A&H

TOT v LIV

Status
Not open for further replies.
CaptainsPlease said:
I don't think the VAR puts up the 'checking disallowed goal' themselves. The explanation makes sense for how fast the check was completed and the VAR would be expected to say 'check complete' if not changing the on-field decision. It's probably the simplest explanation for what happened but that's no reason to doubt it, it seems most likely to me. It's enormously embarrassing to have that happen and I don't know what referees doubting that explanation are suggesting actually happened.
Click to expand...
Until we see some evidence there is still a theory, as Gary Neville alluded too, that no check was made and no lines were drawn, and they they restarted the game too quickly. Maybe Darren England and Michael Oliver were jet lagged from their game in UAE on Thursday night?
We need to see the full evidence as I still cannot understand how a whole VAR team cannot see that the goal was disallowed.
The UAE comment was a comic aside, but that’s maybe for another thread, but why this was allowed to happen? and officials in that game allowed to be involved in such a crucial Saturday game?
 
The Referee Store
I’ve been hearing that Darren England thought the On Field Decision was onside, hence why he didn’t bother drawing lines etc?

Not sure about the validity of thay
 
george.g said:
I’ve been hearing that Darren England thought the On Field Decision was onside, hence why he didn’t bother drawing lines etc?

Not sure about the validity of thay
Click to expand...
Really hard to understand that, if so why was the flag up, why didn’t Diaz celebrate, why was the whole stadium cheering. ‘When your in a hole stop digging’, as these explanations are not helping at all.
 
Since when does ‘check complete’ mean you can’t intervene again? And by that, when Darren England confirms it’s a goal and then everyone is then setting up for a free kick, why isn’t he screaming at them saying ‘it’s a goal!’.
 
Tim Punter said:
Really hard to understand that, if so why was the flag up, why didn’t Diaz celebrate, why was the whole stadium cheering. ‘When your in a hole stop digging’, as these explanations are not helping at all.
Click to expand...
Maybe because he checked it, then had a big lapse in concentration and just said 'check complete' without thinking about the on-field decision?
QuaverRef said:
Since when does ‘check complete’ mean you can’t intervene again? And by that, when Darren England confirms it’s a goal and then everyone is then setting up for a free kick, why isn’t he screaming at them saying ‘it’s a goal!’.
Click to expand...
They had already set up for the free kick as the on-field decision was offside? When VAR says 'check complete' then the referee could signal for the restart to be taken immediately, once that happens it's too late to change it.
 
Can anyone confirm, in EPL how many officials are appointed to a game in the AVR room and their roles? Surely it was not only Darren England in the room.
 
one said:
Can anyone confirm, in EPL how many officials are appointed to a game in the AVR room and their roles? Surely it was not only Darren England in the room.
Click to expand...
There is a VAR and an AVAR (Dan Cook for this game).
There is also a replay operator but they are not a match official.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
Maybe because he checked it, then had a big lapse in concentration and just said 'check complete' without thinking about the on-field decision?

They had already set up for the free kick as the on-field decision was offside? When VAR says 'check complete' then the referee could signal for the restart to be taken immediately, once that happens it's too late to change it.
Click to expand...

This is where I don't understand it, surely the VAR must of been seeing they were setting up for a free kick and should be telling Simon Hooper to stop play because he's given onside and not offside.

The scrutiny is now heating up on Howard Webb now, he's under massive pressure now but I do feel sorry for him. He has a clear objective how VAR wants to be used but if his officials makes major errors such as this, what can he do?

I do think making his apologies so public is not helping mind, the Wolves one is a bad error but it's a subjective decision, that was throwing officials under the bus unfairly I feel. The only time he should be apologising to clubs is when factual errors such as this occurs which has happened at least 2 other times which is far too many.
 
I’ve said it before, but they need to sense check the IT tech skills, communication, articulation capabilities of putting EPL referees who are very skilled working on grass but may not be suited to sitting in a studio.

