Palace DOGSO

[Ori]

Surprised no one has posted on this.

Referee on field decision was yellow card and he was called to monitor to review. Referee stuck to his decision and for me that is excellent as I believe a yellow card was the correct decision.
Saying that, let’s see what you all think.

For me the touch took him away from goal and in fact he went down when he thought he wouldn’t reach the ball where he wanted it to be.

 

[Ori]

And here is the discussion on refwatch.

Log in to Facebook

Log in to Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[es1]

likelihood of control - definite yes
proximity to the goal - control of the ball would have occured within the penalty area
general direction of play - will be directly towards goal once ball is controlled
proximity of defenders - closing but imo not quick enough

2 potential question marks but i dont think either of them are strong enough to say this isnt dogso

 

[Ori]

likelihood of control - definite yes
proximity to the goal - control of the ball would have occured within the penalty area
general direction of play - will be directly towards goal once ball is controlled
proximity of defenders - closing but imo not quick enough

2 potential question marks but i dont think either of them are strong enough to say this isnt dogso

I’ll agree with most of that except direction of play was taking him wider.

Is it a clear an obvious error for VAR to get involved?

 

[es1]

I’ll agree with most of that except direction of play was taking him wider.

Is it a clear an obvious error for VAR to get involved?

i think the 'wideness' is a reg herring - he is going wide but he's not going to continue on that trajectory, he's going to turn and run directly at goal from a slight angle.

i think it's probably borderline for a clear and obvious error

 

[Ori]

Should have added option of yes to DOGSO, but isn’t clear and obvious for VAR to get involved.

 

[RustyRef]

likelihood of control - definite yes
proximity to the goal - control of the ball would have occured within the penalty area
general direction of play - will be directly towards goal once ball is controlled
proximity of defenders - closing but imo not quick enough

2 potential question marks but i dont think either of them are strong enough to say this isnt dogso

Playing devil’s advocate though, if there are any potential question marks should VAR be recommending a review. Can the original decision be clearly and obviously wrong if there are question marks?

 

[es1]

Playing devil’s advocate though, if there are any potential question marks should VAR be recommending a review. Can the original decision be clearly and obviously wrong if there are question marks?

yeah answered below that it may not be a clear and obvious error, that said a question mark here shouldn't preclude it

 

[one]

Once the referee is on the screen, rightly or wrongly, do they need to follow the 'clear and obvous' philosophy?

(The video clip is blocked for me so I can't actually see the incident.)

 

[es1]

Once the referee is on the screen, rightly or wrongly, do they need to follow the 'clear and obvous' philosophy?

(The video clip is blocked for me so I can't actually see the incident.)

i was thinking this!

if they look at the video, decide they're wrong but not made a clear and obvious error, what's the expected outcome?!

 

[one]

i was thinking this!

if they look at the video, decide they're wrong but not made a clear and obvious error, what's the expected outcome?!

My understanding is that they should change their decision but I don't know if there is a direct guidance on this from IFAB.

I base this on, if they think they were wrong they can change their decision before a restrat without a review. So I don't see why they can't with it.

 

[RefereeX]

Clear and Obvious only comes in to the VAR's decision making as to when to recommend a review. The on field referee, once viewing it on the screen, will then (or should then) make whatever decision they deem to be correct, regardless of the clear and obvious threshold.

 

[JamesL]

Can't see the clip as I don't use Facebook.

 

[socal lurker]

Clear and Obvious only comes in to the VAR's decision making as to when to recommend a review. The on field referee, once viewing it on the screen, will then (or should then) make whatever decision they deem to be correct, regardless of the clear and obvious threshold.

I don’t think that is technically correct. The VAR protocols say:

3. The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a ‘clear and obvious error’.​

The Laws do not only say the VAR will only recommen, but that the R decision will not be changed. And it is only the R that makes the decision.

I do think, however, that in practical terms, if the VAR recommends bceuae he thinks it is C&O error, the R is generally going to reverse if he believes the reversal would be the better decision.

​

 

[RustyRef]

Clear and Obvious only comes in to the VAR's decision making as to when to recommend a review. The on field referee, once viewing it on the screen, will then (or should then) make whatever decision they deem to be correct, regardless of the clear and obvious threshold.

But what do they then do if it is still subjective? And I think that is what this is, the attacker is going very wide and there's an argument that there's a defender getting back. I would assume Gillett has looked at and said those two factors meant it wasn't DOGSO.

 

[Russell Jones]

Overall, I feel this is a great clip to illustrate a slight gap in our overall DOGSO approach. Whilst it's an inexact and significantly oversimplified view of the OP, the overall question in my mind is whether a shot at (a guarded) goal from at / near the "apex point" of the penalty area (ie where the horizontal & vertical lines meet) is deemed to be Obvious enough for OGSO. In other words, how Obvious does Obvious need to be!!

 

[one]

3. The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a ‘clear and obvious error’.

This is basicaly saying if the refere thinks he has made a mistake but it is not a bad mistake, he shoud ignore it.

It goes against the VAR original principle of minimum impcat, maximum benefit. The impact is alrady there by VAR sending the referee to the screen. But instead of gaining some benefit out of it, the protocol prevents any benefit being gained. Doesnt make sense to me.

 

[RefereeX]

Overall, I feel this is a great clip to illustrate a slight gap in our overall DOGSO approach. Whilst it's an inexact and significantly oversimplified view of the OP, the overall question in my mind is whether a shot at (a guarded) goal from at / near the "apex point" of the penalty area (ie where the horizontal & vertical lines meet) is deemed to be Obvious enough for OGSO. In other words, how Obvious does Obvious need to be!!

Agree - we often hear the words 'his next action will be a shot at goal' but realistically, a shot at goal isn't always an obvious goal SCORING opportunity. I could shoot from 40 yards if I had the ball unopposed but while it's obvious I'd get a shot away, it's far from obvious I'd be likely to score.

 

[RefereeX]

This is basicaly saying if the refere thinks he has made a mistake but it is not a bad mistake, he shoudnt ignore it.

It goes against the VAR original principle of minimum impcat, maximum benefit. The impact is alrady there by VAR sending the referee to the screen. But instead of gaining some benefit out of it, the protocol prevents any benefit being gained. Doesnt make sense to me.

Agree - the idea of clear and obvious is the principle of 'not re-refereeing the game'. Once the VAR recommends a review, you're already taking that time out of the game, so whether he changes his decision or not, there is no further impact to the delay of the match etc. He should then give whatever decision he believes to be correct regardless of whether he thinks it's an obvious change from his first decision or not.
Obviously I'm not disputing whatever the protocol is or isn't, but surely that's the way it should be.
But again, you're always massively more likely to see a referee change his decision when he goes to the monitor - that's because 95%* of the time his decision will be obviously wrong, and the other 5%* of the time where it's subjective, he's still going to edge with changing it because 2 other experienced referees are of the opinion it's obviously wrong, even if the ref himself isn't. That's going to create pressure to change it naturally.

*These figures are based on nothing but my imagination

Also, add a blanket 'or she/her' to everywhere I've type he/him above.

 

[socal lurker]

Might as well put it here—MLS end of season stats showed 85% of reviews were accepted. So about 1 in 7 times the R kept original decision. This seems high to me,but perhaps has something to do with MLS seemingly having a lower bar for C&O.