"PL managers want VARs to be assigned to refereeing teams"

[socal lurker]

But this is where the protocol lets referees down. The referee clearly and understandably hasn't seen that as an offence, but the VAR can't just pop it on the screen and tell the ref to make a call - he has to either let a clear orange foul slide with zero punishment, or find reasons to think it's a red in order to be able to ask for a review. And then once told it's a red, the ref is obliged to agree 99%+ of the time, because disagreements at the screen are supposed to be incredibly rare by design.

this is it true. The R is not at all obligated to agree with the VAR. The R is the sole decision maker and owns getting the call right at the screen. While it is true that if the C&O standard is being applied correctly, the R and VAR should almost always agree, it’s not because the R is obligated, but because the only time the R is going to disagree is if the VAR has made a mistake.

And I wholly disagree with expanding VAR for things like caution. probably the biggest problem with VAR is the disruption of flow in a game that is supposed to flow. If we start letting the VAR get involved on more, it will just add to that disruption.

I think flow is the other difficulty with a coach challenge system. The challenge systems I’m familiar with use time outs as the added control on challenges—if you lose the appeal, it costs you a time out. Soccer doesn’t have time outs. A challenge system could essentially create timeouts, which I don’t like. All that said, I wouldn’t be opposed to a trial of a challenge system where the team gets one challenge per game; and if they are successful they get a second. The fact there was only one would discourage using it unless they were very confident they would succeed (at least until late in the game). But that system has a slippery slope, too. When the hand of god occurs after a team has used their challenge, the pressure will come for more challenges. (both american football and basketball typically have a change that allows refs to go to review without challenges in the end game. The soccer end game isn’t the same and doesn’t lend itself to that type of shif.)

 

[The Daddy]

Gone are the days when match officials had discretion. An AR gave what he believed was offside and the Referee 9/10 supported him... Now we have a laser beam fired across the F.O.P. to say the the attakers big toe was 2cm offside..

Yep...Keep Hawkeye.. because that gives you a result instantly and decides to award a goal or not. Yet VAR can take ages ..4 mins..!!! to decide if a big toe was offside or not. Bring back discretion and instant decision making on what match official see.

 

[GraemeS]

this is it true. The R is not at all obligated to agree with the VAR. The R is the sole decision maker and owns getting the call right at the screen. While it is true that if the C&O standard is being applied correctly, the R and VAR should almost always agree, it’s not because the R is obligated, but because the only time the R is going to disagree is if the VAR has made a mistake.

Do you really believe that? I know what the protocol says, but in a world where maaaaybe 3 reviews aren't held up at the monitor each season, it's surely fairly obvious that any referee going to the monitor knows they need to be really certain to reject that recommendation. They're not in any way making a genuine decision, it's all performance.

 

[socal lurker]

Do you really believe that? I know what the protocol says, but in a world where maaaaybe 3 reviews aren't held up at the monitor each season, it's surely fairly obvious that any referee going to the monitor knows they need to be really certain to reject that recommendation. They're not in any way making a genuine decision, it's all performance.

Yes I do. The R is evaluate on whether he ultimately gets the call right, not on whether he reverses when he goes to the monitor. There is definitely some background psychic pressure knowing that the VAR believes there was a C&O error, but if the R goes along with an incorrect intervention, the R is getting dinged for the error.

(I’m very confident this is true in fact for MLS, which has been much more transparent about what happens and has implemented the VAR process much better than the PL. (not often we get to say that about MLS.) the PL is such a mess with VAR that I suppose it is possible that the PL refs feel extra pressure to go along with the VAR. But I’m pretty sure they also get dinged for going along with an incorrect VAR recommendation.)

 

[GraemeS]

And you don't think there's perhaps uneven pressure (even just subconsciously) between incorrectly following a VAR's recommendation vs incorrectly ignoring that recommendation?

Maybe it will score the same on a scorecard, but a ref who is advised to change their decision and then does so is going to feel let down by their colleague if that is later deemed incorrect. It's a VAR mistake in the eyes of every fan/pundit.

A ref who decides he's the 1 in 100 who has been incorrectly called to the screen and is then deemed wrong is making himself the problem. Setting himself up to be derided as arrogant and refusing to accept help. It's not the same pressure at all.

