Clear and obvious error

[one]

Another thread on VAR because we don't have enough of them.

Although I haven't seen an official statement of this but from media and even on this forum, the process EPL follows for VAR is that the referee explains to VAR what they saw and why they made a decision before VAR decides if it was a clear and obvious error. This to me is a misapplication of the lotg. The recommendation to review in law is not based on the process to make the decision, its based on the decision itself. VAR should not be discussing with the ref how they came to a decision. VAR should look at replays independently and decide if the final decision is clearly wrong. What the referee saw and their reasoning for the original decision should not influence VAR but only the referee's decision to review and if if they should overturn after a review.

Any thoughts if this is contributing to the problems with VAR and if independent decision making by VAR can improve things?

 

[es1]

I agree your interpretation. Var should be able to look at a decision taken by a ref and understand on their own if a clear and obvious error has been made. I can't think of many/any examples where it would be important to clarify what the refs given and why as it should be immediately obvious.

We all know how we can justify our actions by using specific buzzwords and phrases in line with lotg and I suspect that's what's happening here.

Personally I think var should be a completely separate entity with no communication to the ref at all (aside from letting the ref know a review is taking place).

var just gets involved when var thinks there's a clear and obvious error (or ideally when a decision is referred/challenged by the ref or team) to overturn and once they decide to do so, they make a decision and that decision is final

 

[JamesL]

Another thread on VAR because we don't have enough of them.

Although I haven't seen an official statement of this but from media and even on this forum, the process EPL follows for VAR is that the referee explains to VAR what they saw and why they made a decision before VAR decides if it was a clear and obvious error. This to me is a misapplication of the lotg. The recommendation to review in law is not based on the process to make the decision, its based on the decision itself. VAR should not be discussing with the ref how they came to a decision. VAR should look at replays independently and decide if the final decision is clearly wrong. What the referee saw and their reasoning for the original decision should not influence VAR but only the referee's decision to review and if if they should overturn after a review.

Any thoughts if this is contributing to the problems with VAR and if independent decision making by VAR can improve things?

I think that's an assumption as to what is happening.. Whether it is or not, who knows.
But, I agree with what you say if that is what is taking place.

 

[PinnerPaul]

I agree your interpretation. Var should be able to look at a decision taken by a ref and understand on their own if a clear and obvious error has been made. I can't think of many/any examples where it would be important to clarify what the refs given and why as it should be immediately obvious.

We all know how we can justify our actions by using specific buzzwords and phrases in line with lotg and I suspect that's what's happening here.

Personally I think var should be a completely separate entity with no communication to the ref at all (aside from letting the ref know a review is taking place).

var just gets involved when var thinks there's a clear and obvious error (or ideally when a decision is referred/challenged by the ref or team) to overturn and once they decide to do so, they make a decision and that decision is final

Was with you until the end - for that last part to work, you would need to take away the line, " The (on field) referee's decision is final" - not sure that is up for negotiation at this time?

 

[es1]

Was with you until the end - for that last part to work, you would need to take away the line, " The (on field) referee's decision is final" - not sure that is up for negotiation at this time?

Just my personal preference, the current system is a bit of a waste of time as the ref is (almost always) going to take the var recommendation

 

[PinnerPaul]

Just my personal preference, the current system is a bit of a waste of time as the ref is (almost always) going to take the var recommendation

That's true - I'm just not sure any 'fix' is going to stop the debate or as One said the other day is really going to improve things to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[es1]

Of course, I guess there's 3 options...

1. Revert back to no var - never going to happen now
2. Keep var pretty much as is - I hate current var process
3. Do something else - anything at all, team challenges, referrals by the ref, additional refs...whatever

But whatever you were to go for there'd be plenty for any against

 

[socal lurker]

I vote for 1! Sigh. I know my vote doesn’t count.

I’m not enthusiastic about a challenge model, but I’m starting to hate it less. But as best I can tell, the PL has one of the worst implementations of video review. While the standard of on field refereeing is certainly better in the PL than MLS, I think the contra is absolutely true when it comes to use of VARs. As much as I’d hate to lose him for the US, I think it would be wise for England to lure Webb back to oversee the video program.