Palace v Man City FAC

[es1]

Exactly. And challenge based system limits that by limiting the number of challenges teams get.

I've been advocating for a challenge based system probably since the first VAR proposals were issued. I don't know how clear it needs to be that the current system is not fit for pupose.

 

[Kes]

Agree to some extent but I think both the angle of the ball and Haalands run is going away from the goal, still into the box but a lot wider of an angle. He has then got to regain control of the ball before a defender gets back on the line or infront of him to make a block.

For me thats probably enough reasonable doubt for it not to tick all the criteria.

Whether he would have been able to put the ball into the net afterwards might (for some) be debatable but he was denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity which is the key issue here.

 

[Kes]

Left footed player driving out to the right hand corner of the penalty area at pace, now needing to fetch a ball under control , defender more central just moving without the ball towards the goal line to block. Would the left footed player need to get the ball back onto his left foot or risk a shot with their weaker right foot. Just being devils advocate here, but there’s more going on here in my mind than it blatantly being an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

As already stated, doesn't matter whether he scuffs it, balloons it over, falls over or tries to square it. The GKs handball has denied him the opportunity to score.

 

[Martiju]

Whether he would have been able to put the ball into the net afterwards might (for some) be debatable but he was denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity which is the key issue here.

I think people easily get caught between the words 'obvious' and 'opportunity', when you have to consider both together.

 

[Archer]

DOOTBTBIRZ

Spoiler

Denial (of an) obvious opportunity to balloon the ball into row Z

 

[Kes]

I've been advocating for a challenge based system probably since the first VAR proposals were issued. I don't know how clear it needs to be that the current system is not fit for pupose.

A challenge-based system (replacing current VAR protocol) wouldn't really work within a sport whose culture is based on cheating.

Even if it were implemented and (as some have suggested) teams only get one challenge per game - what then?

We'll still be back to the very scenarios which caused the clamour for VAR to exist in the first place ie. one team uses it's "challenge", VAR vindicates it and then later, in the 88th minute, a player deliberately handballs the ball either in their own penalty area or into their opponents net which the officials miss only this time there's no chance for a review?

 

[Runner Ref]

A challenge-based system (replacing current VAR protocol) wouldn't really work within a sport whose culture is based on cheating.

Even if it were implemented and (as some have suggested) teams only get one challenge per game - what then?

We'll still be back to the very scenarios which caused the clamour for VAR to exist in the first place ie. one team uses it's "challenge", VAR vindicates it and then later, in the 88th minute, a player deliberately handballs the ball either in their own penalty area or into their opponents net which the officials miss only this time there's no chance for a review?

You could give then more than one challenge. Or give them one challenge, and if it is upheld, they get to keep the challenge.

But if they only have the one, use it and lose it, that's on them. It would then stop them challenging for the sake of it.

There will never be a perfect system. But for me, the challenge system would be a lot closer to it than the tosh we have now

 

[es1]

A challenge-based system (replacing current VAR protocol) wouldn't really work within a sport whose culture is based on cheating.

Even if it were implemented and (as some have suggested) teams only get one challenge per game - what then?

We'll still be back to the very scenarios which caused the clamour for VAR to exist in the first place ie. one team uses it's "challenge", VAR vindicates it and then later, in the 88th minute, a player deliberately handballs the ball either in their own penalty area or into their opponents net which the officials miss only this time there's no chance for a review?

i get your point, the cheating is a huge problem and one we're all complicit in, but i dont see it as a blocker

 

[bloovee]

I don't entirely blame the process here. Did VAR actually think this was DOGSO? If not everything else is irrelevant and he can't get involved.

The problem here is even people who think this was not dogso think it was bad enough for VAR to get involved. That's just not what VAR is made for.

See above. The intention for the VAR is to correct a clear and obvious mistake. It's not for VAR to make a clear and obvious mistake on behalf of the onfield team.

 

[bloovee]

Yes we can decide to make it work this way. It will fix this incident but the concequence are much wider. It will be a knee jerk reaction to implemet something to give VAR much more power than they should have. It will become the basis for VAR being expected to rereferee the game.

VAR just did that, in this incident.

 

[bloovee]

This is quite a good definition from an American official - https://www.facebook.com/reel/3155991411218857

A lot of conjecture there about wide Haaland's touch might take the ball. And if the GK isn't sticking his hand out to try and commit a handling offence, Haaland doesn't need to try and nick it away from the "unnatural position" hand. (What if the GK had been stranded upfield and that had been the last defender handling it?)

 

[one]

See above. The intention for the VAR is to correct a clear and obvious mistake. It's not for VAR to make a clear and obvious mistake on behalf of the onfield team.

VAR to make a clear and obvious mistake on behalf of the onfield team means overturning a correct decision into an incorrect one. What he/it did here is not correct an incorrect decision. Onfeld team made a mistake, VAR didn't correct them.

The VAR protocol would have worked if the VAR person had done their job correctly. The protocol is not to blame here, the person is.

We have had VAR (person) errors in the past where clear SFPs were not corrected. The protocol was not blamed then. What makes this any different?

