TOT v LIV

[GraemeS]

Think it was too late, once check complete had been said play restarted almost immediately, and certainly before the VAR operator had communicated his concerns. People have talked about a replay and there are no grounds for that, but if the decision had been changed after play had restarted there would have been as that would have been 100% incorrect in law. If Spurs ended up losing the game they would have absolutely valid grounds to seek a replay, whereas Liverpool don't.

There will be a lot of lessons learned from this, but the key one has to be better communication. "Check complete" isn't enough, what check is complete, what were you checking? If Darren England had said "check complete, you can award the goal" we obviously wouldn't be in this mess, 5 extra words would have avoided a world of trouble.

I said it before, but I think Darren England is going to get thrown to the wolves for this. Clearly being stood down for one weekend isn't going to be enough, but it remains to be seen what action they take. I feel for Dan Cook as he wasn't really given much of an opportunity to correct this mistake, once check complete has been said and the free kick has been taken he is powerless. And that is the other take away from this, the law needs to be changed so that a decision can be changed after play has restarted.

There is zero good reason to prioritise protocol over what I think Liverpool called "sporting integrity". In real life, where there is a gap in the law, it can often be set by precedent initially and enshrined into formal laws at a later date. Hooper/Oliver could have made that decision. And they should have been empowered and given the information to do so.

You talk about England being thrown to the wolves - well why not? He made a major mistake. He was flappy, slow and unresponsive when that mistake was pointed out, causing the opportunity for an easy fix to be missed. He failed to escalate it appropriately to the match day officials - who could either have set a precedent and fixed it formally by awarding the goal, or informally by encouraging Spurs to do the sporting thing and let Diaz score. And he's had similar high profile issues using the VAR software before, when Saka was offside against Liverpool last season and it was missed with him in the booth.

Like I said earlier in the thread, he's clearly just not competent in that context. He might be a perfectly fine referee, but he's well below the standard required for VAR duty and shouldn't be used for that until significant retraining is carried out. Or just give the replay operator the job!

 

[GraemeS]

Michael Oliver is a member of the onfield officiating crew. Why wouldn’t he be a part of the communication process? He’s one of the two most senior referees in England. I know if I were on his crew and he said “we may be screwing this up” while he was the fourth, I’d sure as hell listen to him.

Exactly. Hooper is the referee and gets to make the final call, but if it's a debatable question of law, Oliver is an excellent resource to be able to consult. Either way, Darren England in the VAR booth is the least equipped to be the one to make that decision.

 

[GraemeS]

On your second paragraph, they couldn’t do this. Once play is restarted, they cannot go back. As Rusty said earlier on; had they done this, that actually would be grounds for a replay at it would be completely wrong in law.

As nice and easy as that sounds as a fix, it would have probably been the only way to have made the outcome worse.

The ultimate get-out-clause. The laws do not deal with "VAR makes an objectively wrong decision on a KMI and realises the mistake before the next stoppage", so the referee can absolutely argue that allowing the goal is what they believe football expects.

 

[Matthew]

There is zero good reason to prioritise protocol over what I think Liverpool called "sporting integrity". In real life, where there is a gap in the law, it can often be set by precedent initially and enshrined into formal laws at a later date. Hooper/Oliver could have made that decision. And they should have been empowered and given the information to do so.

You talk about England being thrown to the wolves - well why not? He made a major mistake. He was flappy, slow and unresponsive when that mistake was pointed out, causing the opportunity for an easy fix to be missed. He failed to escalate it appropriately to the match day officials - who could either have set a precedent and fixed it formally by awarding the goal, or informally by encouraging Spurs to do the sporting thing and let Diaz score. And he's had similar high profile issues using the VAR software before, when Saka was offside against Liverpool last season and it was missed with him in the booth.

Like I said earlier in the thread, he's clearly just not competent in that context. He might be a perfectly fine referee, but he's well below the standard required for VAR duty and shouldn't be used for that until significant retraining is carried out. Or just give the replay operator the job!

Bolding the bit that I think is really important here. VAR is new and it's more than reasonable for new precedents to be developed.

That makes perfect sense, and if, within a couple of seconds, the VAR team had realised and very clearly said to the OFR "stop the game, stop the game, goal should be awarded" (or something along those lines), we'd all have been bemoaning a breach of the process, but praising the team for acting quickly to fix it. As it happened, the communication was such a mess that it took a fairly significant length of time for it to click that they'd screwed up, so I think it was genuinely impossible to stop the game by the time they'd all realised.

 

[Runner-Ref]

The ultimate get-out-clause. The laws do not deal with "VAR makes an objectively wrong decision on a KMI and realises the mistake before the next stoppage", so the referee can absolutely argue that allowing the goal is what they believe football expects.

But there is a direct provision.....

 

[GraemeS]

View attachment 6875

But there is a direct provision.....

There's a direct provision saying all pitches should have corner flags, but also a clear provision where that can be ignored in the name of the spirit of the game. The laws are contradictory even when it relates to relatively commonplace occurrences. If the referee did want to invoke spirit of the game for something that is literally unprecedented, it would probably have been widely supported.

