RefSix

Wild MLS playoff game

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
VAR saved the R from the incorrect sub. (And it still boggles my mind that one of the 4 on the field didn't catch that instantly . . . )
This is what I was referring to. VAR as it stands is limited to intervention in four cases and that's it. Preventing an error in law outside of those four cases is not something he should be doing. Perhaps it should be allowed in limited other cases but it is not. So here, the VAR, in preventing an error in law by the referee, made an error in law himself.

If VARs were free to prevent referees from making an error in law in all cases, then they can intervene everytime a throw in is given to the wrong team which technically is an error in law.
 

Dan56

New Member
Level 7 Referee
If VARs were free to prevent referees from making an error in law in all cases, then they can intervene everytime a throw in is given to the wrong team which technically is an error in law.
Giving a throw to the wrong team cannot be an error in Law unless the referee says "throw goes to the last player to touch the ball". Just making a mistake about who touched the ball last is an error in fact - and in errors of the referee's word is final.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Giving a throw to the wrong team cannot be an error in Law unless the referee says "throw goes to the last player to touch the ball". Just making a mistake about who touched the ball last is an error in fact - and in errors of the referee's word is final.
Note the word 'technically'.

In either case the point of the post was about if VAR can intervene for anything not related to one of the four KMI's.
 
Last edited:

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Would allowing a substitute when not allowed not come under 'serious missed incident' which is a fairly broad term.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
This is what I was referring to. VAR as it stands is limited to intervention in four cases and that's it. Preventing an error in law outside of those four cases is not something he should be doing. Perhaps it should be allowed in limited other cases but it is not. So here, the VAR, in preventing an error in law by the referee, made an error in law himself.

If VARs were free to prevent referees from making an error in law in all cases, then they can intervene everytime a throw in is given to the wrong team which technically is an error in law.
As others have pointed out, this error if allowed to proceed would probably have been grounds for some form of replay - at the very minimum they could have had to come back and redo the rest of the shootout with a permitted GK, plausibly they may have had to repeat the whole shootout or even the whole match. Any official worth anything should have been getting involved to avoid that.

We are still only speculating that it was the VAR, it might be the case that one of the on-field referees suddenly remembered the law. But honestly, I would have supported the observer marching down from the stands to stop that. "VAR Protocol" is not a good enough excuse for sitting idly by and causing a match to have to be replayed when all you have to do is push the comms button and say "Hang on guys, are they allowed to make a sub at this point?"
 

es1

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Would allowing a substitute when not allowed not come under 'serious missed incident' which is a fairly broad term.

bearing in mind VAR wasnt able to review the sheff utd goal v villa last year when goal line tech failed i'd assume not!
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
bearing in mind VAR wasnt able to review the sheff utd goal v villa last year when goal line tech failed i'd assume not!
That's incorrect - they were 100% entitled to review for that, but simply failed to do so.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Would allowing a substitute when not allowed not come under 'serious missed incident' which is a fairly broad term.
Possibly, with a big fat shoe horn and a lot of force :)

As others have pointed out, this error if allowed to proceed would probably have been grounds for some form of replay - at the very minimum they could have had to come back and redo the rest of the shootout with a permitted GK, plausibly they may have had to repeat the whole shootout or even the whole match. Any official worth anything should have been getting involved to avoid that.

We are still only speculating that it was the VAR, it might be the case that one of the on-field referees suddenly remembered the law. But honestly, I would have supported the observer marching down from the stands to stop that. "VAR Protocol" is not a good enough excuse for sitting idly by and causing a match to have to be replayed when all you have to do is push the comms button and say "Hang on guys, are they allowed to make a sub at this point?"
Misreading my post possibly. I would have done the same regardless of VAR. The question is does VAR allow this and if not then it should and be explicit on when it can or can not be done.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Possibly, with a big fat shoe horn and a lot of force :)


Misreading my post possibly. I would have done the same regardless of VAR. The question is does VAR allow this and if not then it should and be explicit on when it can or can not be done.
My point is (no disrespect intended), I honestly don't care if it's allowed by the 17 written laws or the VAR protocol!

It's a textbook example of when "Law 18" should be applied, as the consequences of following the protocol to the letter are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse than a quiet word in the referee's ear. There aren't a lot of cases where I advocate for common sense or spirit of the game to be thrown around at will, but avoiding LOTG-mistake-based replays is one of the example where that should always be done IMO!
 

RefIADad

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
bearing in mind VAR wasnt able to review the sheff utd goal v villa last year when goal line tech failed i'd assume not!

Based strictly on the Laws of the Game (i.e. absent any instruction from the referee administration body), VAR would have been able to review the Villa-Sheffield United goal because the play in question was a goal/no goal situation. That's one of the four situations that the Laws explicitly cover in its VAR protocol.

Now the question about whether PGMOL wanted its referees to be on the lookout for a play like this or just go with the goal line tech is a completely different situation. I obviously don't know what instruction PGMOL is providing its officials. However, if they said something to the effect of "Goal line technology will deal with balls over the line for a goal - VAR does not need to worry about that at all", then that is a major mistake in my opinion. I get that GLT is the first line of defense. But if I'm the VAR and I have a replay that clearly and obviously shows the ball was completely over the line - as the replays I saw on the United States NBC broadcast clearly seemed to indicate - then I'd want to inform my referee that I saw this happen.

