VAR question
- Thread starter one
- Start date
LothianRef
Member
Would it not be to give the offside? Would that not be the first offence?
Weird how similar this hypothetical situation is to what could have happened with Minamino in the Palace v Liverpool game today!
I think to answer this question, you have to put yourself in the shoes of the VAR and go through it step by step.
1. Confirm the onfield decision
2. Carry out the check on the incident
3. Determine that it is DOGSO
4. Check for any reason why it shouldn't be given (there's your offside)
5. Tell the referee that he has to give the offside
As to if the yellow should stand, that depends if it was given for SPA or because the tackle was reckless in its own right. The former then it should be rescinded, the latter then it should stand.
Assuming you are talking about the Pal v Liv game and this isn't just a huge coincidence, I think the reason this didn't happen is because they didn't get past step 2 in the above process - it may possibly have been DOGSO, but I don't think it was C&O enough to overturn, so the VAR process stops there.
I think to answer this question, you have to put yourself in the shoes of the VAR and go through it step by step.
1. Confirm the onfield decision
2. Carry out the check on the incident
3. Determine that it is DOGSO
4. Check for any reason why it shouldn't be given (there's your offside)
5. Tell the referee that he has to give the offside
As to if the yellow should stand, that depends if it was given for SPA or because the tackle was reckless in its own right. The former then it should be rescinded, the latter then it should stand.
Assuming you are talking about the Pal v Liv game and this isn't just a huge coincidence, I think the reason this didn't happen is because they didn't get past step 2 in the above process - it may possibly have been DOGSO, but I don't think it was C&O enough to overturn, so the VAR process stops there.
one
RefChat Addict
That all makes sense. But that is not what the VAR protocol says. Which is the point of the OP.
I am going to expand on my post here. Let's say the yellow was given for SPA by the referee and it was his second. Let's also say (hypothetical of course) had the referee reviewed the DOGSO recommendation by VAR, he would have stayed with his own SPA. What makes sense in your steps now clearly contradicts what can be reviewed by VAR and has a big impact on the game.
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
Ok. I thought it was obvious but here it is, made easier to understand 
. Law 5.4 or VAR principle 1.1, the most important I would say:
Which one of these categories would the VAR intervention for offside would fall under?
(keep in mind the hypothetical that referee would have stayed with his own SPA decision had he reviewed the incident).
. Law 5.4 or VAR principle 1.1, the most important I would say: Which one of these categories would the VAR intervention for offside would fall under?
(keep in mind the hypothetical that referee would have stayed with his own SPA decision had he reviewed the incident).
Jtpetherick1
Well-Known Member
If they think it’s DOGSO then it’s clearly under c. I don’t see how this is hard?Ok. I thought it was obvious but here it is, made easier to understand
View attachment 4714
Which one of these categories would the VAR intervention for offside would fall under?
(keep in mind the hypothetical that referee would have stayed with his own SPA decision had he reviewed the incident).
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
If he has already given a red card, they won't look to overrule it as it is not a clear and obvious error for that challenge.
But the VAR in his booth doesn't know that he would be overruled if he sent the incident down? So that hypothetical detail is irrelevant to the question of "what should the VAR do?" - he should take the same course of action, make the same recommendation and if the referee chooses not to go along with his advice, that's just a possible outcome.Ok. I thought it was obvious but here it is, made easier to understand
View attachment 4714
Which one of these categories would the VAR intervention for offside would fall under?
(keep in mind the hypothetical that referee would have stayed with his own SPA decision had he reviewed the incident).
Clause c is enough to initiate a review and one possible result of that review is that the VAR believes that failing to give a red card for DOGSO is a C&O missed incident. If that's the case, he has to continue on to make sure that there isn't a suitable reason that play should have stopped earlier than the red card incident - which is when he detects the offside offence. You can't recommend a red card without going through these steps, in the same way that you couldn't recommend a penalty without making sure the player who was fouled also wasn't offside first.
