A&H

VAR contravery - A-League - Again.

The Referee Store
For what it's worth, Football Federation Australia have said it was the wrong decision initially and could have been overturned.
And they also said that the referee was only looking at the point of contact (in or out of the box) and not whether it was a foul.
You'd think that looking at the entire incident would be VAR 101...I mean, come on.
 
So once it is determined the point of contact is inside, then shouldn't you also review the foul/no foul decision because it now becomes a key decision (I think this is what you are saying)? Or should the referee point to the penalty spot, set up for a penalty and then start a new review for the foul. It doesn't make sense to me whichever I look at it. The referee could have a thousand things in his mind but the VAR is in his ear and should help him out here. Did that happen? I still can't figure out how this happened.
 
one said:
So once it is determined the point of contact is inside, then shouldn't you also review the foul/no foul decision because it now becomes a key decision (I think this is what you are saying)? Or should the referee point to the penalty spot, set up for a penalty and then start a new review for the foul. It doesn't make sense to me whichever I look at it. The referee could have a thousand things in his mind but the VAR is in his ear and should help him out here. Did that happen? I still can't figure out how this happened.
Click to expand...
Yep, It should be basic stuff - if you're only unsure of one thing, well, you need to review the entire decision. Ref really dropped the ball here - VAR was such a joke last season in the HAL, surely they trained in the offseason on this?

But yes, it also questions the communication - surely the VAR should be saying 'looks like it's in the box, check it out yourself - not so sure if it was a foul myself'.

Personally, given that there was some contact in the back I was actually thinking it might not be 'clear and obvious' enough to overturn it...but perhaps that's where we get the spirit of the law here; if it's wrong, but arguably not 'clearly and obviously' wrong...well, just go with overturning the wrong call rather than compound it by changing it into a pen
 
That's were my question in the other thread kicks in. "clear and obvious" is only for when it can be reviewed. But once you start the review for the right reasons, can the decisions you change not comply with the "clear and obvious" criteria. The protocol doesn't seem to answer that.
 
God, the BR-CCM game is an absolute farce.
Beath....I dunno, maybe he should be breath tested?
Anyway, VAR (correctly) overrules a very close goal. Then another goal up the other end, AR raises an incredibly late flag, VAR takes one glance, at this stage it looks like the player was only in line, but just a single glance then nothing. I mean, what the hell???? Completely inconsistent approach, and I'd argue a good goal's been lost as a result.

Anyway, for anybody else reading this thread - AR manages to miss a massive offside, goes to the box, referee inexplicably awards a penalty for something that doesn't even have a hint of a foul and a YC for DOGSO. VAR correctly goes to the offside, so the card is overturned as well. Farcical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top