A&H

Chelsea v Man City

D

DJIC

Well-Known Member
More controversy, could VAR have advised AT to take second look at the screen to check a PK was the correct decision?
 
The Referee Store
I am 99% convinced that the whole clear & obvious stuff is the reason why a large proportion of VAR decisions are causing controversy. Just send Anthony Taylor to the screen and let him make the call.
 
santa sangria said:
On field call was penalty so VAR should have got involved to highlight the first foul by the attacker.
Click to expand...
I agree VAR should have got involved, Cucarella couldn’t defend cross properly as he was yanked back by Haaland, clear ‘triangle’ of a shirt pull.
 
It’s extremely soft, and don’t think AT would have given it if he’d seen the replay or the initial pull by Haaland. That said - don’t think it can be a C&O error just for being soft so don’t blame the VAR too much.

Does raise a question though as to whether the threshold should be lowered for VAR intervention for the attacking foul if it’s a 6-of-one, half-a-dozen of the other situation.
 
Admittedly biased as a Chelsea fan but surely they're pulling each other there. Should really set out what is a "clear and obvious error" as it seems to be the cause of most controversies.
 
RyanK said:
Admittedly biased as a Chelsea fan but surely they're pulling each other there. Should really set out what is a "clear and obvious error" as it seems to be the cause of most controversies.
Click to expand...
I’m no VAR expert (although everyone seems to be nowadays), but I sometimes feel like a better solution would be to give the VAR the option to send the referee to the screen purely if they disagree with the decision. Currently we’re asking VARs to make two judgements, first whether they agree, and second whether they disagree enough to intervene.
 
Runner-Ref said:
Makes me think even more that a challenge-based system is at least worth trialling.

Chelsea put in their challenge, AT had a look and wither stands by his decision or changes it. Simples.
Click to expand...
I’d like to see it tried - also saves referees from some of the criticism when teams are out of challenges because they shouldn’t have wasted them in the first place
 
David F said:
I’d like to see it tried - also saves referees from some of the criticism when teams are out of challenges because they shouldn’t have wasted them in the first place
Click to expand...
Pretty much one of the points I put forward when we discussed this on another thread.

It's up to the clubs to use their challenges wisely. It also gives them an element of control and accountability, whilst still leaving the referee with the ultimate final say.
 
Runner-Ref said:
Makes me think even more that a challenge-based system is at least worth trialling.

Chelsea put in their challenge, AT has a look and either stands by his decision or changes it. Simples.
Click to expand...
I think it would be interesting to try. Maybe a hybrid system would be better - VAR can intervene if needed but if they decide not to a team can then challenge, forcing the referee to go to the monitor?
 
SammyT5 said:
I think it would be interesting to try. Maybe a hybrid system would be better - VAR can intervene if needed but if they decide not to a team can then challenge, forcing the referee to go to the monitor?
Click to expand...
Not sure that would solve anything. As VAR would still check everything they do now, which was one of the bones of contention about this in another thread as all the checks just slow the game down.

If its going to be checked anyway, there's not much point in the clubs checking it.
 
Runner-Ref said:
Not sure that would solve anything. As VAR would still check everything they do now, which was one of the bones of contention about this in another thread as all the checks just slow the game down.

If its going to be checked anyway, there's not much point in the clubs checking it.
Click to expand...
I think there’s about a million ways a challenge system could be implemented, all of which have their pros and cons. If you were to give the responsibility for a review directly to the teams it would prevent confusion but teams would complain if they ran out of reviews and then a shocking decision was made. Alternatively like you say letting VAR still intervene when necessary would defeat the idea of speeding the game up, but would prevent situations such as the City penalty as Chelsea would have made AT go to look at the screen. You could have it so that in addition to team challenges the on-field referee can request to review a decision, but then that communicates when there is doubt about a decision.

Having thought about it maybe in such a trial they could give teams say 3 review requests per game, however they only lose one of these requests if it results in the on-field decision being maintained. That way they can’t blame running out of requests on poor officiating.
 