 

[socal lurker]

And you don't think there's perhaps uneven pressure (even just subconsciously) between incorrectly following a VAR's recommendation vs incorrectly ignoring that recommendation?

Well, you just changed what you’re saying. But you said they were “obligated.” I said that was not true, and it isn’t. Sure, there is some psychic pressure (as I said in the post you responded to)--before the R gets to the screen the R knows the VAR thinks the video shows a clear error. But that doesn’t change the fact the R still owns the decision. And I don’t disagree that there can be worse fallout from erring in not following the recommendation than erring the other way—it’s not unlike the fact the
at Rs catch more grief for making a bad call than missing a call.

 

[RustyRef]

Realistically there should be no situations where the referee goes to the screen and disagrees with what the VAR has recommended. VAR interventions are only supposed to be for situations where everyone sees that an error has occurred, therefore when a review is recommended there really shouldn't be any doubt about it.

 

[Runner-Ref]

Realistically there should be no situations where the referee goes to the screen and disagrees with what the VAR has recommended. VAR interventions are only supposed to be for situations where everyone sees that an error has occurred, therefore when a review is recommended there really shouldn't be any doubt about it.

Whilst I so somewhat agree with this, what's the point in the referee going to the screen?

I know they wanted the referee to have the final say, but if they should never disagree, that would suggest the referee going to the monitor is a waste of time.

 

[GraemeS]

Well, you just changed what you’re saying. But you said they were “obligated.” I said that was not true, and it isn’t. Sure, there is some psychic pressure (as I said in the post you responded to)--before the R gets to the screen the R knows the VAR thinks the video shows a clear error. But that doesn’t change the fact the R still owns the decision. And I don’t disagree that there can be worse fallout from erring in not following the recommendation than erring the other way—it’s not unlike the fact the
at Rs catch more grief for making a bad call than missing a call.

And you've ignored the end of the sentence after obligated where I qualified it with "99% of the time".

So we agree there's what you call "psychic pressure". We agree the consequences or rejecting are worse than accepting a wrong call. Yet for some reason you still take issue with the idea that if a VAR chooses to stretch an "orange" card into a red to stop it going unpunished, the referee might end up going along with it anyway?

 

[socal lurker]

And you've ignored the end of the sentence after obligated where I qualified it with "99% of the time".

So we agree there's what you call "psychic pressure". We agree the consequences or rejecting are worse than accepting a wrong call. Yet for some reason you still take issue with the idea that if a VAR chooses to stretch an "orange" card into a red to stop it going unpunished, the referee might end up going along with it anyway?

I have no idea why you are attributing that view to me. What I said, and what is absolutely true, is that the R is not obligated to follow a recommendation from the VAR (which technically isn’t a recommendation, but in reality is). I really don’t have anything else to say here.

 

[GraemeS]

I have no idea why you are attributing that view to me. What I said, and what is absolutely true, is that the R is not obligated to follow a recommendation from the VAR (which technically isn’t a recommendation, but in reality is). I really don’t have anything else to say here.

No one forced you to start off by disagreeing with me

 

[RustyRef]

Whilst I so somewhat agree with this, what's the point in the referee going to the screen?

I know they wanted the referee to have the final say, but if they should never disagree, that would suggest the referee going to the monitor is a waste of time.

That's how the EPL used it in the first season, I remain convinced that the VAR screens weren't even plugged in, but FIFA / IFAB told them they had to follow the protocol.

 

[Runner-Ref]

That's how the EPL used it in the first season, I remain convinced that the VAR screens weren't even plugged in, but FIFA / IFAB told them they had to follow the protocol.

Yeah I know that, and that's where I agree with you.

But if the VAR and on-field referee should never disagree, that suggests there's no need for the referee to go to the screen (I know they have to due to IFAB's guidance, but it's just an unnecessary step at this point)

 

[RustyRef]

Yeah I know that, and that's where I agree with you.

But if the VAR and on-field referee should never disagree, that suggests there's no need for the referee to go to the screen (I know they have to due to IFAB's guidance, but it's just an unnecessary step at this point)

In principle yes, but we have seen a small number of incorrect review recommendations by VAR that the referees have rightly turned down and stuck with their on-field decision.