Palace v Man City FAC
- Thread starter ladbroke8745
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
That's pretty much where I'm at. It is annoying at times, but it has corrected far more incorrect decisions than it has dropped clangers. Unfortunately it is always going to be such clangers* that get focused on and that damages the reputation of VAR. And these almost always aren't caused by the technology, rather by the people choosing / designing / operating the technology.
* Just to caveat, I'm not including the cup final decision as a clanger. I personally think it should have been red for DOGSO, but equally I agree there is some element of subjectivity about it. And as I've always banged on about situations needing to be so obviously wrong that a hundred referees look at it and agree it is a mistake, I probably should be supporting there not being an intervention. I do also think that the player involved has perhaps skewed opinion in this instance, I wonder if we would all be screaming DOGSO if it was Darwin Nunez instead of Haaland, or exactly the same thing happened in the League 2 play off final where the skill level is obviously much lower. Has the fact it was arguably the best striker in the World that has made so many people sure it was DOGSO?
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
I think my question on this type of incident remains, why does it make sense for an unusual situation like this one to need to be that obviously wrong in order to be referred for a second viewing by the on field referee? Stuart Attwell deserves the chance to decide for himself for the first time whether or not the DOGSO criteria have been met. Otherwise we have the situation where a KMI has been, in essence, solely refereed by the off field officials rather than the on field ones.
My answer remains the same, I don't disagree with you in terms of what would be the ideal outcome, but the protocols don't currently allow for it. Whatever people think about the VAR decisions, the officials absolutely know the protocol and what they are and aren't allowed to do.
Not wishing to get off-topic so no need for you to reply
I've used the word 'observers' inappropriately. Most of the advice delivered from observers has been OK
It's more that I disagree with aspects of the agreed philosophy of refereeing and it's just that I associate observers with that philosophy
There's been a massive push for consistency, but that's come at the expense of individuality (which is promptly stamped out by observers) and any possibility of natural selection. There's an insidious focus on 'safe refereeing', 'selling decisions', irritating everyone with box ticking and not enough ruthless application of rules IMO
I don't see the overall standard of refereeing improving with that existing approach to refereeing... and observers are naturally an integral cog in the machine, albeit many observers being admirable people.
One for another day.... ! I'm not sure I'd want promotion now that I'm over 50 (don't think it would feel right for me any more), so my view now is that I can do what I like without paying much attention to anyone's agenda other than my own
Last edited:
Rusty, every time you say they followed the protocol, it reinforces the case that there's something wrong with the protocol!
Might be quicker to discuss whats right with it
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
The whole point of VAR was to stop clear and obvious mistakes. The fact we still have clear and obvious mistakes is proof that it isn't fit for purpose. The fact we sometimes sit for 5+ minutes whilst they analyse the tiniest detail to the Nth degree to decide whether someone's left nipple was offside, but they end up with decisions such as Saturdays is more proof it isn't fit for purpose.
LothianRef
Member
I agree but I think that’s a consideration that we all take into account, whether subconsciously or otherwise. For instance, my threshold for DOGSO at bottom division u13 is far higher than top division u18.
And every time someone replies to me me saying there is something wrong with the protocol I reply back saying I understand their point but the officials can only apply it as it is written. I don't agree with the protocol that I have to line up at the "other passports" queue in Europe, but that doesn't mean I walk up to the EU gates because I don't agree with it. In both cases it needs the protocols / rules changing, for the latter it seems like that is happening so perhaps it will for VAR as well, who knows. But until then the VAR officials have their hands tied.
Yeah, and then you get horrendous decisions like in the League 1 play off semi-final and people are then questioning why VAR isn't used in that game. The game wanted VAR, and by the game I include players, coaches, managers, supporters, etc, probably the only people that didn't want it was referees, arguably because we could foresee the pitfalls. But let's not pretend it was all rosy before VAR and everyone accepted decisions, because they clearly didn't.
Is it fit for purpose? When it is used properly I'd say yes, we've seen very few problems when it is used in FIFA and UEFA competitions. So that points the finger squarely at the PGMOL interpretation, and as harsh as it sounds heads will just need to continue to roll until such time as they get it right.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
I agree that things weren't rosy before VAR, but I believe they were a he'll of a lot better than they are now.
Are PGMOL to blame? For large parts of it, yes. Hearing the officials on the comms is extremely amateurish.
But other countries have issues as well. Which would then point the finger at the actual VAR criteria itself. VAR has so far been a complete and utter flop. It either needs removing or majorly altering for it to be of any use
Don't really agree, it has been accepted far more readily in other countries, generally where it has gone wrong has been where they have gone with a cut price version, the old adage you get what you pay for, or the bosses have messed around with the protocol or implementation (i.e. England). How much controversy can anyone remember from the Euros, World Cup, or UEFA competitions? I'm struggling to think of any, and that really points at the PGMOL implementation, as well as that in other countries where it has had serious issues.
I do think Howard Webb will get it right eventually. Don't think we should forget he took over from a regime that changed the bar for VAR almost every other weekend, that must have been impossible for the officials. I suspect as the legacy officials "age out", and the panel becomes almost full of referees that have had VAR since they started it will improve significantly.
I'll also add that a major problem in England is the massive influence the EFL have on PGMOL. That needs to stop, either PGMOL needs to become completely independent of the EPL, or disbanded and the management of officials moves back to the FA. That isn't just in relation to VAR, but it certainly plays a part.
one
RefChat Addict
My answer would be because having it the way have now is the lesser of the two evils.
Any process that has human involvement is prone to error and/or inconsistencies. To eradicate or minimise that as much as possible the process is made prescriptive, and if possible less opinion based. Handball and offside laws are good examples of this.
We have two options here:
1. Intervene if clear and obvious error
2. Intervene if clear and obvious error unless there are unusual circumstances that you think (maybe some considerations) won't require clear and obvious error.
If we take this specific instance out of our head and think about which option serves the game best overall, for me it's option 1, clearly and obviously
.
Last edited:
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Match officials for this match appointed by the FA not PGMOL …..
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
In general, I agree that number one is the least worst option. However, I believe differentiation should be made between (potential) KMI incidents actually seen by the on field officials and those completely missed. In the latter cases, I’d set a much lower bar for VAR intervention, in order to allow the on field referee to see and adjudicate them for themselvesMy answer would be because having it the way have now is the lesser of the two evils.
Any process that has human involvement is prone to error and/or inconsistencies. To eradicate or minimise that as much as possible the process is made prescriptive, and if possible less opinion based. Handball and offside laws are good examples of this.
We have two options here:
1. Intervene if clear and obvious error
2. Intervene if clear and obvious error unless there are unusual circumstances that you think (maybe some considerations) won't require clear and obvious error.
If we take this specific instance out of our head and think about which option serves the game best overall, for me it's option 1, clearly and obviously
LothianRef
Member
If you watch this video from approximately 24:40 the incident being discussed is a potential red card for SFP. No foul is given onfield and Willie Collum says this means the bar for intervention from the VAR is therefore much lower and an onfield review should be made. Whereas if a yellow card was given onfield then the check is more about whether or not that’s supportable.
I know that no two incidents are never the same but there are definitely some similarities here, with a potential red card effectively being refereed by the VAR.
I know that no two incidents are never the same but there are definitely some similarities here, with a potential red card effectively being refereed by the VAR.
Another reason why it won’t appear on mic’d up
Did they completely miss it though? Perhaps Attwell did but there’s no way the active AR did, rather he’s seen it and incorrectly determined it was inside the penalty area