A&H

Australian A-League grand final decided by VAR error

C

CapnBloodbeard

RefChat Addict
eQ_RzT21eQk2pnMHPeTTLkaKmFXsF7Cx7v_VfOYRjzg.jpg


Posting because I know a few people like to comment on how VAR is going in general.
This is from the A-League grand final that just finished. Melbourne Victory in white, Newcastle Jets in blue. From this kick one of the MV players up the top heads the ball while challenging a defender, ball goes back into the middle, shot is taken then there's an own goal. This was the only goal of the game.

Ridiculous VAR decision, which given what we've seen in Australia isn't really surprising (There's been a number of incorrect VAR decisions in the finals campaign).

Of course, it shouldn't have gone to VAR. This was a pretty easy one for the AR to get right live.

Videos (first link will work - the others may be geoblocked if you want to see anything else)
https://streamable.com/pdws1

https://www.foxsports.com.au/footba...l/news-story/d882224d1e45e6e207b1fdaa0202050a

https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/vid...rouses-nets-earliest-goal-in-grand-final-hist

If anybody is interested, also have a look at this. Absolutely disgusting challenge from a player who has copped 8 week suspensions on more than one occasion. I did like the ref getting the red card out immediately there.
8921eb6e3034a097f4158482ffaff2a0

https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/8h75ug
https://www.foxsports.com.au/footba...s/news-story/7c5859a2f5f9b0f9b884e9d521110cf6
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
So they were not following the protocol then. It says that the VAR has to get the same video as is being broadcast to the viewers, commentators etc.
For integrity/transparency/credibility, the VAR, assisted by a replay operator (RO), will have independent access to, and replay control of, all broadcast ‘feeds’ so any review uses the same footage as that which may be seen on television.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grove said:
So they were not following the protocol then. It says that the VAR has to get the same video as is being broadcast to the viewers, commentators etc.
Click to expand...

I dare say that's what the software was supposed to be doing. I'm guessing they can't take the actual TV broadcast because it'll have commentary which might influence the VAR.

I am a professional software engineer and I have every sympathy with the programmers. It sounds like it's been used all season without a glitch so this is probably not a bug that's been missed through inadequate testing. I'd love to know the details.
 
It's ridiculous that there isn't a Plan B in place here.
Another TV on an uncontrollable broadcast feed and a mute button would do the job. Or go to the broadcast room.....
Of course, I'd love to know what went wrong with the AR as well, but that's a separate matter. This was the fallback position and it failed. Because of this, not only was the grand final decided, but this also determined which team gets to compete in the Asian Champions League.

One betting company actually refunded $130 000 worth of bets for this. I have no doubt they think most of that will just go straight back into other bets so they're not really losing all that money, but it's interesting.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
It's ridiculous that there isn't a Plan B in place here.
Another TV on an uncontrollable broadcast feed and a mute button would do the job. Or go to the broadcast room.....
Of course, I'd love to know what went wrong with the AR as well, but that's a separate matter. This was the fallback position and it failed. Because of this, not only was the grand final decided, but this also determined which team gets to compete in the Asian Champions League.

One betting company actually refunded $130 000 worth of bets for this. I have no doubt they think most of that will just go straight back into other bets so they're not really losing all that money, but it's interesting.
Click to expand...
Disagree with this bit - we all know that fouls can look a lot worse in slow-motion and we all know how much broadcasters love some juicy, misleading slow-mo! VAR protocol is written to ensure slow-mo is not used for judging severity of fouls, so for that reason, a muted TV feed doesn't really do the job.

The principal of VAR only being a double-check and the on-field decision being the default is correct. What that doesn't excuse is how bad the on-field decision was.
 
GraemeS said:
The principal of VAR only being a double-check and the on-field decision being the default is correct. What that doesn't excuse is how bad the on-field decision was.
Click to expand...
Sadly this points up a too little discussed side effect of using VARs
With VAR in place any AR confronted with a reasonably close decision is more likely to keep their flag down. Subconciously they will think "if I flag offside the ref will stop play - and if TV shows I am wrong I will have prevented a possible goal. If I don't flag and a goal is scored the VAR will prevent an unfair goal being awarded". Which is fine, until the VAR feed fouls up.
 
ManinMiddle said:
Sadly this points up a too little discussed side effect of using VARs
With VAR in place any AR confronted with a reasonably close decision is more likely to keep their flag down. Subconciously they will think "if I flag offside the ref will stop play - and if TV shows I am wrong I will have prevented a possible goal. If I don't flag and a goal is scored the VAR will prevent an unfair goal being awarded". Which is fine, until the VAR feed fouls up.
Click to expand...
But I think it's important to still frame that as a flaw in the current VAR system, due to the fact that every single decision is checked. If the AR knows that only a limited number of checks can be carried out, the incentive to go with the "let play carry on" decision is removed.
 
