Question for Soccer fans

[Aluminny69]

Not Off Topic. My son, who watches soccer much more than I do, tells me that since FIFA implemented VAR (Video Assist Referee), it has cut down on the players taking a dive. Because players are subject to a Yellow card, they are less inclined to fake a foul. How do you feel about implementing a similar system in Basketball? It might slow the game down in the beginning, but eventually the blocking/charging decisions might diminish. In the OSU-VT game, the Refs called exclusively Blocking fouls on those plays, I don't remember any charging calls. I believe this caused the players to stick to playing basketball, and leave out the theatrics.

Either way, something needs to be done. I am seeing casual observers commenting of the disparity in refereeing, I don't think it's good for the game. This is just one suggestion. Another is to give the coaches two Challenges, like in football. If upheld they keep their challenges. Have an independent Ref do the video review. Something needs to be done in the name of fairness.

 

[BRS24]

Interesting concept. I'd like to see something similar to both FIFA and NHL during the NCAAT where there's a "central office" with really really experienced referees, perhaps those with stellar reps that no longer can officiate. Speed up the OOB plays, overrule the block/charge calls, and also the flopping. Some of the reviews, both foul upgrades and end of game clock, were agonizingly looooong.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Not Off Topic. My son, who watches soccer much more than I do, tells me that since FIFA implemented VAR (Video Assist Referee), it has cut down on the players taking a dive. Because players are subject to a Yellow card, they are less inclined to fake a foul.

In most cases, VAR is not allowed to review plays where someone may have taken a dive. It can be done, however, if it is an attacker trying to draw a PK in the box. Also, rarely, if the call led directly to a red card. The great majority of situations where a player may have dived would not be reviewable during the game, however.

 

[Forego]

Basketball refs do a lot of reviews, but often times they are limited to one soecific aspect of a play. For example, a player gets a rebound and turns to pass to a team mate for a fast break. The rebounder’s elbows are bent and an opponent is seemingly knocked to the floor by a swinging elbow and the ref calls a foul. Play is stopped while the refs review the play to see if the opponent was hit in the face because he or she snapped their head back to sell the flop. The review from every angle clearly shows that the rebounder’s elbow didn’t contact the opponent at all. The foul is not upgraded, but the original foul call is not reversed and nothing happens to the flopper. The game is already stopped so reversing the original foul call would not delay the game. The foul should be reversed and the flopper should be assessed with a technical foul for causing the delay of game. G** forbid a referee’s foul call gets reversed. I’m not saying every disputed call get reviewed, but when the clock is stopped for a review, everything should be considered open for reversal.

 

[snowkot]

OSU-VT - perhaps the refs watched the game film of OSU v UConn and adjusted accordingly?

This is a massive problem in world soccer still - I believe I've seen a yellow for diving given maybe 2 or 3 times tops, since the rule was in place. And - in my experience - never off a VAR review. For kicks and giggles, search Neymar and diving on YT.

Valid concern for me, especially as certain teams (Notre Dame at least during the McGraw administration, Stanford) seem to teach flopping as part of their process. As it relates, OSU knew they had a massive problem matching up with Edwards, so why not? Not only did it work, it very possibly determined the outcome of the game.

The NBA approach is flawed (for me) in that coaches only get one challenge per game, whether the challenge is successful or not. Perhaps something similar to the NFL with one or two challenges, but kept if successful. If unsuccessful, perhaps loss of a timeout or a technical.

The NHL approach of a central office with monitors seems untenable due to the sheer volume of games going on simulataneously, unlike the NHL.

Either way, for me, this is a very valid point - it's nothing more than gaming the system. Results should be decided by the best performance of the players, not the best actors.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Basketball refs do a lot of reviews, but often times they are limited to one soecific aspect of a play. For example, a player gets a rebound and turns to pass to a team mate for a fast break. The rebounder’s elbows are bent and an opponent is seemingly knocked to the floor by a swinging elbow and the ref calls a foul. Play is stopped while the refs review the play to see if the opponent was hit in the face because he or she snapped their head back to sell the flop. The review from every angle clearly shows that the rebounder’s elbow didn’t contact the opponent at all. The foul is not upgraded, but the original foul call is not reversed and nothing happens to the flopper. The game is already stopped so reversing the original foul call would not delay the game. The foul should be reversed and the flopper should be assessed with a technical foul for causing the delay of game.

In the above scenario, the referees have the right to assess a technical foul if their video review shows that a player flopped. Part of the rule about video reviews says: " Officials may use replay at any time during the game to . . . determine whether a player faked being fouled, but only as part of a replay review to determine whether an intentional or contact disqualifying foul occurred."

In that case, the penalty is a technical foul - #8 on the list of violations calling for a technical:

"8. Faking being fouled when confirmed by a replay review for an intentional or contact disqualifying foul. (See Rule 11-3.1.o.)"