Ref4Me

Chelsea v Spurs

Mooseybaby

Retired big bad baldy in all black!
A bugbare I have with VAR is the all or nothing approach to looking incidents the referee has missed, it's either serious foul play or nothing. Can't remember the players involved, but you see this kind of cheap shot many times, which if seen usually results in a yellow card if spotted by the referee. The Tottenham player stuck a boot in from behind high on the Chelsea player's ankle. No foul given, ball went out of play for a throw. VAR reviewed and deemed it not serious foul play.

Why does the protocol not allow for the VAR to say to the ref, it's not serious foul play, but you still missed a clear foul and a yellow card?
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
The Referee Store

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
That's all down to people being scared of VAR "interrupting the flow of the game". It forced the compromise whereby only certain types of incident can even be reviewed, so we end up ignoring obvious yellows and even second yellows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1

Mooseybaby

Retired big bad baldy in all black!
What baffles me is the fact the referee actively delays the whistle until after the goal was scored..
Could be argued referees are too quick on the whistle sometimes. Take the Chelsea vs Brighton game recently, Chelsea winning 1-0, Brighton defender miss controls the ball, Mason Mount goes to the challenge the defender and with the keeper well out of position, the whistle blows for a foul on the Brighton defender just as Mount is clear on goal and in the process of shooting. Ball goes into the back of the net and Mount protests it wasn't a foul, but it can't be reviewed as the whistle had already gone before the ball crossed the line and hit the back of the net. Had the referee delayed the whistle, ball goes in the net, VAR can easily check and rule the goal out if necessary. Didn't see any replays (don't think TV company showed it), could well have been a foul, albeit soft, but with technology available why take the risk? Moments later, Brighton went up the other end and score a (deserved) equaliser in stoppage time.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
My problem with this though is that the delay of flag is designed around a more black and white decision of calling offside, whereas delaying a whistle for a foul is entirely subjective. The flag for me is almost redundant after a goal, it’s going to be checked for offside regardless of the clear and obvious criteria, however the scenario is totally changed if a whistle is blown:
no whistle - is it clear and obvious that it’s a foul. No, award the goal
Whistle - is it clear and obvious that it’s not a foul. No, award the foul
Flag or no flag - is it offside? Yes or no

Doesn't really matter if it is objective or subjective, but whether it is reviewed by VAR. Yes, he standard for reversal of a foul/non-foul call is much higher (well, at least it is supposed to be) than for OS, but in either case a whistle can improperly deny a goal and the powers that be want goals and don't want a VAR system that can only fix mistakes that permitted a goal and not mistakes that denied a goal. You may not like it, but I think the delay here where there is an immediate chance to score is exactly what referees are expected to do.
 

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
Doesn't really matter if it is objective or subjective, but whether it is reviewed by VAR. Yes, he standard for reversal of a foul/non-foul call is much higher (well, at least it is supposed to be) than for OS, but in either case a whistle can improperly deny a goal and the powers that be want goals and don't want a VAR system that can only fix mistakes that permitted a goal and not mistakes that denied a goal. You may not like it, but I think the delay here where there is an immediate chance to score is exactly what referees are expected to do.
I’m not saying that the whistle should be before the goal, what I’m saying is why whistle at all, especially if you’re going to stand whistle to mouth before the shot. If the powers that be want goals, why let the goal go in and then say no goal. Surely the best action to take is if you’re not sure (which is clearly the case as if he was 100% sure, he wouldn’t have hesitated), don’t give anything.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
I think he has followed the protocol perfectly here. He sees what he thinks what was a foul, a goal is clearly about to be scored so he holds the whistle and then blows after the goal. At least they then are able to check it. Can you imagine the furore if his eyes had played tricks on him, a bit like in the RMA Kroos incident being posted about, and it clearly wasn't a foul yet VAR couldn't get involved if play had been stopped?
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
I’m not saying that the whistle should be before the goal, what I’m saying is why whistle at all, especially if you’re going to stand whistle to mouth before the shot. If the powers that be want goals, why let the goal go in and then say no goal. Surely the best action to take is if you’re not sure (which is clearly the case as if he was 100% sure, he wouldn’t have hesitated), don’t give anything.

That is absolutely, positively NOT the model. The VAR protocols are very clear that the R is obligated to make the call on the field. VAR only intervenes on C&O errors. Many call/no calls would (and should) be upheld in either direction.
 
Top