That all makes sense. But that is not what the VAR protocol says. Which is the point of the OP.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 The former then it should be rescinded, the latter then it should stand.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.
Why don't you quote the bits of the protocol you think conflict then? All you seem to be doing is making vague allusions to things and honestly, I'm not following.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.
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 . Law 5.4 or VAR principle 1.1, the most important I would say:
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).
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.If they think it’s DOGSO then it’s clearly under c. I don’t see how this is hard?
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 . Law 5.4 or VAR principle 1.1, the most important I would say:
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).
Having detected an offside offence, what would you then have him do?
I think I don't understand the point of the thread because I don't see any significant mushiness here.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.