Having detected an offside offence, what would you then have him do?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I agree it’s mushy. We have a clear error to call SPAA instead of DOGSO. But a clear error to give either b/c of the OS. So either: (1) the VAR dos nothing because h can’t recommend a red b/c of the offside; or (2) the VAR goes sequentially, and ends up with OS.
In the booth doing the “check,” the VAR certainly goes sequentially, but it’s not clear to me that’s how the recommendation for the “review” by the R should be done that way. (There was an actual incident,I think in MLS that involved a double reversal of some sort, but I can’t recall where/when. But i don’t think that one involved the possibility the whole review should not have happened.)
This is all about the slippery slope of reviewability—however you draw the lines, some are going to be tougher to decide how to handle than others. (The NBA had an infamous playoff incident some years ago. The las minute review at the time permitted review of who last touched on out of bounds, but not fouls. Ball was called out on A. Replay clearly showed that A fouled B, forcing A to knock the ball out. So the on court call was reversed, making an even less fair result on the play. Thems the breaks.)
In the booth doing the “check,” the VAR certainly goes sequentially, but it’s not clear to me that’s how the recommendation for the “review” by the R should be done that way. (There was an actual incident,I think in MLS that involved a double reversal of some sort, but I can’t recall where/when. But i don’t think that one involved the possibility the whole review should not have happened.)
This is all about the slippery slope of reviewability—however you draw the lines, some are going to be tougher to decide how to handle than others. (The NBA had an infamous playoff incident some years ago. The las minute review at the time permitted review of who last touched on out of bounds, but not fouls. Ball was called out on A. Replay clearly showed that A fouled B, forcing A to knock the ball out. So the on court call was reversed, making an even less fair result on the play. Thems the breaks.)
one
RefChat Addict
The same as what you said in post #5. It's the only fair outcome. Even though (IMO) it's against the protocol.
But you don't seem to have understood the point of the post. It's dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. It's contradictory. A send off is prevented only if VAR thinks it is a send off (which makes him go back to the offside). To the average viewer it would look like the review was triggered for a second yellow.
Other cases could have bigger consequences like the basketball example above. All this and the confusion can be avoided if the was some rules around double reviews.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
While this wasn't specifically covered, there was (IMHO) an analogous scenario in the "full" VAR protocol issued some while ago now. It goes as follows:
So ultimately, I don't really see too much of a quandary here.
If you replace "missed penalty" with "potential DOGSO red card" and using the principle outlined above, if an offside is identified while reviewing an incident related to a potential red card, the VAR should inform the referee, who has the option to award the offside if that is the appropriate course of action (which I believe it is).
So ultimately, I don't really see too much of a quandary here.
If you replace "missed penalty" with "potential DOGSO red card" and using the principle outlined above, if an offside is identified while reviewing an incident related to a potential red card, the VAR should inform the referee, who has the option to award the offside if that is the appropriate course of action (which I believe it is).
one
RefChat Addict
Good find @Peter Grove, as usual . There definitely is a parallel there. A couple of things comes to mind.
The old protocol is no longer used. But it can serve as a guide here.
This situation is a mess (I think the protocol called it "not easy"). Imagine if the first incident to start the attack was a missed reckless challenge by a player on a yellow.
. There definitely is a parallel there. A couple of things comes to mind.The old protocol is no longer used. But it can serve as a guide here.
This situation is a mess (I think the protocol called it "not easy"). Imagine if the first incident to start the attack was a missed reckless challenge by a player on a yellow.
I think I don't understand the point of the thread because I don't see any significant mushiness here.
There are 4 (admittedly arbitrary) reasons that allow for a review to be initiated. Having initiated a review, the objective should be to achieve the fairest possible final result - which in this case would be a defensive IFK for offside and a possible revocation of the caution, depending if the reason for the caution was SPA or not.
I do get that it may not be explicitly laid out, but given that arbitrary restriction on what can be reviewed, the rest follows fairly logically in my opinion. Take away that arbitrary restriction with a challenge system that I've argued for many times before and it becomes a bit cleaner - the review doesn't have to be linked to a DOGSO, it can instead be linked to the defending team saying "we think he was offside".