RefSix

Manchester City v Birmingham City

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
@socal lurker
(our previous discussion got a bit convoluted)
In your scenario, assuming (1) and foul given, VAR thinks it is DOGSO-R if attacking free kick is given (not for foul severity). The referee had given an attacking FK and SPA. However VAR discovers during check that it is clearly a defensive FK. What is the process there?
I don’t know the right answer—but it could be a huge difference which the R reviews first.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Good grief, my head hurts reading that! Lots of VAR talking points tonight...the one you mention though I saw:

Shaw commits a borderline sfp/reckless challenge but not seen by the ref, United break and immediately striker is fouled by the defender, possible dogso although ref gives yellow. Review indeed looks at Shaw tackle first then the dogso challenge, completely removing the yellow card for the potential dogso and giving Burnley a free kick for the Shaw foul (and a yellow card). TBH it seemed the right outcome though I saw someone suggest it took 6 mins from Shaw tackle to Burnley free kick which seems excessive.

Several other talking points tonight:

seemed to me Maguire goal was wrongly ruled out on the field in the first half and VAR should have allowed it.

Penalty to sheff utd was spot on in the early game, good use of VAR

Suggestions Burnley should have had a late pen for a Maguire handball but I haven't seen this so can't comment further!
It was a certain dogso. I wonder if had he given the correct red card that they would have gone back and checked shaws challenge, which imo was a red card offence. The whole process was messy, players and managers all getting worked up about the significant delay.
Maguires didn't even touch the arm so VAR couldn't get involved. If it did I think it would of had to have been handball
 

es1

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
It was a certain dogso. I wonder if had he given the correct red card that they would have gone back and checked shaws challenge, which imo was a red card offence. The whole process was messy, players and managers all getting worked up about the significant delay.
Maguires didn't even touch the arm so VAR couldn't get involved. If it did I think it would of had to have been handball

it's a fair question and i've no idea. i hope that they certainly would go back to the shaw tackle regardless, but not sure.

fair enough if maguires didnt touch his arm, no drama there then!
 

Yampy

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
It was a certain dogso. I wonder if had he given the correct red card that they would have gone back and checked shaws challenge, which imo was a red card offence. The whole process was messy, players and managers all getting worked up about the significant delay.
Maguires didn't even touch the arm so VAR couldn't get involved. If it did I think it would of had to have been handball
I did wonder at the time if Kevin Friend “deliberately” issued a caution in order to instigate a VAR check.
Not sure that any referee would think that quickly or cleverly in that scenario though so discounted that theory.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
I did wonder at the time if Kevin Friend “deliberately” issued a caution in order to instigate a VAR check.
Not sure that any referee would think that quickly or cleverly in that scenario though so discounted that theory.
We also don't know what's being said in the background.
Given the response of the Burnley players they must have been doing a silent check the Shaw challenge already.
How quickly is that communicated.
This would have been the VAR checking Shaw, then the AVAR must of taken over for the DOGSO or at least had eyes on it.
I don't think your theory is weightless. How directed by the ref it is I don't know.. Perhaps VAR are giving some direction.
For what it's worth I think they would have checked it in both scenarios, its the changeover of possession and one pass in between.. I just wondered if that was right or not.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
We also don't know what's being said in the background.
Given the response of the Burnley players they must have been doing a silent check the Shaw challenge already.
How quickly is that communicated.
This would have been the VAR checking Shaw, then the AVAR must of taken over for the DOGSO or at least had eyes on it.
I don't think your theory is weightless. How directed by the ref it is I don't know.. Perhaps VAR are giving some direction.
For what it's worth I think they would have checked it in both scenarios, its the changeover of possession and one pass in between.. I just wondered if that was right or not.
As I understand the protocol and facts, there are two possible things that happened here.

Option 1:
VAR thought it was DOGSO. Once the VAR was going to recommend red for DOGSO, reviewed the build up to the OGSO and discovered the foul on Shaw, which as something that would invalidate the OGSO was reviewable simply as a foul. If this happened, the R may have agreed with everything the VAR proposed. (Though I don't think the VAR would be raising the caution in this case, just the foul that would cancel the OGSO, and the R would choose to caution based on the foul.)

Option 2:
VAR thought the Shaw foul was a send off. (If the OFR was just based on the event, it would only be reviewable if the VAR saw a missed incident failure to give red.) In that case, the R disagreed with the VAR, but since he has reviewed (based on a proper referral for the missed red), he is within his authority to give a yellow.

What seems quirky to me about option 1 is that the Shaw foul is only reviewable because of the DOGSO red--though the R apparently never looked at that play. That is interesting, as if the R disagreed that it should be red, he would not have gone on to look at the Shaw foul and the FK would have stayed and Shaw gone unpunished. I don't know that the protocols or training really address whether the R should look at the potential red that is creating the rest of the review or, where a prior foul would wipe it, are supposed to look at that first. Or perhaps it is undefined, and they just did it this way.

Definitely a case where the details of protocols affect who does or does not get sanctioned.
 
Top