot do is change the subjective decision making of referees, or the competence of referees in individual leagues.

Yes, FIFA does control the education of referees globally. But there is a big step to changing the level of ability - certainly in the short term.
Take today's decision on the Harry Kane penalty. This is the process.

If the referee, Paul Tierney, tells the VAR, Michael Oliver, that he had a clear view of the incident and did not feel there was sufficient contact for Kane to go down, there will be no penalty. #BOUTOT
The Premier League's high bar, and refusal to use the monitors on subjective penalty decisions, means that any possible overturn sits with the VAR and how he interprets what the match referee has seen.

This alone makes it much more difficult for an overturn to happen.
This becomes a bigger problem if referees are missing more big decisions than you might expect in an elite league.

VAR seems better in the UCL, for example, because that competition only uses top referees.

Once you get to league level, ability and consistency will be lower.
So the use of monitors will undoubtedly be a positive addition, both for the accountability of referees and acceptance from fans.

But it's going to come down to two key things
1) Officials being good, as refs and VARs
2) How high the "bar" will be in the Premier League
Premier League referees have tied themselves up in knots over this high bar, and the lack of monitors.

It's the perfect storm of the VAR not being sure if he should overrule the referee, but not having the safety net of asking the referee to take a look himself.
But FIFA taking charge isn't going to stop the goals being disallowed for tight offsides, minor handballs and such like.

FIFA will be about consistency of application. The leagues themselves are still going to have to get this right "on the ground."

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dale Johnson

Dale Johnson Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DaleJohnsonESPN

Nov 20
Had clarification of World Cup draw conditions. We know a few more things.

- England 75% chance of group of 5
- Wales definitely group of 5
- Northern Ireland 85.71% chance of group of 5
- Rep of Ireland & Scotland definitely group of 4

Thread to explain, and here are the pots. Image
The specific conditions over the 4 and 5 team groups depended on the number of teams in each pot who needed a QF/playoff.

As the number is lower than 6 in pots 2 and 3, it can now be confirmed playoff teams in Pots 2 and 3 (Scotland, ROI) will definitely be in a group of 4.
There are 10 teams in Pot 1 who need a QF/playoff but only 6 groups of four.

The 4 "QF winners" automatically get a group of 4.

That leaves two groups of 4, and six groups of 5 randomly filled with "QF losers", Austria, Belgium, England, Switzerland.

What does this tell us?
Read 10 tweets
Jun 19
Why don't leagues have a chip in the ball for semi-automated VAR offside?

🖥️ Tech by Kinexon
⚽️ Centre-mounted chip in ball developed & patented by Adidas
❌ No league uses Adidas

Adidas would need to share/licence, or other ball companies find an alternative to house chip. Image
Who are the ball manufacturers for the different leagues?

Premier League (Nike this season, Puma from 2025-26)
LaLiga (Puma)
Bundesliga (Derbystar)
Serie A (Puma)
Ligue 1 (Kipsta)

Kinexon has worked with Adidas, Derbystar and Puma so far.
It's not easy to overcome, as Kinexon went through 1000s of prototypes until it achieved a ball that was actually FIFA-approved, in weight and the counterweight and the balance, and that provided good results.

So it's not as simple as saying "put a chip in the ball".
Read 7 tweets
May 22
So, Atalanta win the Europa League.

That presents a host of questions about:

🔷 How many places in Champions League for Serie A
🔷 What happens to place in UCL for the UEL titleholders
🔷 What happens to seeding for the 2024-25 UCL, 👀 Barcelona

Pull up a chair a moment.
1. How many places will Serie A get in the Champions League?

We know Italy will have 5 teams in the UCL next season as they have one of the 2 extra places for league performance.

Atalanta are 5th. If they finish 5th, and 5th only, Italy will have 6 teams in the UCL.
AS Roma are guaranteed to finish in 6th, so they are left waiting on Atalanta's final position.

If Atalanta finish 5th, AS Roma will be in the UCL.

If Atalanta finish 3rd or 4th, AS Roma will be in the UEL.

Atalanta sit two points outside the top 4 with a game in hand.
Read 11 tweets
Apr 16
Sick of keepers holding the ball for 30-40 seconds to waste time or slow down play?

The [unenforced] law says a keeper can only hold the ball for 6 seconds. Any longer and it's an indirect FK to the opposition.

We now have details of The IFAB trial to change it.

Thread. 👇 Image
As well as wasting time, a goalkeeper holding the ball for too long is considered an unfair tactic because the opposing team has no possibility to regain possession.

That's because a goalkeeper cannot be challenged when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
A keeper holding the ball for more than 6 seconds should be punishable by an indirect free kick.

However, we have got to the stage where this is rarely enforced by referees, which in recent years has been exploited tactically.

So, why not enforced the law as it stands today?
Read 12 tweets
Nov 30, 2023
Mauro Icardi's offside in Galatasaray vs. Manchester United gives us a good illustration of how semi-automated technology will be more accurate and reliable - yet may lead to more goals being disallowed.

This was ruled out on the field, but stay with me.
There's a common misconception that handball starts at the bottom of the sleeve.

This isn't the case.

It's the arm point level with the armpit - if you had it by your side - around the whole arm.

Basically, the area of the arm which can't increase body size if you move it. Image
The starting point for offside (and handball) is therefore an imaginary line on the arm.

With the old tech, the point on the attacker and defender is plotted manually by the VAR and operator.

This obviously has to cause inconsistencies, and it's why there's a tolerance level.
Read 10 tweets
Sep 30, 2023
Ok, here's the nuts and bolts.

This is what happened with the Luis Diaz "goal" which Liverpool had disallowed vs. Tottenham.

There will be a deeper dive in the Monday VAR thread, but in simple terms the VAR took the wrong onfield decision - it led to the goal being disallowed.
So the VAR, Darren England, checked offside thinking the onfield decision was "goal."

It was a quick offside check because it was clear Diaz was onside, so he told the referee "check complete".

In telling the ref "check complete" he is saying the onfield decision was correct.
So the "human error" by the VAR team is getting the onfield decision wrong. Not by failing to draw lines etc.

The lines were drawn and Diaz was clearly onside.

The huge, quite unbelievable error was misunderstanding the onfield decision.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(