Match officials mic'd up

[DavidObs]

Spot on. The highly subjective nature of many of the most 'controversial' of the decisions makes the discussion almost an "unwinnable" battle. Personally, I'd love the powers that be to "come clean" and repeatedly stress that many, many decisions can be legitimately called either way. But there's understandable concern that fans / media would struggle with this ... the immortal phrase 'you can't handle the truth' springs to mind! And this is especially true now in the VAR era which has set up an ever increasing perception that we are aiming for the "right" decision at all costs.

Absolutely agree with everything you have said, though I would say that ‘almost’ an unwinnable battle is unwinnable.

 

[bester]

As soon as line of sight is mentioned it throws into doubt the rest of what the assistant says.
Clear and obvious is meant to stop re-refereeing if the assistant has misseen something then clear and obvious goes out the window.
The referee also should've inputted that line of sight wasn't an issue.

 

[DavidObs]

As soon as line of sight is mentioned it throws into doubt the rest of what the assistant says.
Clear and obvious is meant to stop re-refereeing if the assistant has misseen something then clear and obvious goes out the window.
The referee also should've inputted that line of sight wasn't an issue.

I completely disagree with your first sentence, but agree with your last sentence.

From his aligned position imho it is more than reasonable for the AR to have said line of sight (in whatever way he said/mentioned it).

 

[bester]

The AR is entitled to hold a view; in this case he was clearly wrong about line of sight.

 

[DavidObs]

The AR is entitled to hold a view; in this case he was clearly wrong about line of sight.

In events from all the camera angles line of sight was not overall the case (but I still agree with Rusty Refs comments that it can’t be said for sure that the goalkeeper’s view wasn’t hampered), but was not clearly wrong from what he identified from his position - he stated what he identified from a very credible aligned position, but as we all know, everything looks closer from the touchline, which is why the Referee’s input from his closer position is critical.

 

[bester]

@DavidObs From an observer perspective you may back him making a credible judgement about line of sight.

VAR doesn't say from the ARs position he's got a credible view. It decides from the best angle available whether the AR was clearly and obviously wrong.

There's not even a debate about it not being a line of sight offside here. You'd be hard pressed to find any top official who would give this as offside for line of sight.


To elucidate on my earlier point if the assistant believes it's a line of sight issue he must think the player is positioned further to the right.
If he thinks the player is in a different position then his view on whether ducking under the bal constituted a movement that clearly impacted the goalkeeper is going to be fundamentally flawed.

 

[DavidObs]

@DavidObs From an observer perspective you may back him making a credible judgement about line of sight.

VAR doesn't say from the ARs position he's got a credible view. It decides from the best angle available whether the AR was clearly and obviously wrong.

There's not even a debate about it not being a line of sight offside here. You'd be hard pressed to find any top official who would give this as offside for line of sight.


To elucidate on my earlier point if the assistant believes it's a line of sight issue he must think the player is positioned further to the right.
If he thinks the player is in a different position then his view on whether ducking under the bal constituted a movement that clearly impacted the goalkeeper is going to be fundamentally flawed.

To be clear, I’m not saying that this decision is line of sight since we all now know it isn’t - I’m talking about the exact second of impact from the AR’s perspective, though it looks like we disagree on this point. My view is also that the AR in question is one of our best.

 

[RustyRef]

My point was more around can VAR be certain that Robertson didn't affect Donnarumma's actions? He has a player directly in front of him that could play the ball, a player that is clearly offside, can we be certain that didn't affect his attempt to save the shot? Line of sight isn't really that relevant, the keeper has to consider whether the offside player might play the ball. I personally think he wasn't saving it regardless, but that is subjective and for me that is key. Had Stuart Burt not flagged there's no way VAR would have got involved, but the fact that he did means VAR have to prove that he was clearly wrong to do so.

 

[one]

My point is, in previous occasions we supported VAR intervention if it was not based on a clear and obvious error outcome, but based on incorrect information. Docu penalty being an example.
However we are also supporting a non-intervention here on a decision made based on incorrect outcome.
Should VAR intervene if the outcome is not clearly and obviously wrong but is based on incorrect information?