At the very least, the VAR did him a disservice by not communicating that and taking the decision out of his hands.

 

[Runner-Ref]

There's a direct provision saying all pitches should have corner flags, but also a clear provision where that can be ignored in the name of the spirit of the game. The laws are contradictory even when it relates to relatively commonplace occurrences. If the referee did want to invoke spirit of the game for something that is literally unprecedented, it would probably have been widely supported.

At the very least, the VAR did him a disservice by not communicating that and taking the decision out of his hands.

Law is quite clear that the referee could not go back after the matter. You can try to come up with loopholes, but it is quite clearly there that it can not. Law also covers that lower levels of football should go ahead if there are no corner flags

It's not that unprecedented. Similar thing happened between Arsenal & Brentford last season. That was down to human-error on VAR during an offside decision, just like this. We just didn't get to hear an audio from it as far as I know, so we lose a bit of context of how soon they realised.

 

[GraemeS]

Law is quite clear that the referee could not go back after the matter. You can try to come up with loopholes, but it is quite clearly there that it can not. Law also covers that lower levels of football should go ahead if there are no corner flags

It's not that unprecedented. Similar thing happened between Arsenal & Brentford last season. That was down to human-error on VAR during an offside decision, just like this. We just didn't get to hear an audio from it as far as I know, so we lose a bit of context of how soon they realised.

What you're talking about is not an error that was discovered seconds later. That's the unprecedented bit. The opportunity to fix this existed 10 seconds after the mistake. And it wasn't the VARs call to make.

 

[Runner-Ref]

What you're talking about is not an error that was discovered seconds later. That's the unprecedented bit. The opportunity to fix this existed 10 seconds after the mistake. And it wasn't the VARs call to make.

Well we don't know that it wasn't found out seconds later as the audio wasn't released on that one. It probably wasn't seconds later, but we don't know that.

Ultimately the opportunity didn't exist in the Liverpool one; once play had resumed, the possibility went. Had Hooper stopped play and awarded the goal, he would currently find himself on the shelf alongside England.

 

[GraemeS]

Well we don't know that it wasn't found out seconds later as the audio wasn't released on that one. It probably wasn't seconds later, but we don't know that.

Ultimately the opportunity didn't exist in the Liverpool one; once play had resumed, the possibility went. Had Hooper stopped play and awarded the goal, he would currently find himself on the shelf alongside England.

It's not an immutable law of nature and it's disingenuous to pretend it is. You're trying to act like I'm saying "just ignore gravity for 20 seconds", but that's not how this works.

The referee should have been empowered to decide if he would rather prioritise counting a legitimate goal that was cancelled out due to miscommunication or if he would rather prioritise a bit of text that encourages him to uphold mistakes. Maybe he would have chosen to count the goal, maybe he would have communicated with the managers and encouraged Spurs to fix the mistake, maybe he would have decided that sticking his head in the sand was the best choice. But all three of those are choices he could have made if he'd been informed, nothing actually stops any of them from happening.

 

[Runner-Ref]

It's not an immutable law of nature and it's disingenuous to pretend it is. You're trying to act like I'm saying "just ignore gravity for 20 seconds", but that's not how this works.

The referee should have been empowered to decide if he would rather prioritise counting a legitimate goal that was cancelled out due to miscommunication or if he would rather prioritise a bit of text that encourages him to uphold mistakes. Maybe he would have chosen to count the goal, maybe he would have communicated with the managers and encouraged Spurs to fix the mistake, maybe he would have decided that sticking his head in the sand was the best choice. But all three of those are choices he could have made if he'd been informed, nothing actually stops any of them from happening.

Ideally he would be empowered to do that, but he isn’t. Law tells him that he can’t- I have already quoted to you where law tells him he can’t.

If Hooper gives the goal, he’s suspended and maybe worse.

 

[David F]

I said it before, but I think Darren England is going to get thrown to the wolves for this.

Really, really hope this doesn’t happen - doesn’t help one bit to scapegoat on a systemic issue. Managers show support for strikers who miss an open goal, and this is similar. Without clear protocols VARs are set up to make this exact mistake perhaps once every 1,000 checks.

The message should be “we support our refs, everyone is human, and it’s up to us to put the right system in place to ensure communication is clear and decisions are correct.”

 

[GraemeS]

Ideally he would be empowered to do that, but he isn’t. Law tells him that he can’t- I have already quoted to you where law tells him he can’t.

Is Hooper gives the goal, he’s suspended and maybe worse.

And I've already pointed out that nothing stops him deciding that the Spirit of the Game clause trumps the clause you're fixated on. They're not laws of nature that can't possibly be broken, he can choose which bit takes priority. And then maybe he's lauded for applying common sense?

Regardless, it should have been his choice to make. Depriving him of the relevant information is a failing from the VAR and yet another black mark against him individually.

 

[GraemeS]

Really, really hope this doesn’t happen - doesn’t help one bit to scapegoat on a systemic issue. Managers show support for strikers who miss an open goal, and this is similar. Without clear protocols VARs are set up to make this exact mistake perhaps once every 1,000 checks.

