Willem II’s Anouar Kali sent off in Dutch cup tie by video assistant referee

• Midfielder given marching orders four foul on Ajax’s Schone 
• Video assistant can review incident or advise officials on missed incidents

 

 The video assistant referee technology was used on Wednesday in the Dutch cup tie between Ajax and Willem II Tilburg.


Willem II’s midfielder Anouar Kali became the first player in the Netherlands to be sent off by a video assistant referee after a yellow card in Wednesday’s Dutch Cup tie against Ajax was turned into a red.

Video trials to assist referees may take place in next season’s FA Cup

 

 

Read more

Kali was initially cautioned by the referee Danny Makkelie for kicking Ajax’s Lasse Schone on an ankle but the decision was changed within seconds into a red after intervention from the video assistant referee. It was the first time television assistance was fully used in on-field decision-making.

Pol van Boekel, a referee who was sitting in a small van with six TV screens at the Amsterdam Arena, scrutinised replays of the 60th-minute incident before communicating his verdict to the on-field official through a headset. Makkelie then increased the punishment.

The video assistant can review an incident when asked by the match referee as well as advise officials on the field about incidents they may have missed. The International Football Association Board, which oversees the rules of the game, is expected to decide in 2018 whether to authorise the use of video technology and include it in the laws.

But Wednesday’s intervention confused the crowd present for Ajax’s 5-0 victory in the first-round cup tie as they were not aware of the change. “We do hope that there will be some communication for the public in the future, they have a right to it,” Van Boekel said.

The two referees will swap roles on Thursday for the Dutch Cup match between Feyenoord and FC Oss, when the system will be further tested.

Video technology was used when France beat Italy in a friendly international in Bari last month, although it did not involve stopping the action to study replays.

Interesting development. I have to say I'm in favour.

 

A half-way house would be to review incidents at half-time that the ref might have missed. The obvious case was the Dembele gouge on Costa that the ref missed but was clear as day on the replay. We had to wait for the FA to review it and charge him then ban him, but the officials could have had a 5 second look and redded him in the interval. 

Edited September 22, 20168 yr by Backbiter

Thanks a lot for posting this. 

Definitely support it in some form. I don't know if that means the video ref can only be summoned by the referee, or if it means that teams can choose to protest, or some other arrangement. 

Personally I think it would be a good idea to give every team a limited number of video challenges, 5 perhaps, for a season. If the challenge succeeds, it doesn't count against their allotment. 

In addition to that, a video ref should be allowed to intervene only for goal-related decisions such as the offside call, crossing the line for stadiums without goal line technology, etc. 

Sorry, last night I got to experience the glory of a video referee system in person. The A-League is trialing video replay reviews for its finals series and it was used last night on two occasions to rule on goals disallowed for offside. Both resulted in the game referees being overruled and a goal given to Sydney FC.

I have to say, it pretty much confirmed my opinion that video referees are an exercise in wasting time. 

One review was correct, one decision was clearly incorrect. Both reviews undermined the control the assistant referee had over the players.

The problem I have with video referees is that it appears to be an exercise in appeasing a special snowflake generation, who incorrectly give referee decisions too much weight in determining the outcome of a game. 

As I've said elsewhere before, all video referee systems do is propagate the chance of error further down the chain. It is a problem of statistics that the more comparisons you have with a given error rate, the more likely you are to find an error.

The NRL is Australia has had video review for years, and the error rate was so poor they had to introduce another level of centralised video review ("The Bunker"). This new system now regularly gets just as panned as the previous one, meaning a huge cost with zero net benefit. 

Unlike goal-line technology, which is a discrete yes/no situation, most decisions in football are in the opinion of a referee - so why don't we just leave it at that, and suck up the fact that humans make errors?

Edited April 29, 20177 yr by SydneyChelsea

On 2017-4-30 at 05:52, SydneyChelsea said:

Sorry, last night I got to experience the glory of a video referee system in person. The A-League is trialing video replay reviews for its finals series and it was used last night on two occasions to rule on goals disallowed for offside. Both resulted in the game referees being overruled and a goal given to Sydney FC.

I have to say, it pretty much confirmed my opinion that video referees are an exercise in wasting time. 

One review was correct, one decision was clearly incorrect. Both reviews undermined the control the assistant referee had over the players.

The problem I have with video referees is that it appears to be an exercise in appeasing a special snowflake generation, who incorrectly give referee decisions too much weight in determining the outcome of a game. 

As I've said elsewhere before, all video referee systems do is propagate the chance of error further down the chain. It is a problem of statistics that the more comparisons you have with a given error rate, the more likely you are to find an error.

The NRL is Australia has had video review for years, and the error rate was so poor they had to introduce another level of centralised video review ("The Bunker"). This new system now regularly gets just as panned as the previous one, meaning a huge cost with zero net benefit. 

Unlike goal-line technology, which is a discrete yes/no situation, most decisions in football are in the opinion of a referee - so why don't we just leave it at that, and suck up the fact that humans make errors?

Because we are at a stage when errors can be minimised. Celebrating avoidable errors is a bit odd.

We are also at a stage where players deliberately ty to con referees and the only way to eradicate clear cheating is to have referrals. Perhaps errors do even out in league competitions but every error can have huge consequences for a club in cup competition. As we have seen.

By discouraging the use of video assistance, you are encouraging the growth of simulation. What is to stop our players from doing a Rashford given that it clearly works? 

Subjective calls have been working in several other sports. I don't see why it cannot in football. As offside said, not every type of call should be reviewable. Offsides (objective in most cases), penalties (especially hand balls, slightly subjective but objective criteria can be decided), sending offs (possibly only when a player is sent off, not to send anyone off). Refusing to even try to find a way is extremely narrow minded.