 

[Russell Jones]

The audio suggests that a variety of factors went into the overall thinking behind the on field decision of offside. Some of these factors proved to be factually correct and some not. Based on that, I’d only expect a review to be recommended if the VAR team had a strong view that an incorrect decision had been made … listening to their audio, this clearly wasn’t the case.

More generally, think this highlights that ‘the game’ IMO places undue emphasis on line of vision versus the other various ways that a player near goal can commit an offside offence. True LOV offences are actually pretty rare, whereas others, especially the “obvious action” clause, happen more frequently. My hope would be that this incident (and other recent ones) would lead to a proper debate about the best way to fairly interpret this clause and better assess whether any defender was “clearly” impacted.

My point is, in previous occasions we supported VAR intervention if it was not based on a clear and obvious error outcome, but based on incorrect information. Docu penalty being an example.
However we are also supporting a non-intervention here on a decision made based on incorrect outcome.
Should VAR intervene if the outcome is not clearly and obviously wrong but is based on incorrect information?

 

[one]

The audio suggests that a variety of factors went into the overall thinking behind the on field decision of offside. Some of these factors proved to be factually correct and some not. Based on that, I’d only expect a review to be recommended if the VAR team had a strong view that an incorrect decision had been made … listening to their audio, this clearly wasn’t the case.

More generally, think this highlights that ‘the game’ IMO places undue emphasis on line of vision versus the other various ways that a player near goal can commit an offside offence. True LOV offences are actually pretty rare, whereas others, especially the “obvious action” clause, happen more frequently. My hope would be that this incident (and other recent ones) would lead to a proper debate about the best way to fairly interpret this clause and better assess whether any defender was “clearly” impacted.

A diplomatic response.

I agree with most of your post but it doesn't address the core of my question. The main reason the goal was disallowed on field was LOV. This was incorrect and according to some post here, VAR knew this having access to the audio. Also according to some posts here, if the on filed decision is made based on incorrect information/assumptions then the VAR intervenes even if the final outcome of the decision is not clearly and aboviously wrong.

 

[bester]

Should VAR intervene if the outcome is not clearly and obviously wrong but is based on incorrect information?

Yes, to a degree. Otherwise the comms information is largely irrelevant.
More properly it lowers the bar for what is a clear and obvious error.

 

[Hilly1618]

I haven’t heard the audio , was it “Line of vision” or “Line of vision?”

 

[DavidObs]

I haven’t heard the audio , was it “Line of vision” or “Line of vision?”

I understand that the PL KMI Panel have ruled that the goal should have been allowed to stand but that VAR was correct not to intervene.

 

[Hilly1618]

I understand that the PL KMI Panel have ruled that the goal should have been allowed to stand but that VAR was correct not to intervene.

Thanks, my question was aimed at highlighting the possible differences in how words may have been used or interpreted at the time. The inclusion of the ? would change the meaning of the phrase from a statement to a query.

 

[DavidObs]

Thanks, my question was aimed at highlighting the possible differences in how words may have been used or interpreted at the time. The inclusion of the ? would change the meaning of the phrase from a statement to a query.

Good point, though I haven’t heard the audible either.

 

[Russell Jones]

Thanks, my question was aimed at highlighting the possible differences in how words may have been used or interpreted at the time. The inclusion of the ? would change the meaning of the phrase from a statement to a query.

It sounded more like a statement which (with hindsight) proved less than helpful. Sticking solely to the facts that Robertson was in an offside position and ducked to avoid the ball would have been most beneficial.

 

[DavidObs]

It sounded more like a statement which (with hindsight) proved less than helpful. Sticking solely to the facts that Robertson was in an offside position and ducked to avoid the ball would have been most beneficial.

That is definitely a learning point that can be taken from the incident. Nothing is straightforward anymore, what may have been the norm is now no longer. More clear detailed information is needed these days, but still succinct.

 

[DJIC]

My question is why is AR2, telling the referee Robertson is in ‘Line of Vision’? He surely doesn’t have this information, that is for the referee to decide.

Chris Kavanagh’s response is “OK, Offside then”.

Doesn’t suggest he made any analysis in his mind of why he was deeming it offside?

Good learning, that as Russell Jones said most of these type of offsides will be ‘obvious action’.