A&H

World Cup England vs Haiti

GraemeS

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Really interesting penalty shout 15 minutes in - England player is fouled as the ball goes out of play (and needs a caution for that foul), but referee at the screen decides another England players has fouled a defender in the build-up.

Attempt to explain it is unclear of course, but I think in this case it's because the referees mic was turned off to fast! Explain the no-penalty decision, then seems to keep talking but I couldn't hear it and then books the defender.
 
The Referee Store
VAR should have identified Russo's foul and not recommended a review. The whole thing took far too long, though the correct decision was reached. And yes the referee's explanation was inaudible which is a shame because this is an obvious situation where it would have been useful.

Russo should have been booked by now for persistent infringement.
 
Thought this was excellent from the on-field referee - the first foul is soft, but gives enough doubt not to overturn the decision. Shouldn’t have been referred in the first place but can understand why they missed it.

This one’s a pen!
 
CaptainsPlease said:
VAR should have identified Russo's foul and not recommended a review. The whole thing took far too long, though the correct decision was reached. And yes the referee's explanation was inaudible which is a shame because this is an obvious situation where it would have been useful.

Russo should have been booked by now for persistent infringement.
Click to expand...
It was a really complex one - you have a difficult to spot foul (although clear one the right angle was found), you then have to determine if the ball was still in play when the foul occurred.

It's really hard to be criticized for slowing the game down and then also say that they should have continued to work backwards throughout the play while everyone stands there doing nothing - but as you say, looks like a bad miss to not spot it.
 
GraemeS said:
It was a really complex one - you have a difficult to spot foul (although clear one the right angle was found), you then have to determine if the ball was still in play when the foul occurred.

It's really hard to be criticized for slowing the game down and then also say that they should have continued to work backwards throughout the play while every stands there doing nothing - but as you say, looks like a bad miss to not spot it.
Click to expand...
It wasn't that complex two fouls in close succession, common sense says check the foul on the defending team first then it doesn't need to go any further.
 
Relatively speaking, it is complex. You need to find the right angle to clearly show the foul, you then also need to confirm the ball is still in play at that point and there aren't any mitigating factors to that foul itself such as the defender being pushed into the attacker. That's 3 aspects that need to be confirmed before you even have enough to recommend a penalty review.

You've said it took too long, but you're now also saying they should have taken longer to check the build up. If you want the VAR to go back 20 seconds, that literally adds at least 20 seconds to the check as a minimum. That's a fairly soft foul the penalty was disallowed for and the ref didn't give it - does that foul meet the C&O bar? For me, no, so I think it would be incorrect for the VAR to determine that as a missed foul and therefore no penalty because of that.

It's all a series of judgement calls the VAR has to make, and even though it probably isn't 100% in line with IFABs process, I think saying "I have a clear penalty foul that has been missed, but there may be an attacking foul in the build up that you need to make a call on" is the best result. It's not the officials results that they have to do a slow 2-step process and then add more time for the ref to jog over and re-watch all the VARs work.
 
The Russo foul was not 20 seconds before.
The APP should normally be checked before recommending an on field review.
The C&O threshold applies to the 'no penalty' decision not each part of the phase of play.
It should have been a simple APP review, probable foul by attacking team, therefore not a C&O error.
 
VAR protocol was correctly followed.

The foul that should be a penalty was clear and obvious and so needs to be reviewed, however you have to let the referee make the decision on a foul in the APP if they have not seen it.

The referee could still decide no foul on the first and then award a penalty regardless, it’s not down to the VAR to make that judgement that there were two missed fouls therefore no review.
 
OssieSC said:
VAR protocol was correctly followed.

The foul that should be a penalty was clear and obvious and so needs to be reviewed, however you have to let the referee make the decision on a foul in the APP if they have not seen it.
Click to expand...
Where does it say that in the protocol?
 
I wasn't sure it was the referee that blew the whistle early, wondered if it was someone in the crowd.

I was in the car for the first half listening to it on TalkSport. They agreed with no penalty as Russo had committed the first foul, but were adamant the tackle was a shocker and should have been a straight red, said it had caused a big gash on Kelly's shin. Haven't seen a replay so not idea what happened, and they also said Russo was cautioned for the trip which she clearly wasn't.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
Where does it say that in the protocol?
Click to expand...
Section 4 of the VAR protocol portion of the Laws:

For decisions/incidents relating to goals, penalty/no penalty and red cards for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO), it may be necessary to review the attacking phase of play which led directly to the decision/incident; this may include how the attacking team gained possession of the ball in open play
 
CaptainsPlease said:
The Russo foul was not 20 seconds before.
The APP should normally be checked before recommending an on field review.
The C&O threshold applies to the 'no penalty' decision not each part of the phase of play.
It should have been a simple APP review, probable foul by attacking team, therefore not a C&O error.
Click to expand...
Of course it wasn't 20 seconds, but how far back do you want the APP to be forensically examined? We had a header back over that is worth checking for a push, anything could have happened on the initial cross - each of which adds time. And you were already complaining too long was taken.

Not a chance that a clear penalty should be not reviewed due to a "probable foul" in the build up. Thats a huge call for the VAR to make, when it should always be the on field official making subjective calls.
 
How much worse would a foul need to be for the ref to go no pk + red for SFP? I know it would be strange and confusing but that was s nasty tackle.

Because by all the considerations I know that was SFP.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
Where does it say that in the protocol?
Click to expand...
The protocol makes it clear that only the referee can make any decision in relation to an incident that is being reviewed. Such as, for instance, whether a challenge was a foul or not.

This is stated in the following part of the VAR protocol:

The final decision is always taken by the referee, either based on information from the VAR or after the referee has undertaken an ‘on-field review’ (OFR).
Click to expand...

It is then reiterated further down in the wording:

The referee is the only person who can make the final decision; the VAR has the same status as the other match officials and can only assist the referee.
Click to expand...

So the basic principle is that the VAR can only offer information to help in the decision, they are not authorized to decide whether a foul has actually taken place.

The protocol also states that an OFR is "appropriate" for all subjective decisions (i.e. it should take place).

It further says the only time an OFR is not usually appropriate is when it involves:

factual decisions e.g. position of an offence or player (offside), point of contact (handball/foul), location (inside or outside the penalty area), ball out of play etc
Click to expand...

Since this was not a factual decision but a referee judgement call, an OFR was the appropriate course of action
 
Last edited:
The VAR announcements are good but could be better. (Below is copy pasted from another forum I'm on so I realise some of the ground has already been covered.)

Regards the penalty shout when England played Haiti. The VAR check which flashed up on the screen said 'Checking possible penalty'.

On review there was a foul in the lead up where a girl was ankle tapped. Literally just as she was trying to get over to make the tackle. Just after that the other Haitian girl studded the English lass which was what the penalty call and review was for.

Everyone in the stadium was expecting is it going to be yes or no for the 'penalty'.

Then what happened was the ref came over and said no penalty for England, gave the free kick to Haiti and then booked the Haitian girl with a yellow.

You can imagine in the stadium nobody could work out what the hell happened.

The ref should have said 'no penalty because there was a foul on Haiti in the build up so a free kick to Haiti and a yellow card to Haiti because of the subsequent foul'.

So IMO they should give more info, albeit as brief as possible. At the moment they're just verbalising the decision with no real explanation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top