A start would be stop the ‘matey’ conversations & using colleagues nicknames during conversation. Practice not talking over each other.

The Comms from rugby & cricket seem so much more structured and professional.

Surely a basic pre-requisite is communicate the VAR decision to referee, who then repeats back that decision and restart to ensure you don’t have a misunderstanding.

It really isn’t that difficult.
 
DJIC said:
I’ve said it before, but they need to sense check the IT tech skills, communication, articulation capabilities of putting EPL referees who are very skilled working on grass but may not be suited to sitting in a studio.

A start would be stop the ‘matey’ conversations & using colleagues nicknames during conversation. Practice not talking over each other.

The Comms from rugby & cricket seem so much more structured and professional.

Surely a basic pre-requisite is communicate the VAR decision to referee, who then repeats back that decision and restart to ensure you don’t have a misunderstanding.

It really isn’t that difficult.
Click to expand...

Basic radio communication 101. You use specific language and confirm back key messages.
 
in reality the AR shouldn’t have got that decision wrong in the first place, as it wasn’t borderline or close. But he’s got away with it because of the VAR
 
Worth noting that rugby TMOs always end by confirming the restart, whatever the decision or circumstances. That seems an easy fix.

Tackles like Curtis Jones’s seem to be going through a similar evolution to head contact in rugby: from intent-based (careless, reckless, excessive force) to consequence-based (where did he make contact, is there any mitigation). Similar idea across rugby and football that the tackler has a duty of care towards the tackled player.

Slightly tougher to get right, but a similar protocol (start with red if there’s studs-up contact on the shin or above, mitigate down if appropriate) might simplify the process.
 
David F said:
Slightly tougher to get right, but a similar protocol (start with red if there’s studs-up contact on the shin or above, mitigate down if appropriate) might simplify the process.
Click to expand...

I think the considerations used are already in place to approach something like that. The point and mode of contact starts you at red and then you ask if speed, force, and level of contact can justify only a yellow.
 
David F said:
It feels like there’s a lot they could learn from rugby in developing clearer VAR protocols for how these discussions unfold. There’s a reason rugby TMOs say “you may award the try” and not “yep, check complete”.
Click to expand...
To add to this very good point, in rugby, the referee and 'VAR' have a conversation throughout the video review. The conversation starts with something like "on field decision is no try..."
 
It’s a clanger initially by the AR, and a big one at that.

Then VAR has made things worse.

What I’m seeing online and from the posts on here, the decision basically comes down to poor communication, and nothing else. Not sure I agree on the comments about them being too ‘matey’; calling each other by a nickname is fairly standard on comms and hardly the end of the world. But I guess they will introduce standard terminology for everyone to use.
 
Runner-Ref said:
It’s a clanger initially by the AR, and a big one at that.

Then VAR has made things worse.

What I’m seeing online and from the posts on here, the decision basically comes down to poor communication, and nothing else. Not sure I agree on the comments about them being too ‘matey’; calling each other by a nickname is fairly standard on comms and hardly the end of the world. But I guess they will introduce standard terminology for everyone to use.
Click to expand...
They use nicknames in cricket when umpires are discussing so shouldn't be a huge issue.
 
DJIC said:
I’ve said it before, but they need to sense check the IT tech skills, communication, articulation capabilities of putting EPL referees who are very skilled working on grass but may not be suited to sitting in a studio.

A start would be stop the ‘matey’ conversations & using colleagues nicknames during conversation. Practice not talking over each other.

The Comms from rugby & cricket seem so much more structured and professional.

Surely a basic pre-requisite is communicate the VAR decision to referee, who then repeats back that decision and restart to ensure you don’t have a misunderstanding.

It really isn’t that difficult.
Click to expand...
Yes, this.

Listening to VAR conversations you can hear how random and different they are.

For me that the operators just don’t have the education, background and sufficient training level is a part of why the protocol is fatally flawed. ( it’s the wrong people doing the wrong job and that sets up the whole process to fail)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top