Yes, very good. I used to wonder what players meant when they said, 'it's all about you'
That comment certainly holds some truth where VAR is concerned and that's reflected in the article
FA Cup - MNC vs MNU
- Thread starter george.g
- Start date
That comment certainly holds some truth where VAR is concerned and that's reflected in the article
He's also correct that they apply handling much more stringently in Europe. If this had happened in a European league it wouldn't even have been discussed, and if it was in a UEFA competition it would only be English supporters making an issue about it. Can you imagine the furore if English referees starting adopting a Spanish approach?
Jonathan Wilson is one of the best. Shame the BBC, BT and ITV don't use football journalists like him for their studio analysis, as most of the ex-pros talk absolute drivel, especially when it comes to the LOTG.
Yes, the big 6 corruption Twitter brigade would lose their minds! They would just default to the 'nobody knows the rules of handball anymore' argument.
I agree, Despite resistance, foreign influence makes life difficult. There are other leagues in which they expect HB all of the time
Seems to be a cultural thing. They would all despair with our view of HB, whilst we can't understand there's
IFAB can't win unless there's multiple sets of Law
I fear you may be right. I've lost the will to try and make sense of a protocol supposed to get to the right outcome, but clearly and obviously not fit for purpose.
The "gap" here is the power the VAR has to re-referee the original decision, as in "You got the decision wrong, and if you saw it you might think it's SFP but sat here with all these camera angles my opinion is that it's not SFP so I'm not recommending a review in case you think that opinion of mine is clearly and obviously wrong".
(When they get together, do they moderate these decisions? As in "How many of us think that was SFP?")
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
All good
I'm afraid you got this wrong. The protocol is very specific to stop this from happening. VAR can not tell the referee to review because in the VAR's opinion a decision was wrong. They can only ask for a review if the decision was "clearly and obviously wrong". It can't be in the grey area. It has to be black and white. Or in other words just about every referee at the same level has to think the decision was wrong. This gives the VAR the confidence that once referee sees this, he will change his mind because it's very black and white.
Once the referee is over, the referee doesn't review the VAR's opinion. They review their own original decision. And at that point there is not clear and obvious criteria. They basically ask themselves, was I wrong in my original decision.
I suspect they do as part of match reviews. To make a point, if out of 10, 8 of them think it was SFP and 2 think it wasn't then it was the right decision not to review. Simply because the 8-2 split means it's not clear and obvious.
I must add, even though the protocol is very solid, the referees, especially at EPL get it wrong very frequently. Proven by a survey done a couple of months ago more that 40 reviews or non-reviews were wrong.
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
Trying to correct people on Twitter is absolutely pointless. It's the dregs of human existence.
I'm very grateful for your efforts to make sense of it! But the protocol says a "probable clear and obvious error" which is a nonsense and "potential clear and obvious error", both of which must surely imply that "clear and obvious" might not be clear and obvious to everyone.All good
I'm afraid you got this wrong. The protocol is very specific to stop this from happening. VAR can not tell the referee to review because in the VAR's opinion a decision was wrong. They can only ask for a review if the decision was "clearly and obviously wrong". It can't be in the grey area. It has to be black and white. Or in other words just about every referee at the same level has to think the decision was wrong. This gives the VAR the confidence that once referee sees this, he will change his mind because it's very black and white.
Once the referee is over, the referee doesn't review the VAR's opinion. They review their own original decision. And at that point there is not clear and obvious criteria. They basically ask themselves, was I wrong in my original decision.
I suspect they do as part of match reviews. To make a point, if out of 10, 8 of them think it was SFP and 2 think it wasn't then it was the right decision not to review. Simply because the 8-2 split means it's not clear and obvious.
I must add, even though the protocol is very solid, the referees, especially at EPL get it wrong very frequently. Proven by a survey done a couple of months ago more that 40 reviews or non-reviews were wrong.
If recommending a review were based on what 8 out 10 referees might think, that sounds very much like "probable".
I don't think the protocol was intended to make OFR a formality. It would mean all the guff about it's the match referee who makes the decision is just guff.
As for the survey, who was judging what was "wrong"? 10 referees? Or 100, where one dissenting voice meant it wasn't clear and obvious?
I'm not sure where VAR goes. We don't want every decision to go to review but I think the VAR should essentially be asking whether the match referee clearly got it wrong * and "If I'd given that decision would I want the chance to have another look?" As it is, the VAR is now just monitoring for accidental handball and not suggesting reviews for potential SFP incidents (or penalties). Is this Mr Webb's "high bar"?
* As in it was obvious that a mistake was made (unless VAR thought Akanji had fouled Casimiro), so the referee couldn't have seen the incident properly so had "missed" it. Why not have a protocol that allows VAR to say "You gave a FK the wrong way and perhaps 8 out of 10 referees would think there was a potential SFP. Do you want an OFR?"
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
You will find both of these are in the context of a 'check' which happens at VAR level. A 'review' happing at referee level is pure clear and obvious error, no probable, possible or potential qualification.
