For starters nowhere does it say any decision 'should' use OFR.
Now if every subjective decision was to be made by the referee then the referee should also makes the decision on if his original decision was a clear an obvious error. And before that he has to make the decision for the second decision for the first decision. And in and on we go. An in any case isn't the second the decision also the first decision. Let's not twist things.
I can understand if you don't like VAR. But understand that in this incident it did what it was supposed to do. And if it is changed to do what you want it to do for this incident, then VAR would be changed to re-referee the game, and that, no one wants.
I'm not sure whether that middle paragraph is a joke, or a serious attempt to justify the previous or the new wording. What I want to do for this (and every) incident is get the decision right, and
if it was a foul the decision was wrong.
If the referee saw the alleged offence what was his decision at the time? Presumably it wasn't that an offence had been committed by the attacker, or he would have given the foul. Was it a decision to allow play to continue? Well, yes, play continued. In practice, if the referee didn't see the alleged offence but saw a defender on the deck and heard the appeals, he allowed play to continue because he couldn't give a foul he hadn't seen. There remains the possibility that he saw the incident but wasn't sure it was a foul, so allowed play to continue. So that is the decision that was being reviewed; we were told the VAR was reviewing a possible foul.
"The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a 'clear and
obvious error'." But if the decision not to stop play was because the referee didn't see the incident how does that involve any error at all? The wording means we end up with the possibility that the VAR thought it was a foul, but the unsighted referee hadn't stopped play; as the referee's decision not to stop play for something he hadn't seen was the only decision the referee could have made, that decision (no matter how clear a foul) was never going to be a clear and obvious error. So
if the referee hadn't seen it
and VAR thought it was a foul, VAR could not even ask the referee to look at OFR and review an incident he hadn't seen in real time. In fact, logically, if the referee told the VAR he hadn't seen the incident, the VAR should have said "there's no point my even looking at it then".
Now I sincerely hope that isn't how it played out, but that's the logic. But
we don't know.
There is of course the bit that allows a VAR review "if a serious incident is missed/not seen by the match officials". Now some on here reckon that only applies to red card offences rather than a missed incident with serious (e.g. goalscoring) consequences, but under "procedures" we read "The referee and other match officials must always make an initial decision (including any disciplinary action) as if there was no VAR (except for a ‘missed’ incident)" (with "serious" now omitted). So was this a case for a review on that basis?
We don't know.
For some reason the referee decided to initiate a review. His own choice, or recommended by VAR? (
We don't know)
In the end he decided to stick with his original decision to let play continue (but whether that was because he never thought it was a foul, or never saw it,
we don't know). The final decision was obviousy based on information from the VAR, but as to what that information was,
we don't know.
Did the "silent check" by the VAR mean there was no need to communicate with the referee?
We don't know. Did the VAR recommend a review?
We don't know. Or did the referee initiate the review (and on what basis, e.g. did he suspect that something serious has been ‘missed’)?
We don't know.
But the VAR described to the referee what could be seen on the TV replay(s) and based on the referee’s own perception and the information from the VAR, the referee allowed the goal to stand. Unless the VAR had angles and/or slo mo that the broadcasters didn't use, the information must have been (because even Peter Walton thought so) "it looks like it might have been a foul". But
we don't know. VAR might have said "I've looked at it every way and I can't tell for sure so there's probably not much point your doing an OFR" but
we don't know.
I have spent way too long on this but it's all in the context of the bit of the protocol that says "The referee must remain ‘visible’ during the review process
to ensure transparency."
For the sake of completeness, I note that the wording about subjective decisions is now "For subjective decisions, e.g. intensity of a foul challenge, interference at offside, handball considerations, an ‘on-field review’ (OFR) is appropriate". Ah, the dreaded "e.g." - does that mean that whether it's a foul challenge or not may not be appropriate for OFR, but only the intensity of a challenge (to decide any disciplinary sanction)?
We don't know. And is that in conflict with "Reorganising the text emphasises that ‘on-field reviews’ (OFRs) are expected when the incident/decision is non-factual."
We don't know.