ManinMiddle said:
Sadly this points up a too little discussed side effect of using VARs
With VAR in place any AR confronted with a reasonably close decision is more likely to keep their flag down. Subconciously they will think "if I flag offside the ref will stop play - and if TV shows I am wrong I will have prevented a possible goal. If I don't flag and a goal is scored the VAR will prevent an unfair goal being awarded". Which is fine, until the VAR feed fouls up.
Click to expand...
1525741979241.png

ARs are actually asked to delay their flag if there is doubt. but that could cause them to not flag at all after the delay if there is any uncertainty, with the reason you explained. What should happen is that as soon as there is an issue with the VAR system, the officials on the field should be informed so it doesn't impact on their decision making.

In this incident the officials were put in an impossible situation. If the AR thought it was offside with some doubt, he should still keep the flag down, but then after the goal was scored he should have flagged it. It would have been a very late call causing all sorts of problems. So he keeps the flag down and waits for the VAR to confirm it. In all likelihood they are told then the system is down. Would you then, 30 seconds after the offence, tell the referee "i think it was offside". And if you are the referee, if your AR tells you that so late with some level of doubt, disallow a goal?
This is just a let down by a poor system and protocol.

1525742835383.png
1525742872251.png

I don't see anywhere in the protocol that any of the on field officials should be informed. And i am not sure if they were ever informed before the incident.
 
Trip said:
I'm guessing they can't take the actual TV broadcast because it'll have commentary which might influence the VAR.
Click to expand...
And yet, that is exactly what the protocol says they must have. It states that "any [VAR] review uses the same footage as that which may be seen on television." It doesn't say they have to listen to the commentary - and even if they did, any competent match official should be able to ignore the (frequently erroneous) comments made by a commentator - I know I usually ignore whatever the pundits and commentators say when it comes to a question of the law.
GraemeS said:
But I think it's important to still frame that as a flaw in the current VAR system, due to the fact that every single decision is checked.
Click to expand...
That's not true - every decision is not checked, only those that fall into the four pre-defined categories.

The protocol states that the VAR system "limits the use of VARs to 4 categories of decision/incident:
a. Goals
b. Penalty decisions
c. Red card incidents
d. Mistaken identity"
 
ManinMiddle said:
Sadly this points up a too little discussed side effect of using VARs
With VAR in place any AR confronted with a reasonably close decision is more likely to keep their flag down. Subconciously they will think "if I flag offside the ref will stop play - and if TV shows I am wrong I will have prevented a possible goal. If I don't flag and a goal is scored the VAR will prevent an unfair goal being awarded". Which is fine, until the VAR feed fouls up.
Click to expand...
Yep, I think this is happening. AR's in particular shouldn't be affected in the slightest by VAR - they shouldn't have been flagging if they had any doubt to start with. So if they're now not flagging, either they were guessing before, or they don't have the guts to make a decision now. Either way, VAR is killing refereeing. It already seems like the referees are using the VAR as a crutch and avoiding making decisions.
However, that weak approach, which is against the laws, doesn't consider the fact that not a lot of decisions would be 'clear and obvious' (I like to call it 'inarguable'). A foul may be given, and it may be correct - but were it not given, the VAR couldn't necessarily say that the foul is inarguable.

And there's the horrendous accuracy rate that we have. It's funny, because the VAR screwed up so badly on so many occasions earlier in the season, FFA brought in a rule that the VAR can't upgrade a yellow card to VC/SFP. So now we see referees giving yellow cards for horrendous challenges that the VAR isn't even allowed to rule on (although it's a coin toss as to whether the VAR would have ruled correctly anyway....)
 
Peter Grove said:
And yet, that is exactly what the protocol says they must have. It states that "any [VAR] review uses the same footage as that which may be seen on television."
Click to expand...

The actual TV broadcast is not the same thing as "the same footage" as the TV. Both the broadcast company and the VAR system will get the same A/V feeds from the company that does the OB, which follows the protocol. They will each process those feeds using (different) software. Apparently the software the VARs were using failed. That does not mean they are allowed to turn the telly on to see what happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Trip said:
The actual TV broadcast is not the same thing as "the same footage" as the TV. Both the broadcast company and the VAR system will get the same A/V feeds from the company that does the OB, which follows the protocol. They will each process those feeds using (different) software. Apparently the software the VARs were using failed. That does not mean they are allowed to turn the telly on to see what happened.
Click to expand...
I concur with this. As an analogy, if the power goes out in the VAR room for 3 minutes (similar to the software crashes and takes three minutes to come back on), there is nothing that can be done.

Just having a TV there and watching it with(out) commentary and making VAR decisions based on the standard broadcast wont work and is very dangerous. You don't get all different angles, you can't freeze at the right times or replays of what you want to see again etc etc. Basically all the functions that the software give you to allow an informed and tech assisted decision wont be there.
 
So, Plan A failed, Plan B failed, and Plan C wasn’t allowed because it may give a dodgy angle??? Wow, what have they invented here! Total Dogs Dinner IMO, at least Plan C may of dug you out of the first 2 failed plans!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
So, Plan A failed, Plan B failed, and Plan C wasn’t allowed because it may give a dodgy angle??? Wow, what have they invented here! Total Dogs Dinner IMO, at least Plan C may of dug you out of the first 2 failed plans!
Click to expand...
It could have possibly worked for this incident, but if it is included as part of the protocol, on another incident, it could turn a good decision to a bad one (because of lack angles, replays etc). No plan C.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top