Chelsea-Newcastle

[David F]

Someone more in the know than me - is there any protocol for what the referee and VAR actually say to each other? When incidents like the Havertz elbow happen in rugby, the conversations themselves (which are broadcast) are clear and systematic: “what I’m seeing is direct contact to the head, with force, and no mitigating circumstances… therefore a red card”. Are the top level refs talking like that or is it more of a conversation?

It seems like maybe the more outcome-based approach of rugby to foul play makes it easier to apply clear and consistent logic, whereas the subjective “reckless vs excessive force” question is harder to break down into a consistent set of steps to follow.

 

[socal lurker]

Google “pro referee week in review” and you’ll Find a bunch of videos evaluating actual use of VAR in MLS and how the officials talk. The VAR will recommend a review f or a specific thing, and then show the clips to help the R make a final decision.

 

[one]

Some seem to think that VAR and R should have a discussion and an explanation of why R made the decision he did before VAR decides if it was a clear an obvious error. This is not right if it ever happens. It's akin to refereeing the game and in contrast with C&O error process. A decision is either clearly wrong or not. The process to get there should not have a say. In other words, C&O is about the final decision and not the reasoning or the process behind it.

 

[GraemeS]

Some seem to think that VAR and R should have a discussion and an explanation of why R made the decision he did before VAR decides if it was a clear an obvious error. This is not right if it ever happens. It's akin to refereeing the game and in contrast with C&O error process. A decision is either clearly wrong or not. The process to get there should not have a say. In other words, C&O is about the final decision and not the reasoning or the process behind it.

The entire problem with VAR (OK, maybe not all, but most) is that this statement in bold isn't true.

@David F asks a perfectly fair question that I've also asked many times - given the system used is rugby works relatively well, why are we making up a whole new system instead of using that?

 

[Big Cat]

TBF to VAR, this Murphy PK controversy wasn't as bad as when Ederson wiped out Fraser earlier in the season
So I think VAR is potentially improving

 

[GraemeS]

TBF to VAR, this Murphy PK controversy wasn't as bad as when Ederson wiped out Fraser earlier in the season
So I think VAR is improving

Weirdly, as someone who is generally in favour of VAR, I think this is one of the worst weekends they've had in a while! Certainly in terms of missed KMI's there are some pretty indefensible decisions this weekend, where normally you can at least understand why the VAR made the decision they did even if you disagree.

 

[one]

Weirdly, as someone who is generally in favour of VAR, I think this is one of the worst weekends they've had in a while! Certainly in terms of missed KMI's there are some pretty indefensible decisions this weekend, where normally you can at least understand why the VAR made the decision they did even if you disagree.

Two weeks is a fair definition of 'a while'

VAR in EPL has just not delivered what it promised. Improve it fast or get rid of it. But I'm afraid neither is going to happen anytime soon.

 

[RefIADad]

Two weeks is a fair definition of 'a while'

VAR in EPL has just not delivered what it promised. Improve it fast or get rid of it. But I'm afraid neither is going to happen anytime soon.

The first thing that has to happen is Mike Riley needs to be replaced. He’s just not the answer, and things are not getting any better. I don’t know who the right person is (but I’d say Howard Webb, currently PRO’s GM in the US, would be one of the first phone calls), but Mike Riley just is not leading PGMOL in the manner it needs to be led. From the haphazard implementation of VAR to a real lack of improvement in the newly promoted Select Group and FIFA referees in England, it’s not working.

 

[lincs22]

Just contrast this with the England Rugby sending off on Saturday. Just a review, once identified that head contact had happened, then he was off. No need to consider intent, etc.

Havertz didn't need to jump from that far away to challenge. Once he had made decision, if the arm was above shoulder high and there was head contact, it should have been a RC. Ignore intent here, just consider his actions. Similarly with the PIADM / boot to the head. Once contact was established, then RC should have followed. The defender didn't need to challenge like that.

Just look at the correct decision in the Arsenal game - PK & YC, as the ball hit the hand but didn't have the momentum to cross the line. That was VAR used correctly.

 

[Big Cat]

Just contrast this with the England Rugby sending off on Saturday. Just a review, once identified that head contact had happened, then he was off. No need to consider intent, etc.

Havertz didn't need to jump from that far away to challenge. Once he had made decision, if the arm was above shoulder high and there was head contact, it should have been a RC. Ignore intent here, just consider his actions. Similarly with the PIADM / boot to the head. Once contact was established, then RC should have followed. The defender didn't need to challenge like that.

Just look at the correct decision in the Arsenal game - PK & YC, as the ball hit the hand but didn't have the momentum to cross the line. That was VAR used correctly.

Lincs
VAR has no business getting involved in the elbowing incident
Now, we may disagree on that, which is exactly why VAR will never get anywhere near eliminating controversy

 

[Kes]

Lincs
VAR has no business getting involved in the elbowing incident
Now, we may disagree on that, which is exactly why VAR will never get anywhere near eliminating controversy

Agreed (I think).

I've never really gotten involved in any of the numerous previous threads we've had on here regarding the implementation and the use of VAR because in truth, I'm still not sure I understand the "Clear & Obvious Error" concept under which VAR intervention is supposed to operate.

One thing is clear to me though: the penalty shout for Chalobah's challenge on Murphy was a prize example of how/when VAR should be adding benefit to the game.

The numerous slo-mo's shown on the TV coverage illustrated Coote's positioning and lack of clear viewing angle to give an accurate decision on the challenge. You'd have hoped the VAR officials would have spotted that above all else and used that as a starting base for deciding whether or not he needed a second look at it. One glance at the pitch side monitor would have told him he'd got that wrong and a penalty would have been given. As it happens, the fact that they didn't even view the incident itself as worth a second look is what has shocked most.

It seems we now have a slightly different but altogether similar situation to the years before VAR, where instead of shouting "OMFG - how on earth has the ref missed that?!!" ...

 

[socal lurker]

Some seem to think that VAR and R should have a discussion and an explanation of why R made the decision he did before VAR decides if it was a clear an obvious error. This is not right if it ever happens. It's akin to refereeing the game and in contrast with C&O error process. A decision is either clearly wrong or not. The process to get there should not have a say. In other words, C&O is about the final decision and not the reasoning or the process behind it.

I don’t think this is quite right. Brief discussion about what the R saw can help the VAR know what the R will need to see/know. For example, on a possible SFP review it helps the VAR to know if the R went yellow because he though the force was too minimal for red, or of the R saw the point of contact as too low for a red.

 

[lincs22]

Lincs
VAR has no business getting involved in the elbowing incident
Now, we may disagree on that, which is exactly why VAR will never get anywhere near eliminating controversy

I wasn't saying that VAR should have got involved. It was a mistake from the referee is the first place not giving the RC