If you read my post again i said if only 8 out of 10 referees think whichever, then it is not clear and obvious error and and a review should not take place. For me for it to be a clear and obvious error, at least 99 out of 100 should think it was an error. These are my numbers though.
I really don't want to get pedantic about this. Refereeing is mostly about judgement on decisions that are not black and white or digital. Just like many other sports there will always be disputes and debates about a correctness of a decision, with or without VAR.
AFR is more of a decision selling tool. But it is also a double check on the reversal of a decision. It also means that everyone knows the (wo)man in the middle makes the final decision.
I disagree with his. This approach will lead to re-refereeing the game. Every refereeing decision would have some element of doubt and every referee would love to confirm their decisions with benefit of replays. This approach will kill-off all the spectator support.
Missed incident is used a different way. Its for incident that happen 'behind the his back' for example. Even with those it has to be key match incident.
At the risk of going around the circle, potential SFP is not ground for review. The protocol is designed this way to avoid re-refereeing the game and avoid having several reviews in every game. It will alienate spectators. Similar for reviewing normal clear and obvious decisions. If we review for a FK going the wrong way, where do we stop? corner kicks vs goal kick, ball in out over the side line, direction of TI. There will be way to many reviews. You are looking at this for one specific incident. What approach will serve the game as a whole best ?
I will add this, i am not a big fan of VAR not because the protocol is not right. I think the protocol is pretty solid. But the people who are applying it are just pi$$ poor at doing it.
I think this horse is flogged to death.
Again, I'm grateful. (Perversely, I enjoy wrangling the words to try and make sense of it!) But I would say it wasn't just a FK going the wrong way - that was the evidence that the referee might not have "missed" the incident but had got it wrong, and that meant he'd also missed the potential SFP (so his original decision - including any disciplinary action - was based on misreading the situation). That's not a case for reviewing every error. And I don't think it would alienate spectators for the referee - with his "freeze the moment" initial decision and then being shown what really happened from different angles - to be the real decision-maker rather than a hypothetical "what 8 out of 10 refs would think (but two might go "orange"). Spectators are alienated anyway, and not knowing what the referee will do when he goes to the screen might be less alienating, as in "OK, he's had another look, and if he's OK it's only a YC rather than red, let's get on with it...".At the risk of going around the circle, potential SFP is not ground for review. The protocol is designed this way to avoid re-refereeing the game and avoid having several reviews in every game. It will alienate spectators. Similar for reviewing normal clear and obvious decisions. If we review for a FK going the wrong way, where do we stop? corner kicks vs goal kick, ball in out over the side line, direction of TI. There will be way to many reviews. You are looking at this for one specific incident. What approach will serve the game as a whole best ?
I will add this, i am not a big fan of VAR not because the protocol is not right. I think the protocol is pretty solid. But the people who are applying it are just pi$$ poor at doing it.
I think this horse is flogged to death.
Anyway, enough horse-flogging... I'm ticket downloading for Istanbul!
Sorry, struggling to see your point. Normally you bring City into a topic relating to a game they aren't playing in, this time it is the other way round
This was a less than stringent handball decision in Europe. Was the VAR English as well as the referee?Sorry, struggling to see your point. Normally you bring City into a topic relating to a game they aren't playing in, this time it is the other way round
Yes, the VAR was English. And he was hardly just complaining about the handball, he complained about every single decision, even throw-ins, even though 99% of them were correct.
The point wasn't Mourinho's reaction but comparing this handball not given with Saturday's. It's the inconsistency in application that alienates supporters as much as the law itself. Unless we think the VAR last week not recommending a review for the one illustrated would have recommended one on Saturday.
You are comparing apples with oranges, and not very successfully. One has a defender with his arm above his head, the other has the defender with his arm by his side and trying to pull it out of the way at the time it was struck.
What's a natural position? The attacker heading the ball toward Grealish had his arm above his head while stretching to head the ball. Unless you are arguing it was a deliberate handball by a player with his eyes closed.
We'll have to disagree about a definition of "by his side" (the Sevilla defender). He wasn't exactly tucking his arms behind his back, and I can't be bothered finding all the clips of players penalised (EPL and Europe) where "trying to get the hand out of the way" was not a defence. If it's in an unnatural position it shouldn't have been there.
Anyway, I'm already fed up with a "high bar" for SFP reviews on potentially serious injury "tackles" and a low bar for edge of the penalty area calls for a finger in an unnatural position (inconsequential to the play but with game-changing consequences).
Get rid of the ridiculous punishment of a penalty for a player having an arm, and most of this problem goes away. We could continue this in a "next year's law changes?" thread, but it just reinforces some of the disconnect between what's in the laws and "what football expects" (even if that's in the laws!).
The guidance is there, just not within my reach atm. It's absolutely possible. https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#procedures quick seadch here says that the referee can give any sanction wherever appropriate. However, as mentioned before, it would entail two high-level referees disagreeing about the bar for DOGSO or SFP