SammyT5 said:
I think there’s about a million ways a challenge system could be implemented, all of which have their pros and cons. If you were to give the responsibility for a review directly to the teams it would prevent confusion but teams would complain if they ran out of reviews and then a shocking decision was made. Alternatively like you say letting VAR still intervene when necessary would defeat the idea of speeding the game up, but would prevent situations such as the City penalty as Chelsea would have made AT go to look at the screen. You could have it so that in addition to team challenges the on-field referee can request to review a decision, but then that communicates when there is doubt about a decision.

Having thought about it maybe in such a trial they could give teams say 3 review requests per game, however they only lose one of these requests if it results in the on-field decision being maintained. That way they can’t blame running out of requests on poor officiating.
Click to expand...
So the bit in bold is exactly how I'd do it. Whether you give them 1,2 or 3 challenges is something for them to discuss, but if the clubs challenge is ruled as correct, they don't lose the challenge. This would prevent them challenging anything & everything.

Do away with having someone in the VAR booth. Let them have a day off. There definitely has to be an element of fatigue that plays into all of this as well.
 
OMG. 3? We really want the R going to the screen 6 times in a game?!? The end of the game is going to look like a basketball game. (But just think, there‘S a revenue option here . . . We guarantee the review will take at least a minute, and the TV folks get to run a commercial--those commercials would be a hot commodity as they would come at a critical time of the matche.

As I noted in another thread, trialing something with challenges could be interesting. The sports I’m familiar with have a cost of being wrong—typically losing a time out, which of course we don’t have, and losing a sub seems an awfully stiff price to pay. If I were to design the trial, it would look like this:
  • Objective calls remain as they are (OSP, interfering with play/touching ball, ball out of play, the fact of whether a ball hit a hand)
  • Challenges used for subjective decisions only (including OS active involvement by interfering with an opponent as well as fouls)
  • Same decisions as today subject to review (though I could be convinced to let a team challenge a caution or other foul give the next bullet)
  • Teams get one challenge; if they prevail they get a second
with only one challenge, we’re only going to see it used where the team thinks it is highly likely to prevail or at a late game critical moment
 
socal lurker said:
OMG. 3? We really want the R going to the screen 6 times in a game?!? The end of the game is going to look like a basketball game. (But just think, there‘S a revenue option here . . . We guarantee the review will take at least a minute, and the TV folks get to run a commercial--those commercials would be a hot commodity as they would come at a critical time of the matche.

As I noted in another thread, trialing something with challenges could be interesting. The sports I’m familiar with have a cost of being wrong—typically losing a time out, which of course we don’t have, and losing a sub seems an awfully stiff price to pay. If I were to design the trial, it would look like this:
  • Objective calls remain as they are (OSP, interfering with play/touching ball, ball out of play, the fact of whether a ball hit a hand)
  • Challenges used for subjective decisions only (including OS active involvement by interfering with an opponent as well as fouls)
  • Same decisions as today subject to review (though I could be convinced to let a team challenge a caution or other foul give the next bullet)
  • Teams get one challenge; if they prevail they get a second
with only one challenge, we’re only going to see it used where the team thinks it is highly likely to prevail or at a late game critical moment
Click to expand...
On the bit in bold..... this would be the maximum amount of times the referee would go to the screens. The vast majority of the times, you would not see that number. As things are, the referee could go to the screen an infinite amount of times.

With the rest of the other stuff you mentioned, think we're along the same lines. There's stuff to iron out on how many challenges, what can be challenged, the process for it etc. But it's worth a go.

In its current state, it is a load of poo. And by saying that, I may be the first person on this site to use the term poo.
 
You do have the issue that teams at the end of the game will make frivolous challenges just because they might as well try (as you see in cricket), or to slow the game down. Still think it could be worth exploring, but 3 each definitely too many.
 
Runner-Ref said:
On the bit in bold..... this would be the maximum amount of times the referee would go to the screens. The vast majority of the times, you would not see that number. As things are, the referee could go to the screen an infinite amount of times.

With the rest of the other stuff you mentioned, think we're along the same lines. There's stuff to iron out on how many challenges, what can be challenged, the process for it etc. But it's worth a go.

In its current state, it is a load of poo. And by saying that, I may be the first person on this site to use the term poo.
Click to expand...
I think they would, as teams would use it as a tactic to break up play and slow the game down. Or at least the team leading the score would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top