The message should be “we support our refs, everyone is human, and it’s up to us to put the right system in place to ensure communication is clear and decisions are correct.”

Why not? People find themselves in jobs they're not suited for all the time, it's not a moral failing for England to have put years into being an on-field referee and find out that he's suited to that but not being in the VAR booth. For his sake, get him out of there, let him focus on being an on-field official and stop making him do a job he's clearly not good at.

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

Think the Guardian Football Pod (for it's many many faults) were right on when they said it's a different skill being a VAR and we need some "nerds" (not just saying this because I think I'd be a better VAR promise)

 

[Runner-Ref]

And I've already pointed out that nothing stops him deciding that the Spirit of the Game clause trumps the clause you're fixated on. They're not laws of nature that can't possibly be broken, he can choose which bit takes priority. And then maybe he's lauded for applying common sense?

Regardless, it should have been his choice to make. Depriving him of the relevant information is a failing from the VAR and yet another black mark against him individually.

Your quote does not trump it at all. The text you’re referring to was mainly brought in to bring some common sense to lower levels, to ensure games could go ahead without corner flags etc. It was not brought in as a catch-all for people to completely and utterly change the laws to suit their needs.

Law is 100% clear that once play has restarted, the referee cannot go back and change a decision.

This is the last I’ll say on the matter as this thread could go on forever. But if that’s the hill you want to die on, that’s entirely your choice.

 

[GraemeS]

In the picture you post, it specifically states that referees are supposed to use both common sense and spirit of the game when deciding how to apply the LOTG.

"Law" has always been an inaccurate term, used by football to make its rules sound more grandiose. Any referee at any point has the choice to ignore any aspect of "law" if they're willing to defend that decision if questioned. That's literally the reality of football - a referee could blow his whistle and declare goalkeepers must wear blindfolds. The fact that's not in line with the laws doesn't physically stop it happening!

On the rare occasion that does happen, most referees will be told they're wrong to have done that and will be punished appropriately, a small percentage will be told they've made a sensible accommodation. And if the latter happens often enough, or in a high-profile enough game, laws will change subsequently to reflect that. This could have been one of the latter situations in my opinion if handled better by the VAR.

 

[DazN]

When we take the basic refereeing course we are given a set of protocols to follow for something as 'simple' as issuing a caution (isolate the player, take the players name, explain the caution, issue the card etc). We are told this set of protocols has to be followed and an observer will mark you down for straying from it.

Yet here at the pinnacle of the sport we seem to have absolute chaos with (apparently) no set protocol for communicating between the referee and the VAR team.

I often see and hear people say that cricket's 3rd Umpire and rugby's TMO wouldn't work in football because they are too time consuming, but it is plain for all to hear and see in both of them the clarity and professionalism in how they are utilised. One person talking to the umpire / referee and everything is double checked.

It's farcical that we rush everything in order to 'not slow down the game' when every single game is full of time-wasting. If we want the system to be void of these kind or errors we need more haste less speed.

 

[Big Cat]

Once the game has restarted, it's 'game over'. That's enshrined in Law as far as I'm concerned and to renegade on that would set a precedent of unimaginable future consequences. Yes, there is a lot in Law that we ignore half the time, but there are some things which can't ever be breached.

Quote of the week has come from Pep (not least because it agrees with my main VAR gripe that I've voiced from Day 1)

"The referees and the VARs are the leading roles," the City manager claimed ahead of his side's Champions League group-stage clash away to to RB Leipzig on Wednesday. "And the Oscar goes to… They have to make a step back. It's the players. Some games, be more humble and leave the players to do what they have to do, and they will be better. They will be better."

Guardiola went on to say: "They will have to find a system where the main roles are the players and the game itself. In all the countries, not just here. It changed the job of the referees because now they don't make the decisions, it goes to the VAR. I understand the feeling of Liverpool but the bosses of the referees will decide.

I'm sick of us being centre of attention. I'm sick of us being 'Mainstream News'. I'm sick of the reputational damage that affects all of us on the pyramid
Take VAR offline for a year. Have a dry-run of training during that year. It is not working and can't be fixed overnight whilst in-flight
'

 

[BAFRA #77]

My takeaway from this whole thing - having heard the audio as well.

Cut out the informal nonsense when talking to other members of the crew - you're not on a "cheeky weekender with the lads in Ibiza" - tell me again what the P in PGMOL stands for?

We need a set in stone protocol for how a review is conducted - take the TMO from Rugby Union and the NFL for this - first confirm what you have given on the field - then review properly - if it takes 2 minutes, it takes 2 minutes. Once a decision has been reached - the only thing that should be said is "The ruling on the pitch is confirmed - the goal can be awarded" or "the ruling on the pitch is overturned - attacking player was offside".

All this goes through the Referee - who is the sole official - who then must repeat back with what the result of the review is - so they can correct it there and then if things go haywire again.

Finally - don't send a bunch of your officials off on a junket to the Middle East on a Thursday when they have an assigned game in their own league that weekend - they are paid handsomely to be Premier League officials - not to be borrowed like a library book when some state with unlimited cash demands it.