The Villa-Sheffield play was a classic example to me about why VAR is such a mess. If we are truly looking at "minimum interference, maximum benefit", this type of play would be the poster child for what VAR could do if utilized more effectively. The Pepe send-off was another good example of that this weekend, as VAR spotted a behind-the-play violent conduct situation that (apparently) wasn't caught by the on-field officials since Taylor issued the send-off after the VAR review. Instead, we are more concerned about drawing lines to see if a toenail is offside in the buildup. As I've said before, I think VAR is more about proving how cool the technology is instead of fixing important decisions that were clearly and obviously called wrong on the field.

In the Orlando-NYCFC situation, there really isn't a situation where a VAR should be able to help correct a situation like this when strictly reading VAR protocol. You can't shoehorn this into "mistaken identity", because the parenthetical reference clearly states this relates to misconduct. Now, if you take that out, I could broadly interpret "mistaken identity" to cover substitutes mistakenly identified as being able to enter the game. But admittedly, that's some creative interpretation. :) However, if the ultimate goal is to get it right and avoid protests that can trigger a replay (which at the end of the day, should be the goal of any official), then VAR should be able to provide assistance.

The best way I could see to cover this is to add a fifth principle where VAR can help on-field officials identify errors in law. That way, VAR can "legally" assist the referee crew on a situation like this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: one

onthebrink

Well-Known Member
This is what I was referring to. VAR as it stands is limited to intervention in four cases and that's it. Preventing an error in law outside of those four cases is not something he should be doing. Perhaps it should be allowed in limited other cases but it is not. So here, the VAR, in preventing an error in law by the referee, made an error in law himself.

If VARs were free to prevent referees from making an error in law in all cases, then they can intervene everytime a throw in is given to the wrong team which technically is an error in law.
VAR can review penalty/goal incidents so could it fall under that?
As you say, it was clearly the 'right' thing for VAR to intervene regardless.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Based strictly on the Laws of the Game (i.e. absent any instruction from the referee administration body), VAR would have been able to review the Villa-Sheffield United goal because the play in question was a goal/no goal situation. That's one of the four situations that the Laws explicitly cover in its VAR protocol.

Now the question about whether PGMOL wanted its referees to be on the lookout for a play like this or just go with the goal line tech is a completely different situation. I obviously don't know what instruction PGMOL is providing its officials. However, if they said something to the effect of "Goal line technology will deal with balls over the line for a goal - VAR does not need to worry about that at all", then that is a major mistake in my opinion. I get that GLT is the first line of defense. But if I'm the VAR and I have a replay that clearly and obviously shows the ball was completely over the line - as the replays I saw on the United States NBC broadcast clearly seemed to indicate - then I'd want to inform my referee that I saw this happen.

The Villa-Sheffield play was a classic example to me about why VAR is such a mess. If we are truly looking at "minimum interference, maximum benefit", this type of play would be the poster child for what VAR could do if utilized more effectively. The Pepe send-off was another good example of that this weekend, as VAR spotted a behind-the-play violent conduct situation that (apparently) wasn't caught by the on-field officials since Taylor issued the send-off after the VAR review. Instead, we are more concerned about drawing lines to see if a toenail is offside in the buildup. As I've said before, I think VAR is more about proving how cool the technology is instead of fixing important decisions that were clearly and obviously called wrong on the field.
As I mentioned above, PGMOL have already admitted that VAR not getting involved in that was a mistake - the VAR assumed the GLT was functionally infallible and so failed to initiate a review. As with so many "problems with VAR", this example was just plain old-fashioned human error.

You're right to point out that goal/no goal is an approved category for review. But it would seem wildly inconsistent to me to allow VAR to get involved in a goal line decision, but forbid them from (for example) pointing out situations where the ball went out of play before being crossed for a goal. And then if the ball should have been called out of play for that reason, why wouldn't we look to see if play should have been stopped for other reasons? Like a foul or offside in the build up? And then once you've allowed that......

It's messy - and that's always going to be a problem when you try and draw an arbitrary line on what is and isn't reviewable. Which is why I've always been generally unhappy with a VAR-led system like we currently have.
 

RefIADad

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
But it would seem wildly inconsistent to me to allow VAR to get involved in a goal line decision, but forbid them from (for example) pointing out situations where the ball went out of play before being crossed for a goal. And then if the ball should have been called out of play for that reason, why wouldn't we look to see if play should have been stopped for other reasons? Like a foul or offside in the build up? And then once you've allowed that......

I get it. Overall, I completely agree with you on this. I have no idea how you put this into the Laws, but my opinion on this is that VAR supplementing goal line technology is completely acceptable while "pulling play back" for a ball out of play during the attacking phase of play on a touchline 40 yards from goal should not trigger a review because so much can happen between that play and a goal occurring. Maybe - and I stress MAYBE - you could say that if the ball is out of play for the player who passes to the goal scorer, you could get away with it. But a situation like the 2015 MLS Cup final where Portland scored some time after a ball was shown to be out of play is not a situation where I'd support overruling the goal and restarting with a throw-in for the other team.

