A&H

Bournemouth v Leeds

The Referee Store
I believe that if the VAR believed it was a C&O PK and sends it down, once at the screen, and the R agrees it is a foul but not clearly inside the PA, the R gives the DFK. (Similar to the VAR sending down a send off and the R believes it is only a caution, the R gives the caution.)
 
socal lurker said:
I believe that if the VAR believed it was a C&O PK and sends it down, once at the screen, and the R agrees it is a foul but not clearly inside the PA, the R gives the DFK. (Similar to the VAR sending down a send off and the R believes it is only a caution, the R gives the caution.)
Click to expand...
Mr C didn't go to the screen. Just gave the FK but - seemingly - only after the VAR intervention.
 
I can't access the video, so I can only guess. My guess would be that the call on the field was the DFK (from the lead AR), and it was held up by the review to determine if it was in the PA for a PK. Once the review was complete, the R went forward with the call on the field.

It would not be proper to award a DFK for a HB from the VAR, regardless of how bad of a miss it was. And despite all the issues in the PL with VAR, I would be shocked if neither the VAR nor the R knew that--it would be a pretty egregious error to have given a DFK via VAR.)

(Unless, of course, it was DOGSO and a red card was coming or, I suppose, if the team that committed the handball obtained possession from the HB and took it to the other end to score or earn a PK, but I presume you would have mentioned any of those factors, which leaves me with my guess above as the most likely explanation.)
 
socal lurker said:
I can't access the video, so I can only guess. My guess would be that the call on the field was the DFK (from the lead AR), and it was held up by the review to determine if it was in the PA for a PK. Once the review was complete, the R went forward with the call on the field.

It would not be proper to award a DFK for a HB from the VAR, regardless of how bad of a miss it was. And despite all the issues in the PL with VAR, I would be shocked if neither the VAR nor the R knew that--it would be a pretty egregious error to have given a DFK via VAR.)

(Unless, of course, it was DOGSO and a red card was coming or, I suppose, if the team that committed the handball obtained possession from the HB and took it to the other end to score or earn a PK, but I presume you would have mentioned any of those factors, which leaves me with my guess above as the most likely explanation.)
Click to expand...
That guess is the only call that makes sense (other than a breach of the protocol). The AR was same side as the TV camera so out of shot, and the referee was nowhere near and was not seen to "make a decision" that VAR could rule on. If he had given a FK it was not obvious.
 
I was at the game...
The referee originally awarded a penalty kick. It was probably the latest award of a penalty I have ever seen (must have been talking to lino on comms).
Then the age for var to look at the decision and decide it was outside..
 
bloovee said:
VAR reviewed a claim for a handling offence that the referee didn't give (Chris Cavanagh, caught a long way behind play) - and apparently agreed it was handball but outside the PA, and a DFK was awarded.

If it wasn't a penalty, why did VAR get involved to award a free kick?

35 mins on MotD2 https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001llll/match-of-the-day-2-202223-30042023
Click to expand...
If you have a read of Section 2 of the VAR rules on the IFAB website, you will see that the procedure was applied correctly.
 
Possible DOGSO and possible PK are both valid reasons to initiate a review. Once the review has been started, any decision is possible - and if that decision is based on factual elements (such as position of a foul), that can be communicated directly rather than via the screen.

I also agree with Socal, in that I wouldn't be 100% confident saying there isn't an on-field foul decision. In theory, if the on-field officials gave HB then a review could occur to confirm the location (regardless of if DFK or PK was the original call) and would also confirm the original call in the process.

I think if no foul was the on-field decision, you would expect a call to the monitor to confirm the overrule because there are subjective elements to that. So I think the previous scenario where we just don't see the on-field decision is more likely.

(also FYI, Kavanagh would be Mr K!)
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
If you have a read of Section 2 of the VAR rules on the IFAB website, you will see that the procedure was applied correctly.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean "location of offence (inside or outside the penalty area)" but see OP: "a handling offence that the referee didn't give". IF he didn't give it (he certainly didn't run to the place of the incident and indicate a FK, or a GK if he'd decided to play on, and the only whistle heard on TV was 8 seconds after the incident) and as it wasn't in the PA then it wasn't for VAR to intervene.

Let's just say that no onfield decision was obvious on TV (or to the players).
 
