A&H

Nor Vs Che

one

one

RefChat Addict
78th minute. Nor keeper challenged and the ball goes in. MA refers to a review without making a decision. At least not signalling a decision. Goal disallowed. This is treading dangerous grounds and setting poor precedence. It looks like he is saying I don't know what happened so I an going to check with the VAR.
 
The Referee Store
one said:
78th minute. Nor keeper challenged and the ball goes in. MA refers to a review without making a decision. At least not signalling a decision. Goal disallowed. This is treading dangerous grounds and setting poor precedence. It looks like he is saying I don't know what happened so I an going to check with the VAR.
Click to expand...

How do you know he decided to review it and that VAR didn't recommend a review?

Either way isn't this the type of situation that VAR is for?

And as for not making a decision, if he knew he was going to be reviewing it, either because he wanted to or because VAR recommended it, why bother signalling for a goal until you know it will stand.
 
Is there a mandated signal for a goal?
I know we tend to point towards half way, but there are times EPL refs dont bother
 
cwyeary said:
Because of a little thing called the laws of the game which mandates the ref makes a decison.
Click to expand...

The laws of the game say the referee has to make a decision even if he needs to check something before he can know whether the decision will be correct?

Where does it say that? Where does it say that the referee has to make a decision before he checks anything with his AR, AAR, or VAR?
 
Big Cat said:
Is there a mandated signal for a goal?
I know we tend to point towards half way, but there are times EPL refs dont bother
Click to expand...

I had to double check the IFAB app, but there is no "official" signal for a goal being scored, though as you say pointing towards the half way line is the convention.
 
zarathustra said:
The laws of the game say the referee has to make a decision even if he needs to check something before he can know whether the decision will be correct?

Where does it say that? Where does it say that the referee has to make a decision before he checks anything with his AR, AAR, or VAR?
Click to expand...
Page 139

Screenshot_20190824_211921_com.google.android.apps.pdfviewer.png

In our games you are asking another person if they have seen something you have not or they advising you... VAR is not to Re referee the game so therefore in all cases the ref should make a decsion on field first.
 
JamesL said:
Page 139

View attachment 3673

In our games you are asking another person if they have seen something you have not or they advising you... VAR is not to Re referee the game so therefore in all cases the ref should make a decsion on field first.
Click to expand...

In that case consider me standing corrected.

Of course, referees don't always give a physical signal to award a goal, and there is no official signal in the laws of the game.
 
one said:
78th minute. Nor keeper challenged and the ball goes in. MA refers to a review without making a decision. At least not signalling a decision. Goal disallowed. This is treading dangerous grounds and setting poor precedence. It looks like he is saying I don't know what happened so I an going to check with the VAR.
Click to expand...
There is no signal for a goal, so to say he didn't make a decision before the review seems a bit unfair. Neither does the VARP require signalling anything anyway - only that the officials make an initial decision as if there wasn't a VAR.
I know I've decided on awarding a goal (or an attacking foul and not a goal) but checked with my colleagues when I suspected I had missed something, or to confirm what I had seen was accurate, and then signalled the decision, whether it was one already made or the changed one.
 
Nij said:
There is no signal for a goal, so to say he didn't make a decision before the review seems a bit unfair. Neither does the VARP require signalling anything anyway - only that the officials make an initial decision as if there wasn't a VAR.
I know I've decided on awarding a goal (or an attacking foul and not a goal) but checked with my colleagues when I suspected I had missed something, or to confirm what I had seen was accurate, and then signalled the decision, whether it was one already made or the changed one.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point of the post also didn't get what I meant by the use of the words "at least" or "it looks like".

So if you have watched it, at what point did you get the impression that the referee has made a decision and what that decision is? And did you get the impression if VAR is checking/reviewing to see if the referee was clearly wrong, or did you get the impression that the VAR is checking to tell the referee what the decision should be?
 
one said:
So if you have watched it, at what point did you get the impression that the referee has made a decision and what that decision is? And did you get the impression if VAR is checking/reviewing to see if the referee was clearly wrong, or did you get the impression that the VAR is checking to tell the referee what the decision should be?
Click to expand...
If you watch the match, I don’t believe that MA does not make any physical signal for any of the goals scored. In terms of initiating a review, he doesn’t have to as VAR will automatically check any goal.

Don’t forget, VAR has the audio feed of the match officials so the award of the goal would have been verbal but probably with a proviso along the lines of “just check the challenge on the keeper for me”.

Granted, I think the communication of the decision(s) could be improved but to suggest that protocol has not been followed requires a number of assumptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nij
I am saying that does not look good. In situations like this the decision of the referee has to be clearly communicated, and move to restart according to that decision. Then wait for check followed by review if needed. It looks like the players are just waiting for VAR to make a decision rather than getting ready for a restart according to the referee's decision. Best case scenario, it is poor communication to players and fans. At the other end , it is the VAR making decisions (instead of checking for clear and obvious errors). The former is treading dangerous grounds and the latter is a precedence we don't want to set.
 
For what it's worth, the pundits on BBC Match of the Day said that although it wasn't immediately apparent (which they found both strange and confusing) Atkinson did give the goal initially before being advised by VAR that there was an offside offence. No idea where they got that information, though (and they didnt say).
 
Peter Grove said:
For what it's worth, the pundits on BBC Match of the Day said that although it wasn't immediately apparent (which they found both strange and confusing) Atkinson did give the goal initially before being advised by VAR that there was an offside offence. No idea where they got that information, though (and they didnt say).
Click to expand...

The fact that there was no offside may be a clue on the credibility of the BBC pundits.
Screenshot_20190825-192628.jpg
 
Going by Tim Krul’s initial reaction, I think there’s a soft signal for the goal.

He’s fired up because he’s been fouled bit this changes to incredulity before being told to settle down as it’s being checked.
 
Peter Grove said:
For what it's worth, the pundits on BBC Match of the Day said that although it wasn't immediately apparent (which they found both strange and confusing) Atkinson did give the goal initially before being advised by VAR that there was an offside offence. No idea where they got that information, though (and they didnt say).
Click to expand...

Alan Shearer finds everything 'strange and confusing' tbf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top