Palace v Man City FAC

[Runner Ref]

No, because a missed handball isn't a reviewable decision. The process would have been ...

• Handball happens, on pitch officials either miss it or don't realise it was outside the penalty area.
• VAR see it and will have communicated that a check was under way. They aren't checking whether it was handball or not, that was obvious, they are checking whether the handling caused a DOGSO.
• They deem it wasn't DOGSO, and as per the comments the commentators heard this was because they felt play was going too wide.
• As they deemed it wasn't DOGSO there was no clear and obvious error, so all they could do was check complete it.

There was nothing wrong with the VAR process here, it was entirely within the protocol and the only real debate is whether they were correct that it wasn't DOGSO. Personally I don't think they were, but that is subjective and some people do think there was sufficient doubt as to Haaland gaining control to make it obvious enough for DOGSO.

I would say far more annoying from a VAR perspective this weekend was the horrendous delay for the offside at West Ham, at almost 7 minutes long. And that wasn't down to the officials, rather PGMOL's / EPL's decision to develop their own semi-automated offside system rather than use one that has worked perfectly well in Europe for some time. It seems clear that it can't cope when players are in a crowd scene, which makes it all but useless at most set pieces, not a problem the other system seems to have.

And this is exactly the issue with VAR.

Bin it.

 

[RustyRef]

And this is exactly the issue with VAR.

Bin it.

Back in the real world, that isn't happening. If for no other reason if they did the very first incorrect decision would be jumped on my the fickle people in football and they'd be demanding technology back to help.

I sometimes think people forget how much moaning there was about refereeing decisions before VAR came along.

 

[JamesL]

I sometimes think people forget how much moaning there was about refereeing decisions before VAR came along.

I think it is worse now with VAR than it was before.

 

[Runner Ref]

Back in the real world, that isn't happening. If for no other reason if they did the very first incorrect decision would be jumped on my the fickle people in football and they'd be demanding technology back to help.

I sometimes think people forget how much moaning there was about refereeing decisions before VAR came along.

If buts and maybes.

The current guise of VAR is either not acceptable or the people running it aren't acceptable.

Things are worse now than they were before

 

[RustyRef]

I think it is worse now with VAR than it was before.

Swings and roundabouts I'd say, the ire now is more towards VAR and the process rather than the on-pitch officials.

To use an example, there's a sports journalist Danny Kelly who has always been hugely critical of referees, he's nearly 70 so has had plenty of years of practice and every weekend he would lay into refereeing decisions. For the past 4 or 5 years he has become more supportive of referees and his anger has turned towards VAR and the authorities. If VAR was scrapped, which realistically will never happen, what does anyone think will happen to his frustrations and anger? It would undoubtedly move back the officials, exactly where it was before VAR came along. People want perfection, and that is never going to happen whether we have VAR or not.

 

[JamesL]

Swings and roundabouts I'd say, the ire now is more towards VAR and the process rather than the on-pitch officials.

To use an example, there's a sports journalist Danny Kelly who has always been hugely critical of referees, he's nearly 70 so has had plenty of years of practice and every weekend he would lay into refereeing decisions. For the past 4 or 5 years he has become more supportive of referees and his anger has turned towards VAR and the authorities. If VAR was scrapped, which realistically will never happen, what does anyone think will happen to his frustrations and anger? It would undoubtedly move back the officials, exactly where it was before VAR came along. People want perfection, and that is never going to happen whether we have VAR or not.

I agree but just think that VAR ramped it up. It will never be eradicated

 

[DavidObs]

No, because a missed handball isn't a reviewable decision. The process would have been ...

• Handball happens, on pitch officials either miss it or don't realise it was outside the penalty area.
• VAR see it and will have communicated that a check was under way. They aren't checking whether it was handball or not, that was obvious, they are checking whether the handling caused a DOGSO.
• They deem it wasn't DOGSO, and as per the comments the commentators heard this was because they felt play was going too wide.
• As they deemed it wasn't DOGSO there was no clear and obvious error, so all they could do was check complete it.

There was nothing wrong with the VAR process here, it was entirely within the protocol and the only real debate is whether they were correct that it wasn't DOGSO. Personally I don't think they were, but that is subjective and some people do think there was sufficient doubt as to Haaland gaining control to make it obvious enough for DOGSO.

I would say far more annoying from a VAR perspective this weekend was the horrendous delay for the offside at West Ham, at almost 7 minutes long. And that wasn't down to the officials, rather PGMOL's / EPL's decision to develop their own semi-automated offside system rather than use one that has worked perfectly well in Europe for some time. It seems clear that it can't cope when players are in a crowd scene, which makes it all but useless at most set pieces, not a problem the other system seems to have.

If memory serves me right, the reason for PGMOL using their own semi automated system is because the ball sponsor is different to that used in Europe along with their technology.

 

[bester]

It's social media looking for clicks and engagement, refs are easy targets. Every dickhead and his mate has a tiktok or a YouTube.
Most of the outrage from fans towards refs is from people outside England.