Any system relying on persons making subjective decisions is bound to go wrong sometimes.

 

[bloovee]

VAR to make a clear and obvious mistake on behalf of the onfield team means overturning a correct decision into an incorrect one. What he/it did here is not correct an incorrect decision. Onfeld team made a mistake, VAR didn't correct them.

The VAR protocol would have worked if the VAR person had done their job correctly. The protocol is not to blame here, the person is.

We have had VAR (person) errors in the past where clear SFPs were not corrected. The protocol was not blamed then. What makes this any different?

Any system relying on persons making subjective decisions is bound to go wrong sometimes.

OK. Presumably the VAR intervenes because it's a missed incident. It's not "after the referee has made a (first/original) decision".

But if the VAR doesn't think it's DOGSO, is it technically a "missed incident"?

But most SFPs are left to the referee to do an onfield review.

 

[Runner Ref]

@RustyRef @Ross can you delete this post, please. Looks like i accidentally quoted a post as a post

 

[RustyRef]

1. Ref thinks GK handles ball inside PA
   • No further DOGSO considerations for Ref
2. VAR determines HB outside PA
   • At this point, there is nothing else for the VAR to Review because the Referee has not Refereed the remaining DOGSO criteria
   • The Referee must go to the screen to Referee (for the first time) the remaining DOGSO criteria
   • Instead the VAR becomes the Referee for the game and Referees the remaining DOGSO criteria
   • This is wrong

Now we don't know what was said between Ref and VAR
It could be that the Ref said to VAR (given it was HB), 'he thought the ball was going away from goal so no DOGSO', so it could be that the Ref did get first bite of that cherry. At which point the VAR should've said, 'no ball is only going away from goal because it was palmed away from goal'
Without a proper pitch-side review however, nothing was right about it. The overall decision, but also the restart and the lack of any sanction

The VAR process obviously hasn't catered for this scenario in full. Regardless of likely minor inaccuracies in my account above, nothing went right between Ref and VAR and the outcome was therefore wrong in every way regardless of whether one thinks it was DOGSO or not (which it clearly was). It is VAR not working just when it was most needed and dreamt up for

Only when we hear the comms will we know whether VAR or SA are mostly at fault, but it's highly likely they will share equal blame for this shambles

We won't hear the comms as the Mic'd Up show only covers the EPL, not the FA Cup.

The commentators, certainly those on ITV anyway, repeated what VAR were saying and that was the play was going too wide for it to be DOGSO. That is them saying there was no clear and obvious error, that by definition precludes them from recommending a review, and at that point they check complete it. We might not like how that process works, but that is absolutely how it operates at the moment as per the protocol.

 

[RustyRef]

There are more holes in that small article than Swiss cheese.

He doubled down on it earlier today by saying on talkSPORT that a keeper handling outside their area is an automatic caution for USB

 

[RustyRef]

OK. Presumably the VAR intervenes because it's a missed incident. It's not "after the referee has made a (first/original) decision".

But if the VAR doesn't think it's DOGSO, is it technically a "missed incident"?

But most SFPs are left to the referee to do an onfield review.

If the referee plays on that is still them making a decision, the decision is they play on and don't blow the whistle.

 

[BCMilan]

If the referee plays on that is still them making a decision, the decision is they play on and don't blow the whistle.

Exactly ! Therefore, could VAR have intervened as playing on was a clear and obvious error ?

 

[JamesL]

Exactly ! Therefore, could VAR have intervened as playing on was a clear and obvious error ?

No because it was not in relation to one of the 4 reviewable situations according to the VAR.

This is like a situation where the referee misses a clear and obvious careless foul. It can't be reviewed as it's not a goal/no goal, red card, penalty/no penalty / mistaken identity situation.

We may not agree with the VARs interpretation but for sure he has acted well within the protocol.

 

[RustyRef]

Exactly ! Therefore, could VAR have intervened as playing on was a clear and obvious error ?

No, because a missed handball isn't a reviewable decision. The process would have been ...

• Handball happens, on pitch officials either miss it or don't realise it was outside the penalty area.
• VAR see it and will have communicated that a check was under way. They aren't checking whether it was handball or not, that was obvious, they are checking whether the handling caused a DOGSO.
• They deem it wasn't DOGSO, and as per the comments the commentators heard this was because they felt play was going too wide.
• As they deemed it wasn't DOGSO there was no clear and obvious error, so all they could do was check complete it.

There was nothing wrong with the VAR process here, it was entirely within the protocol and the only real debate is whether they were correct that it wasn't DOGSO. Personally I don't think they were, but that is subjective and some people do think there was sufficient doubt as to Haaland gaining control to make it obvious enough for DOGSO.

I would say far more annoying from a VAR perspective this weekend was the horrendous delay for the offside at West Ham, at almost 7 minutes long. And that wasn't down to the officials, rather PGMOL's / EPL's decision to develop their own semi-automated offside system rather than use one that has worked perfectly well in Europe for some time. It seems clear that it can't cope when players are in a crowd scene, which makes it all but useless at most set pieces, not a problem the other system seems to have.