GraemeS said:
Possible DOGSO and possible PK are both valid reasons to initiate a review. Once the review has been started, any decision is possible - and if that decision is based on factual elements (such as position of a foul), that can be communicated directly rather than via the screen.

I also agree with Socal, in that I wouldn't be 100% confident saying there isn't an on-field foul decision. In theory, if the on-field officials gave HB then a review could occur to confirm the location (regardless of if DFK or PK was the original call) and would also confirm the original call in the process.

I think if no foul was the on-field decision, you would expect a call to the monitor to confirm the overrule because there are subjective elements to that. So I think the previous scenario where we just don't see the on-field decision is more likely.

(also FYI, Kavanagh would be Mr K!)
Click to expand...
Any decision? We've surely been told umpteen times that if the referee doesn't call a foul but VAR reviews it to see if it was a foul in the penalty area but thinks it was a foul but outside the PA then the original decision applies.
 
Last edited:
I mean, I think we're into the knotty area of what is a check and what is a review, and what the VAR can do vs what the ref can do once called to the screen.

My understanding is that they need to call a formal review on possible PK in order to make sure he delays the restart, up until that point it's only a "check". Once that has been done, they then have to establish the correct restart. Having said all that, I think it's a moot point because I don't think this is what actually happened.

Like I say, if they're instructing him to give a FK when he originally didn't, I think that would necessitate a visit to the monitor. The fact that didn't happen suggests that HB was the on-field decision (possibly after consult with the AR given CK's position and the fact the HB was goal-side of the defender, which might explain the fact we don't hear it on the clip and player don't appear to act like HB has been given) and the VAR was only confirming position, which is objective fact and so can be communicated via earpiece.
 
bloovee said:
I assume you mean "location of offence (inside or outside the penalty area)" but see OP: "a handling offence that the referee didn't give". IF he didn't give it (he certainly didn't run to the place of the incident and indicate a FK, or a GK if he'd decided to play on, and the only whistle heard on TV was 8 seconds after the incident) and as it wasn't in the PA then it wasn't for VAR to intervene.

Let's just say that no onfield decision was obvious on TV (or to the players).
Click to expand...
To quote the protocol:

In all these situations, the VAR is only used after the referee has made a (first/original) decision (including allowing play to continue), or if a serious incident is missed/not seen by the match officials.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
To quote the protocol:

In all these situations, the VAR is only used after the referee has made a (first/original) decision (including allowing play to continue), or if a serious incident is missed/not seen by the match officials.
Click to expand...
(Written before seeing Grombot's post above)

How would we know what the original decision was? (Let's be frank - "allowing play to continue" looks very much like not making a decision, as we're allowing play to continue throughout the match unless we stop play.)

Either an original decision for a FK was not clear (e.g. given by Mr K or the AR but no-one seemed to realise - you'd whistle to stop play for a handball FK, wouldn't you?) or the original decision was not a FK, and VAR checked the incident, told the referee it was handball but outside the PA (so no going to the screen as it wasn't a penalty) and the FK was awarded when it shouldn't have been.

As we never get an explanation from VAR, I guess that's that.
 
Last edited:
bloovee said:
How would we know what the original decision was? (Let's be frank - "allowing play to continue" looks very much like not making a decision, as we're allowing play to continue throughout the match unless we stop play.)

Either an original decision for a FK was not clear (e.g. given by Mr K or the AR but no-one seemed to realise - you'd whistle to stop play for a handball FK, wouldn't you?) or the original decision was not a FK, and VAR checked the incident, told the referee it was handball but outside the PA (so no going to the screen as it wasn't a penalty) and the FK was awarded when it shouldn't have been.

As we never get an explanation from VAR, I guess that's that.
Click to expand...
Did you notice the post above where someone who was at the game posted that the R originally signaled for a PK?

I’d also note that letting play con is a decision—it is a decision that there was no offense warranting stopping play. The VAR can only intervene if the VAR identifies a reviewable error. A DFK would not qualify.
 
socal lurker said:
Did you notice the post above where someone who was at the game posted that the R originally signaled for a PK?

I’d also note that letting play con is a decision—it is a decision that there was no offense warranting stopping play. The VAR can only intervene if the VAR identifies a reviewable error. A DFK would not qualify.
Click to expand...
No, I'd missed it. End the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top