 

[bester]

If memory serves me right, the reason for PGMOL using their own semi automated system is because the ball sponsor is different to that used in Europe along with their technology.

The ball chip isn't used in club European competitions.
The PGMO just decided that they could do better than what was already being used elsewhere.

 

[bloovee]

If the referee plays on that is still them making a decision, the decision is they play on and don't blow the whistle.

Play on from what? Every touch of the ball, every close contact, could be a "decision". You can't make a decision if you missed the event that needed a decision. It's almost a philosophical question - as in "The referee must always make a decision" and "The original decision given by the referee will not be changed" is a logical impossibility if the referee didn't know he had made a decision.

VAR may assist the referee only in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’" - but a serious missed incident is an error (one where the referee should have made a decision but missed the chance to make a decision).

 

[RustyRef]

Play on from what? Every touch of the ball, every close contact, could be a "decision". You can't make a decision if you missed the event that needed a decision. It's almost a philosophical question - as in "The referee must always make a decision" and "The original decision given by the referee will not be changed" is a logical impossibility if the referee didn't know he had made a decision.

VAR may assist the referee only in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’" - but a serious missed incident is an error (one where the referee should have made a decision but missed the chance to make a decision).

You are spectacularly missing the point, possibly because you have your blue tinted glasses on again (if they ever get taken off ). The officials made a decision, at least one of them must have seen that Henderson handled the ball but they either didn't realise it was outside of the penalty area or felt it wasn't intentional. That is making a decision, the decision they made was to play on rather than penalise, it was a wrong decision but it was still a decision. The "serious missed incident" would be the handball, but the definition of missed incident doesn't include handball as something they can get involved with. Which leaves clear and obvious error, but VAR checked that and deemed it wasn't DOGSO.

 

[RustyRef]

The ball chip isn't used in club European competitions.
The PGMO just decided that they could do better than what was already being used elsewhere.

Agree, my original understanding was that the chip was the issue but I've since learnt it isn't. The UEFA implementation doesn't use the chip, it was just the World Cup and Euros that did. For reasons that only they know, the EPL / PGMOL thought they could do better by developing their own system, and that is coming back to bite them in the derriere as it clearly doesn't work properly when there are crowds of players.

 

[bloovee]

You are spectacularly missing the point, possibly because you have your blue tinted glasses on again (if they ever get taken off ). The officials made a decision, at least one of them must have seen that Henderson handled the ball but they either didn't realise it was outside of the penalty area or felt it wasn't intentional. That is making a decision, the decision they made was to play on rather than penalise, it was a wrong decision but it was still a decision. The "serious missed incident" would be the handball, but the definition of missed incident doesn't include handball as something they can get involved with. Which leaves clear and obvious error, but VAR checked that and deemed it wasn't DOGSO.

We've moved on from that blunder to how the VAR protocol isn't fit for purpose. Even if you just put it down to an error by the VAR, what could be done to stop such howlers in the future?

You don't know that either ref or AR saw the handball at all - so we don't know if it was a clear and obvious error, or a missed incident.

 

[RustyRef]

We've moved on from that blunder to how the VAR protocol isn't fit for purpose. Even if you just put it down to an error by the VAR, what could be done to stop such howlers in the future?

You don't know that either ref or AR saw the handball at all - so we don't know if it was a clear and obvious error, or a missed incident.

I work in right and wrong, VAR clearly didn't make an error in what they did, or at least they certainly followed the protocol.

Could VAR be improved? Yes, and lets not forget that I was very against VAR as I never thought it would work. To re-hash the reason I've said time and time again, all other sports have almost exclusively black and white decisions that their video tech deals with, football has a small percentage of those and the rest are very subjective. Football was always on a hiding to nothing with it, but I keep coming back to the vast majority of football participants, be that players, managers, pundits, reporters, supporters, etc, wanted it, even if they don't now.

But it is here, it won't be going anywhere, so any discussions around whether the officials were right or wrong should be based purely on the protocol they have to operate to.

 

[one]

OK. Presumably the VAR intervenes because it's a missed incident. It's not "after the referee has made a (first/original) decision".

But if the VAR doesn't think it's DOGSO, is it technically a "missed incident"?

On top of what Rusty and James explained (that handbal is not a serious incident here, DOGSO is), using missed incident here is just creating a loophole that is not there. It's misusing what it was created for. A missed incident is for an incident that the referee hasn't seen (therefore unable to make a decision on), not one that he has seen, misjudged and made a decision based on the misjudgment.

If we use a missed incident here we may as well throw "clear and obvious" away. Any incident that doesn't pass clear and obvious would then be looked at as a missed incident because "he missed the foul".

But most SFPs are left to the referee to do an onfield review.

Thank you. therefore "some" are not. Either because they really are not clear and obvious errors or in some of those some cases, they are clear and obvious errors but VAR wrongly thinks they are not.

