• sport

• Israeli soccer

• Super League

Ambiguity Policy: The Problem of VAR Judges

Hakmon sent from the VAR Reinschreiber unjustly to decide on Pendel, and two days later avoided a similar whistle as a judge.

Where does the border cross, why are the cases different and why are the laws still unclear?

The judges' union agrees that "when a judge is sent to the monitor, there is a bias here," but they think there is also a partial solution.

Tags

• Eli Hachmon

• VAR

David Rosenthal

Wednesday, 04 November 2020, 15:49

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments

• Premier League game schedule, major games, Premier League ...

• Josie Lupta

• LeBron James, Anthony Davis, Los Angeles players ...

• Summary: Omonia Nicosia - PSV Eindhoven 2: 1

• Summary of Barcelona's 77:73 loss to Murcia

• Summary: Hoffenheim - Union Berlin 3: 1

• Hours to close polls Trump and Biden broadcast optimism ...

• Summary: Villarreal - Sibaspur 3: 5

• Maccabi Tel Aviv players

• Summary: Maccabi Haifa - Maccabi Tel Aviv 2: 2

• Maccabi Tel Aviv player Danny Abdia

Summary: Hapoel Tel Aviv - Betar Jerusalem 1: 1 (Sport 1)

When a referee's ruling is at the center of events, one can expect a multi-participant controversy from two camps - fans of the teams on the field.

Eli's decision not to whistle a penalty Chachmon win the game against Maccabi Haifa Maccabi Tel Aviv on Monday leap precisely the Beitar Jerusalem soccer team. Only two days earlier ordered Chachmon himself to Roy Riinsriibr go to the television camera, and the final whistle came back with a penalty. What has changed?

" First of all, despite what Betar Jerusalem fans claim, it is not the same case. It is never exactly the same case, "says a source in the judges' union." There are so many parameters that are looked at in every move, even though these are different cases. Yes, I agree that there was no place for Pendel, neither in Bloomfield nor in Haifa. "

More on Walla!

NEWS

Union of Referees: Hachmon was right when he did not stop for a penalty in Haifa and made a mistake in a penalty for Hapoel Tel Aviv

To the full article

A similar but not identical case.

Eli Hachmon (Photo: Danny Maron)

When the VAR came into our lives at the 2018 World Cup, there was hope that the whole industry would change.

The successful pilot in the tournament brought the mobility to the local pitches, but the errors of judgment continued and the reviews intensified.

Now, not only is the referee of the game in charge, the referee on the mobile also has a share of the blame.

"The problem in the country," says an active referee in the Premier League, "is that there is excessive intervention. Look at games in Europe. How many times has the VAR intervened in the Champions League this week? Only in the Premier League have there been 8-10 interventions, some unjustified. Why is this happening? "Because the judges' union punishes VAR judges if they did not intervene when they should, but does not do the opposite, does not punish judges who did intervene when they did not have to. In general, I am against punishment, but if already punished - have both sides."

Punishment means suspension.

A striking example of punishment happened last year, when Uriel Greenfeld whistled for a puzzling penalty for Maccabi Netanya in the game against Hapoel Beer Sheva.

Daniel Bar-Natan who was on the VAR decided to keep the penalty in his eye and not call Greenfeld and both were suspended from the next game.

But punishment is not only reflected in suspension from a game, but also in the referee's score, which has implications for the continuation of the season's games in the national, international and also for the continuation of his career.

"I am already a veteran," says the same judge, "I do not mind a score, but a young judge can be harmed by it. It should be understood, the Judges' Association follows the UEFA protocol in this matter, one by one.

If a referee made a mistake on the court, he went to VAR and rightly changed the decision - he gets five points from the game score.

If he did not change the decision but was supposed to do so - he drops ten points because he made a mistake twice, on the field and on the monitor.

If he stood his ground even after an examination and it turned out that he was right - he does not lose points at all. "

In England they did not send judges to the monitor, but changed their position because of the visibility.

Chris Cabana watches VAR in match between Brighton and Manchester United)

More on Walla!

NEWS

• Union of Referees: Hachmon was right when he did not stop for a penalty in Haifa and made a mistake in a penalty for Hapoel Tel Aviv

• Betar is angry with Eli Hachmon: he deprived us and helped Maccabi Tel Aviv under the same circumstances

• The next wave of masks: more comfortable, beautiful and protective - at a special discount for Walla!

In other words, once a judge is called to monitor, he is faced with a decision that in psychology is known as the "prisoner dilemma."

In the original model of game theory, two prisoners enter separate cells.

If one is silent and the other informs, the informant is set free and the silent is imprisoned for 15 years.

If both are silent, each gets a year and if both inform, each gets 5 years.

True, this is not a prison, and the difference here is that the VAR judge is protected even if he made a mistake in intervening, but the problematic nature of a judge being called to the camera cannot be ignored and as he goes there he has to finance what is "more profitable".

After all, if he rules against his conscience, he may both receive a double score and, perhaps, be suspended.

In other words, once the judge is called to the camera he knows what he needs to do to minimize the damage.

"I agree that there is a problem here and that there is a bias here," says the union official.

So why, I asked him, not just let the VAR judge determine?

"I and many think it's more true," he replies, "and that was really the practice in England - only the VAR determined what was going on, they would not send judges to the monitor. But there is a problem with that, it produces mistrust on the part of the audience. Fans prefer to know someone "He really saw what happened and this matter of a referee going to a monitor adds a dimension of credibility, with all the problematics of it. It's a fact that even in England the fans protested and introduced the viewing procedure there."

So what do we do now?

How do you avoid double mistakes like that of Hachmon and Reinschreiber on Saturday?

"They just have to be less involved," says the union official, "more discretion must be exercised, not only because of the concern for the referees, but also because of the amount of time each such hearing wastes in the game."

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments