RefSix

Man Utd v Chelsea

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
#24
As I said, they cannot check for a foul or caution as VAR protocol doesn't allow that. All they could check for there is SFP, once VAR says no to that they can't then say "but give a free kick and a caution instead".
I know they can't carry out a VAR review for a suspected missed yellow card, but I'm sure we've seen situations where the referee was asked to review a possible SFP and then decided it was a missed incident, but only worth a yellow? Not saying we should be encouraging that, but if they've already caused a delay, they could easily have asked the ref to take a look and seen what happens?
 

JH

RefChat Addict
#25
RE: The dropped ball - I'm pretty sure a Chelsea player last touched it before he awarded it, BUT the touch was in the box (from memory, could be wrong). I would have waited for the United player to control the ball, then they would have got it back from the dropped ball.
 
#26
I know they can't carry out a VAR review for a suspected missed yellow card, but I'm sure we've seen situations where the referee was asked to review a possible SFP and then decided it was a missed incident, but only worth a yellow? Not saying we should be encouraging that, but if they've already caused a delay, they could easily have asked the ref to take a look and seen what happens?
In situations where the referee has conducted an on-field review but only gone for a yellow, presumably the VAR thought it was SFP and recommended a review to the referee. If the VAR starts recommending reviews when they don't think it's a RC but just to give the ref another look they are going to be in trouble for not following the protocol/LOTG.
 

Nij

Active Member
#27
I know they can't carry out a VAR review for a suspected missed yellow card, but I'm sure we've seen situations where the referee was asked to review a possible SFP and then decided it was a missed incident, but only worth a yellow? Not saying we should be encouraging that, but if they've already caused a delay, they could easily have asked the ref to take a look and seen what happens?
They couldn't use the review just to check whether it was a missed incident and decide between {no card, caution, dismissal} but having made the review on the basis that there's a good chance of it being a dismissal, there's nothing in the VARP that says they can't then give a caution for the offence, and the VAR Handbook from the experiment phase (dated April 2017) states that when a correct review (i.e. reviewing something that can be reviewed) reveals "a clear yellow or red card" that "the referee must take the correct disciplinary action".
It uses the exact examples of an offence that was deemed SFP but reduced to only reckless or a DOGSO-F that was only SPA, among others.
So unless that's changed and someone can provide the most recent VARHB, that's actually something that should be encouraged, because it's the correct application of the VARP and of the LOTG.
 
#28
RE: The dropped ball - I'm pretty sure a Chelsea player last touched it before he awarded it, BUT the touch was in the box (from memory, could be wrong). I would have waited for the United player to control the ball, then they would have got it back from the dropped ball.

If this was the case then the ball should have been given to the Chelsea keeper, either way Taylor got it wrong.
 
#30
Super annoying game because I was with family and they were asking me for law clarifications and as I explained things Taylor would do the flipping opposite and make me look stupid.

The drop ball, the foul on pogba leading to the offside and so on.

With the pogba foul, that should be checked as part of the offside check imo, as that would make sense in the context of the situation. If that's not permitted then that's a massive oversight imo.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#31
Super annoying game because I was with family and they were asking me for law clarifications and as I explained things Taylor would do the flipping opposite and make me look stupid.

The drop ball, the foul on pogba leading to the offside and so on.

With the pogba foul, that should be checked as part of the offside check imo, as that would make sense in the context of the situation. If that's not permitted then that's a massive oversight imo.

They would of course see it, they'd have no choice as it was in front of them when checking the offside. But they can't tell him he has missed a free kick or a caution, and even if they did he can't act on it. Otherwise where do you draw the line? Say there is a corner that goes behind after a challenge and the referee gives a goal kick even though it should have been a corner. VAR have spotted a potential penalty and ask the referee to hold the restart whilst they check it. They find there is no foul, but in doing so can't help but spot he has totally goofed up the GK / corner decision. They cannot tell the referee that as that would be re-refereeing the game, it's the same for the Pogba challenge with Anthony Taylor.
 

JH

RefChat Addict
#32
They would of course see it, they'd have no choice as it was in front of them when checking the offside. But they can't tell him he has missed a free kick or a caution, and even if they did he can't act on it. Otherwise where do you draw the line? Say there is a corner that goes behind after a challenge and the referee gives a goal kick even though it should have been a corner. VAR have spotted a potential penalty and ask the referee to hold the restart whilst they check it. They find there is no foul, but in doing so can't help but spot he has totally goofed up the GK / corner decision. They cannot tell the referee that as that would be re-refereeing the game, it's the same for the Pogba challenge with Anthony Taylor.
That creates an interesting situation with VAR, I wonder if AT didn't pull it back for the foul at the risk of denying the VAR to check if there could have been a good goal?
 
#33
There must be an awful lot of running commentary done between R, ARs, VAR, AVAR and the tea lady
I've not read the VAR protocol, not least because of its intimidating length, rather because I suspect they deviate from it commonplace.
I might be wrong, but I've sensed on occasion that the R's only reach the right outcome after 'fruitful' pause for thought
 
#34
There must be an awful lot of running commentary done between R, ARs, VAR, AVAR and the tea lady
I've not read the VAR protocol, not least because of its intimidating length, rather because I suspect they deviate from it commonplace.
I might be wrong, but I've sensed on occasion that the R's only reach the right outcome after 'fruitful' pause for thought
You really are looking for a conspiracy theory, aren't you? Of course Rs and ARs and 4O talk on the comms--and that is completely appropriate. The VAR and AVAR are not supposed to be giving guidance to the R outside the review process. They should be telling the R that a check is ongoing and what it is for. And then either recommend a review/tell the R a factual determination or tell the R that the check is complete. If they are giving the R advice outside that protocol, they are in violation of the protocol. And since the R and VAR and AVAR are being evaluated--and the whole communication is recorded, it is a great leap (and wholly unjustified to do without a single shred of evidence) to assume that these officials seeking to progress are routinely violating that protocol.
 
#35
You really are looking for a conspiracy theory, aren't you? Of course Rs and ARs and 4O talk on the comms--and that is completely appropriate. The VAR and AVAR are not supposed to be giving guidance to the R outside the review process. They should be telling the R that a check is ongoing and what it is for. And then either recommend a review/tell the R a factual determination or tell the R that the check is complete. If they are giving the R advice outside that protocol, they are in violation of the protocol. And since the R and VAR and AVAR are being evaluated--and the whole communication is recorded, it is a great leap (and wholly unjustified to do without a single shred of evidence) to assume that these officials seeking to progress are routinely violating that protocol.
Good and detailed reply. Good to know it's all squeaky clean and above board. One less thing to worry about... :)
Just that nagging intuition in games, you know when the ref goes to do one thing, only to turn and do the right thing... :(
The balance of probabilities is in your favour I suppose...
If you've read all 64 pages, I'll put you on the dull exempt list on account of original, informative posts which keep me bound to Occam's razor
 
Last edited:
#36
They would of course see it, they'd have no choice as it was in front of them when checking the offside. But they can't tell him he has missed a free kick or a caution, and even if they did he can't act on it. Otherwise where do you draw the line? Say there is a corner that goes behind after a challenge and the referee gives a goal kick even though it should have been a corner. VAR have spotted a potential penalty and ask the referee to hold the restart whilst they check it. They find there is no foul, but in doing so can't help but spot he has totally goofed up the GK / corner decision. They cannot tell the referee that as that would be re-refereeing the game, it's the same for the Pogba challenge with Anthony Taylor.
I get that, though I think with offside it makes sense to ensure that the person playing the ball to the offside player is not fouled (or a foul is not missed on that player). At least, that is where I would draw the line.
 
Top