VAR corrects ref howlers. But there is no one to correct VAR howlers. We are still better off. The protocol doesn't fix everything but it is not wrong. We are still better with it than without it (I can't believe i said that) in terms of final outcome. But in terms of "side effects" like delays, emotions etc it's a different story.

 

[bloovee]

On top of what Rusty and James explained (that handbal is not a serious incident here, DOGSO is), using missed incident here is just creating a loophole that is not there. It's misusing what it was created for. A missed incident is for an incident that the referee hasn't seen (therefore unable to make a decision on), not one that he has seen, misjudged and made a decision based on the misjudgment.

If we use a missed incident here we may as well throw "clear and obvious" away. Any incident that doesn't pass clear and obvious would then be looked at as a missed incident because "he missed the foul".


Thank you. therefore "some" are not. Either because they really are not clear and obvious errors or in some of those some cases, they are clear and obvious errors but VAR wrongly thinks they are not.

VAR corrects ref howlers. But there is no one to correct VAR howlers. We are still better off. The protocol doesn't fix everything but it is not wrong. We are still better with it than without it (I can't believe i said that) in terms of final outcome. But in terms of "side effects" like delays, emotions etc it's a different story.

I hinted above about how to minimise VAR mistakes when the VAR is judge and jury. If the referee is told he's missed a KMI, rather than let the VAR compound his error, he should emulate Cromwell and ask, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken".

 

[Big Cat]

I hinted above about how to minimise VAR mistakes when the VAR is judge and jury. If the referee is told he's missed a KMI, rather than let the VAR compound his error, he should emulate Cromwell and ask, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken".

I understand where you're coming from overall and I think it's unfair to ignorantly discredit you with the 'blue tinted glasses' slur on this occasion when City have been spectacularly wronged in The FA Cup Final. We could all (nearly all) forgive you for feeling aggrieved on this occasion
Before I was corrupted into pleasing observers all the time, my philosophy of refereeing always worked for me. Given we referee a game which barely has a framework of rules (some unclear, some applied, some ignored, some opaque and all just a load of tosh), I'll abandon the rules (which we all do anyway) to reach the right outcome when unusual circumstances arise. After 8 seasons, I can say that works for me.
The VAR and Ref may have stuck to the protocol rigidly on this occasion (we don't know, it's just assumed they did), but it matters not to me because a very high profile and embarrassing outcome was reached. Given the arbitrary way in which football is refereed overall, you and I seem of a mind that there's easily enough leeway in this incident to adapt the protocol to reach the right outcome. There was a grey area, there was a paradoxical nature to the event, the protocol clearly can't foresee every nuanced incident and they should have done what they do with the entire book and adapt to the situation. The wrong outcome was reached and nothing else matters

 

[LothianRef]

The referee has never made a DOGSO decision at any point otherwise he would have given as a bare minimum a free kick. He can't possibly have thought "going away from goal so no red card", as for that to be considered there has to be an offence committed in the first place, and in this situation at no point was an offence identified onfield.

 

[DavidObs]

I understand where you're coming from overall and I think it's unfair to ignorantly discredit you with the 'blue tinted glasses' slur on this occasion when City have been spectacularly wronged in The FA Cup Final. We could all (nearly all) forgive you for feeling aggrieved on this occasion
Before I was corrupted into pleasing observers all the time, my philosophy of refereeing always worked for me. Given we referee a game which barely has a framework of rules (some unclear, some applied, some ignored, some opaque and all just a load of tosh), I'll abandon the rules (which we all do anyway) to reach the right outcome when unusual circumstances arise. After 8 seasons, I can say that works for me.
The VAR and Ref may have stuck to the protocol rigidly on this occasion (we don't know, it's just assumed they did), but it matters not to me because a very high profile and embarrassing outcome was reached. Given the arbitrary way in which football is refereed overall, you and I seem of a mind that there's easily enough leeway in this incident to adapt the protocol to reach the right outcome. There was a grey area, there was a paradoxical nature to the event, the protocol clearly can't foresee every nuanced incident and they should have done what they do with the entire book and adapt to the situation. The wrong outcome was reached and nothing else matters

No Referee has to be corrupted by an Observer. An Observer provides his/her opinion based upon the strengths they have identified & advise on developments identified. It’s up to the Referee to decide whether or not to agree with the advice receive and if so, to adopt the hopefully proposed remedy, or consider an alternative. There are many Referees who completely ignore provided advice & that is up to them & is fair enough, though my experience is that they will make their way up the pyramid (if that’s the direction they want to go), but probably not as quick. Each to their own & as you say, things work for you by doing your own thing. As to your final sentence - that’s a subjective view, whereby although it is ‘overall’ a fair reflection of the ‘general consensus, there are many who disagree (both from the public and Referees).

 

[Kes]

I'm glad we have VAR.

It hasn't (and won't) totally eradicate human error but at least we have less goals being scored through cheating.

The camera doesn't lie. It's what the human does with the info it gives that needs looking at.