The issue, as you've correctly pointed out, is where do you stop. For me, I'd say that you can only go back to the player before the one who scores a goal. There's never going to be a perfect answer to this. I just think a situation where the ball goes out at midfield or a foul happens 40 yards from goal and six passes happens before the goal isn't a play where you go back. The defense had plenty of other chances to stop the attack. Now if I clatter a defender 15 yards from goal and then pass to the goal-scorer, that could be a play to review and overturn.

I guess what I wrote above is a long-winded way for me to say that the more time elapses from a reviewable incident to a goal, the less inclined I am to want to go back and take a goal off the board. If you are going to stick with a referee-led system instead of a challenge system, I think placing that type of limitation on what gets reviewed is the only way to possibly make it work.
 

onthebrink

Well-Known Member
The VAR handbook does (or at least did, there have been so many versions!) that 'Video Assistant Referees (VARs) are match officials - any information the VARs
provide to the referee will be treated by the referee in the same way as information
received from an assistant referee, additional assistant referee or the fourth official' and '
In the same way that match officials already exchange information during a match, the
VAR will inevitably become part of that exchange. This will ultimately make the ‘check’
and ‘review’ processes more efficient and probably faster. Whilst not part of the formal
review process, it is inevitable (and to the game’s benefit and the referee’s decisionmaking)
that the VAR occasionally gives the referee information about particular
situations.'

The above suggests to me it is not unreasonable for the VAR to have communication with the referee in such a rare scenario.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
The best way I could see to cover this is to add a fifth principle where VAR can help on-field officials identify errors in law. That way, VAR can "legally" assist the referee crew on a situation like this.
I was going to suggest something very similar. I would change the word identify with prevent.

It would also include things like forgetting a cation is a second caution. Allowing more substitustion than max allowed during the game...
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
The VAR handbook does (or at least did, there have been so many versions!) that 'Video Assistant Referees (VARs) are match officials - any information the VARs
provide to the referee will be treated by the referee in the same way as information
received from an assistant referee, additional assistant referee or the fourth official' and '
In the same way that match officials already exchange information during a match, the
VAR will inevitably become part of that exchange. This will ultimately make the ‘check’
and ‘review’ processes more efficient and probably faster. Whilst not part of the formal
review process, it is inevitable (and to the game’s benefit and the referee’s decisionmaking)
that the VAR occasionally gives the referee information about particular
situations.'

The above suggests to me it is not unreasonable for the VAR to have communication with the referee in such a rare scenario.
That has to be taken in context otherwise it is a conflict with the 4 KMI principle though given that VAR has access to replay. What's to stop a VAR telling the referee hey I saw the replay for that free kick you gave, you should give a caution (no reviews here, only advise and information same as any other AR). Or VAR telling R who did it touch last before a throw in. Basically becoming a replay adviser for every decision.

Information on facts of law are different matters. See suggestions above. This reminds me of an X member who went to (or he said he would go to) his mobile phone mid game to google LOTG if he has doubts.
 

RefIADad

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
I said this in a different forum, but this situation and the discussion around it has motivated me to write out a notecard with some of the issues around KFTM and carry it with me in my wallet when I have a game where we could have KFTM. I will also make sure I clearly go over these items with my team in a pregame so we are all on the same page.

If I have to pull that notecard out to make sure I don’t make an error in law, I will do that. I’d rather suffer a slightly bruised ego than make a mistake like that and potentially create a replay situation.

Obviously, games with KFTM will have high stakes for the teams. We have to get these events right.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
It's too big for a note card, but for anyone who might find it helpful, I put together a KFTM summary for our local AYSO region, which you should be able to access at https://2zakag47bj4d1t6g1mhnoeti-wp.../wp-content/uploads/filebase/referee/KFPM.pdf

A few things are obviously local/youth (most notably permitting coaches on the field), but most of it is straight from the Magic Book. (It has not been updated for 20-21; it's possible the reduce to equate is outdated, but I didn't go back to check.)
 

onthebrink

Well-Known Member
That has to be taken in context otherwise it is a conflict with the 4 KMI principle though given that VAR has access to replay. What's to stop a VAR telling the referee hey I saw the replay for that free kick you gave, you should give a caution (no reviews here, only advise and information same as any other AR). Or VAR telling R who did it touch last before a throw in. Basically becoming a replay adviser for every decision.

Information on facts of law are different matters. See suggestions above. This reminds me of an X member who went to (or he said he would go to) his mobile phone mid game to google LOTG if he has doubts.
I'd agree the context doesn't allow for reviewing a replay and saying 'you got that throw-in wrong' but it seems fine for them to generally speak to the referee throughout the game, including to give general encouragement or to help out should a referee have got something in law wrong, as presumably they would do if they were e.g. Fourth Official. That's nothing to do with having access to TV replays so at that point they are essentially just an official who's a member of the team rather than doing the specific VAR job of looking at a load of different cameras.
 
Top