I can certainly sympathise with that argument, but it depends what clear and obvious error means. The referee probably didn't see it because of the angle he had, but the questions is does a mistake caused by an understandable situation mean it isn't a C&O error. I'm pretty sure we will see Howard Webb come out and say this should have been a failure and it was a mistake by VAR to not recommend a review. They should be asking the referee if he saw the contact on the achilles of the attacker, if he said yes but felt it was inconsequential they should stay out. But if he said he didn't see any contact they should be recommending a review.
VAR Vote
- Thread starter Gabriel
- Start date
Fair enough. HW may await the outcome of the KMI panel before declaring what to say, if anything. If the Panel goes against both VAR Referee and the Referee I am sure he will say something.
So if Jarred Gillett found the camera angle right away which showed the contact then it would be classed as a clear and obvious error?
The issue with VAR is we get situations like that where the vast majority of football fans/pundits agree it's a mistake by the referee but those inside the VAR booth think differently because of the high bar. Then you get situations where a referee not giving a penelty won't be overturned but if he did gave a penalty for the same incident, VAR won't get involved either.
Despite what some think, I do find the PL officials mic'd up show quite useful and how decisions are made. Kind of wished we had more of it really.
If clubs and supporters will be content with Referees making human errors with an accuracy rate of 82% rather than 96% for KMI’s then fair enough, let the Referees get on with it, which is probably what they want to happen anyway.
But as we've said elsewhere, I don't see why that means we can't learn and borrow from those other sports.
It's not the case that any borrowed system needs to be a 100% perfect match that fixes every single problem in football on day 1, and your repeated insistence that no other system is worth considering because it doesn't solve every problem is clearly flawed. There is a huuuuuuuuuge scope for improvement between perfect and what we have now - any system that moves us significantly into that window would be beneficial even if it doesn't get us all the way and/or needs more tweaks after implementation.
Please share what you believe these improvements from other sports could be?
If we ignore the idea of a challenge system completely (which I do think is a legitimate option, but will drag the thread off the rails).
The next most obvious set of improvements is in the way TMO is applied in rugby (Or at least, was applied pre-bunker review, I think that's a backwards step).
* The process can be initiated either way, by a TMO who thinks the referee has missed something or by the referee knowing that he's made a call but he's not confident about it.
* Review is carried out on a big screen (where available) so everyone in the ground can see what's going on
* Audio can be broadcast live, both in the ground and on TV so the discussion and the reasoning is clear
* And once a decision is reached, part of the process is explaining the decision to the relevant captain(s), so that players are also aware, before any card is issued or restart is taken
That process is helped in rugby by decision flow-charts that have been shared on here before, and clear understanding of what can qualify as mitigation and how a decision can be modified if there is mitigating circumstances. (My recollection is that this topic in particular came up around the Liverpool Jones red card review vs Spurs, where no one seemed to have any idea if his foot bounding up off the ball was allowed to mitigate the severity of the sanction or not). So there's definitely some law improvements to be made, to allow more consistent use of VAR and to create a structure to the discussions. But day 1 easy improvement is opening up that decision process.
Last edited:
Some of what you have said is worth considering, but I suspect has already been looked at by the PGMOL, but can be revisited.
A captain in rugby is often more respectful to Referees than in football (but not in all cases) - whereby I still believe they are called sir, and the same could be said for rugby supporters. However, even the PL believe they require better on ground experience for supporters to be informed of decisions/how outcomes are achieved.
PGMOL don't get the say unfortunately as I do think there are modernisers in that organisation (again, now, perhaps not when VAR was first introduced and they insisted on making the same mistake with offside Germany had already done). But this extent of progress would have to be carried out by IFAB, which is where the reluctance to accept insight form elsewhere seems to be rooted.
Also, I do take exception to statements like in your second paragraph. Are football supporters just inherently worse people that rugby supporters? Or are they reacting to being treated like children and being entirely left out of the decision making process? Some extent of chicken and the egg probably, but you don't break that cycle by knowingly continuing to reinforce it.
Crikey, really - take exception to my 2nd para. Your interpretation of what I said is not what I said or mean. No worse, no better - but usually different (but not in all cases). Before the introduction of VAR do you consider that Referees were treated as respectfully by football players, managers and spectators than the same in Rugby!! Or hockey, ice hockey, tennis or cricket for that matter. Have you heard supporters around or in one part of the ground in the other sports mentioned call the Referee or umpire etc a w###er etc.
Last edited:
"Not available to the elite levels". Anyone know any non-elite leagues with VAR?
It says they are trialling it in their youth competitions.
I just saw that. But why do you need VAR in a youth competition?
I'm probably in favour of a challenge system, but such a seismic change to VAR is an admission that its in a mess. It's interesting because the TA's are usually watching (iPads/Tablets/Monitors) the game on a 'near-live' basis, so it transfers the 'checking' responsibility of VAR to the managers/coaches
I’m not sure I agree with your view. The trial is only doing what already happens in tennis and cricket, but unlike football, both are stop/start games, but is worth looking into, even if it is to discount it. It is likely to take time for captains/managers to decide whether they want to refer to VAR, but also like tennis and cricket, they will have to set a time limit. Will be interesting to see the result of the trials.
To trial it...
in my mind a challenge should be raised without any repalys being seen so you have 10/15 seconds from time of incident to decide
Will be interesting to see how long teams are given to challenge. Say the ball immediately goes out of play, as things are right now, the ref would have to hold the restart for VAR to check, but if a coach wants to challenge, they may want to watch it back first. They'll have more time sometimes than others (before the ball is next out of play).
Does it really need to be trialled in U20 matches with kids who have never used VAR before though? It could be trialled in international friendlies, for example (or pre-season club matches).