A&H

VAR Help from a photographer!

The Referee Store
If your gut says its a goal your are probably right. A risky decision to look at it again, although why wasn't there tape on the hole so you could see if the ball had gone through the hole? If I find a hole the electricians tape comes out so if the ball does hit that spot I can tell. Vital piece of reffing kit. Also good for mending flags. And used once when both teams had the same coloured socks so the away team had to put black tape on distinguish them. Both teams had the same coloured tape as their socks as they should.
 
I have a fear/suspicion that at some point in the coming season I will asked to review an incident someone had recorded on their phone!
 
Someone on the sideline once asked me to watch a video of the match to review an offside decision and I refused. Unfair advantage to one side if you start doing things like this
 
Yeah ....this is just all sorts of wrong. Completely against the LOTG, opens a big can of worms - and risks making the wrong decision if the photo is taken off the line - it may look like it's over without being over.

I would hope nobody would even consider this.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Yeah ....this is just all sorts of wrong. Completely against the LOTG, opens a big can of worms - and risks making the wrong decision if the photo is taken off the line - it may look like it's over without being over.

I would hope nobody would even consider this.
Click to expand...
They spent millions on the WC and 7 VARs fecked up, this guy has spent diddly and got it spot on! He’s still made his own decision, what’s the issue!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
They spent millions on the WC and 7 VARs fecked up, this guy has spent diddly and got it spot on! He’s still made his own decision, what’s the issue!
Click to expand...

Using a photographer on the side of the pitch is not in the LOTG .... and the photographer may only capture some moments not all meaning that this gives an advantage to one side and not the other.

What is in the LOTG is pitch inspections and the referee/ assistants should be checking the nets
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Yeah ....this is just all sorts of wrong. Completely against the LOTG, opens a big can of worms - and risks making the wrong decision if the photo is taken off the line - it may look like it's over without being over.

I would hope nobody would even consider this.
Click to expand...
Agree with everything except it being completely against the LOTG unless there is something in the LOTG I have missed.
 
one said:
Agree with everything except it being completely against the LOTG unless there is something in the LOTG I have missed.
Click to expand...
As the article states, the referee here has used an improvised version of VAR. Law 5 states that:
The use of video assistant referees (VARs) is only permitted where the match/ competition organiser has fulfilled all the VAR protocol and implementation requirements (as set out in the VAR Handbook) and has received written permission from The IFAB and FIFA.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grove said:
As the article states, the referee here has used an improvised version of VAR. Law 5 states that:
Click to expand...
I disagree that you can refer to the photographer in the video as a "video assistant referees". Using the article in the OP as justification for the the reference ... well I didnt expect you would do it.

The clause you refer to is clearly to stop leagues from implementing their own version of VAR. Using it in this case is stretching it especially when putting it as "completely against the lotg".

Having said that I don't agree with what the referee did and as @CapnBloodbeard said its a can of worms which has and can lead to all sorts of problems.
 
one said:
I disagree that you can refer to the photographer in the video as a "video assistant referees". Using the article in the OP as justification for the the reference ... well I didnt expect you would do it.
Click to expand...
The law says that it can't cover all possible scenarios and so when a situation arises that is not specifically dealt with, the referee has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws.

I did not say that a photographer is an official VAR, I said the referee had used the photographer's camera as an improvised VAR system and I think it is clear from the way the law is worded that using an unauthorised video replay system in order to make a decision does not fall within the framework of the Laws.
 
Just saw this. On one view, first view, its clearly a goal
Talk about over complicating things, it went in first time of asking, its a goal when if crosses the goal line between the sticks and underneath the bar...not when you see it wearing a bow tie sitting in the onion bag
 
I saw this a few days ago - first reaction was “why not have a look”, but after I thought about it it’s a terrible terrible idea. Once he opens this can of worms imagine the next decision. Foul? Look at the camera ref. Penalty? Look at the camera ref...not well thought through.
 
What next? Referring to a phone clip to see if he did call you a xxx xxxxxx

Total nonsense and absurd its even given time of day on here, far less world wide
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top