Explanations Basil Kazarceva, because of the decisions which the Internet is seething last night, “Spartak” and its fans waited eagerly, though hardly expected them to. The referee still made the air “Match TV”, but his mistake did not recognize.
Many demanded and decryption of negotiations with VAR – RFU gave her. Only any better, hardly anyone was.
That said Kazartsev
About the yellow card Sobolev:
– Can through the video space to Express condolences Sobolev. Before showing the card I knew who is depicted on the shirt. I apologized and expressed condolences. Sobolev said: “I Have no questions.” I would like to refer to public personalities: think about what you say. What consequences for health and mental this can cause. Russians, let us be people!
About the second penalty:
– Was not far from the penalty area. Time was at a glance. I understand the responsibility of his decision. Was supposed to only take it with full confidence. I had: one player won the duel and shot on goal, Gigot was moving and hit the foot of the player, “Sochi”. His feet left to right and body to left, is the defender on the leg of the attacker. Many people think that the player made the shot and the episode finished, but it is not so: reason to punish Gigot was what I reported to his assistant.
And now look what happened to VAR room in this moment.
Full transcript of the conversation
AVAR: “Wow! Shields parried by the goalkeeper”.
Eskov, “Feet down, about them, he struck”.
AVAR: “What did he do?”
AVAR: “a Corner or something?”
AVAR: “he did What?!”
Kazartsev: “slap Shot, Gigot – knocks”.
AVAR: “the Penalty was appointed. The judge appointed a penalty kick”.
Kazartsev players on the field: “Check! Check!”
Eskov: “I can not cancel”.
Kazartsev players on the field: “Check! Check!”
*deep breath in the VAR center*
Kazartsev: “He hits the ball, Gigot knocks. Check!”
The operator repeats: “You this view is like?”
Eskov: “So, yeah, ***, do.”
AVAR: “If you made a decision…”
The operator repeats: “Here’s another shot… in the back…”
AVAR: “FROM a different angle and see.”
Eskov, “Give because of the gate… I can see already, I immediately skipped a beat!”
Kazartsev player on the field: “Yes, stay back!”
Kazartsev: “While check”.
Backup: “Next time will not!”. (An ambiguous phrase that leaves space for interpretation: one time would not be? For what? — Approx. “Championship”).
AVAR: “a Judge while the procedure is carried out”.
Kazartsev – backup about added time: “What, Garik?”
Backup: “Five minutes”.
AVAR: “Here, look here.”
Eskov, “Well he knocked out the leg… Basil!”
Kazartsev, “I Am!”
Eskov: “I Confirm the decision, go along with it”.
Kazartsev: “Thank you, come on!”
Eskov: “Check completed.”
What does the phrase “confirm a decision, go along with it”?
What Eskov did not see the penalty clear or obvious error on the part of Kazartseva and did not intervene.
Yes, Kassai admitted that the decision was erroneous Kazartseva. Kaloshin also considers what penalty to assign was not necessary:
In my opinion, the optimal solution in this situation — to continue the game without interfering. For me, the decision of the judge is erroneous, but there is a caveat, which we have heard during the negotiations, the judge’s assistant. The referee gave a penalty for that Gigot had contact with the leg of the opponent. He regarded it as a violation. Videoassisted saw it, I realized that the contact feet has taken place. On such moments are given to the judges. Contact was, therefore, videoassisted considered that the judge has some reason to consider it a violation.
It turns out that Eskov did not see the solution Kazartseva obvious (this is key) error. Most interesting is that he considers it no more a penalty than a penalty, but specifically the decision of the referee he did not seem clearly erroneous (Yes, understand, called, as you wish):
– As much as I thought I must follow Protocol. When I performed the functions of a VAR, looked, whether there was contact. I was obliged to follow the decision of the judge. This is his interpretation and solution to the situation. If I said “it’s not a penalty”, I would break Protocol.
Kassai said that claims to Escova no – he followed the clear instructions.
How to understand this?!
Protocol IFAB videoassisted can intervene to affect the judge’s decision only when an obvious error of the arbitrator in making this decision: for example, when someone smashed his face with his feet, and the referee didn’t give red. All because the VAR considers not game moments, but the judge’s decision. Videoassisted must be sure that the referee on the field made an obvious mistake, then he can either intervene (change the solution), or you can send main to the monitor. Anyway, the final decision always remains with the judge.
In General, Escova moment seemed ambiguous, and therefore the decision Kazartseva he is not regarded as clearly erroneous. That’s the story.