Peterborough - Ghost Corner

[PP62]

Long time no post. I hope you are well sir?

All’s good up here. Still lots of active refs who you’ll remember.

 

[one]

Devils advocate - Law 10 - A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no offence has been committed by the team scoring the goal.

This suggests a statement of fact & doesn’t say “ in the opinion of the Referee”, though we all know that this has to be the case.

However, I accept your points.

Using this logic, pre VAR (or games without VAR now), anytime an AR got an offside decision wrong and a goal scored, the match had to be replayed because this logic would consider it an error in law.

To have an error in law for factual decisions, the starting point is what the referee considers to be fact, even if it is not.

The basis for replays and "error in law" is that referees can make judgment errors, but they can't make knowledge errors.

 

[DavidObs]

Using this logic, pre VAR (or games without VAR now), anytime an AR got an offside decision wrong and a goal scored, the match had to be replayed because this logic would consider it an error in law.

To have an error in law for factual decisions, the starting point is what the referee considers to be fact, even if it is not.

The basis for replays and "error in law" is that referees can make judgment errors, but they can't make knowledge errors.

Well that’s cleared everything up

 

[GraemeS]

Using this logic, pre VAR (or games without VAR now), anytime an AR got an offside decision wrong and a goal scored, the match had to be replayed because this logic would consider it an error in law.

To have an error in law for factual decisions, the starting point is what the referee considers to be fact, even if it is not.

The basis for replays and "error in law" is that referees can make judgment errors, but they can't make knowledge errors.

But you have to realise how confusing that is when compared to what VAR considers fact/not a fact?

There are decisions VAR can (effectively) make solo if they are considered "factual". But if a VAR incorrectly decides a penalty decision was outside the area, or misses the fact that the GLT has failed and the ball is over the line, or misunderstands the fact of what the onfield decision is and disallow a valid goal as a result, those are "not" factual errors when it comes to refusing a replay. But they're factual enough that the referee doesn't need to go to the monitor....?

 

[one]

But you have to realise how confusing that is when compared to what VAR considers fact/not a fact?

There are decisions VAR can (effectively) make solo if they are considered "factual". But if a VAR incorrectly decides a penalty decision was outside the area, or misses the fact that the GLT has failed and the ball is over the line, or misunderstands the fact of what the onfield decision is and disallow a valid goal as a result, those are "not" factual errors when it comes to refusing a replay. But they're factual enough that the referee doesn't need to go to the monitor....?

I know it's semantics but VAR always makes their decision solo, it's up to the referee to accept it without a an infield review.

In cases you mentioned, the final incorrect decision would have more to do with miscommunication rather than getting the facts wrong.

Agree that there are grey areas that can lead to confusion.