Burnley v City

[Matthew]

Slightly odd incident in the second half of tonight's game.

Jesus in possession in the box and is clearly fouled by Tarkowski, who kicks his standing foot. No penalty given by Martin Atkinson and apparently no VAR check carried out. Jesus did go down theatrically, but still a clear penalty.

I could understand if VAR had checked/recommended an OFR and still come to the conclusion that it wasn't a foul (though I wouldn't have agreed), but for no check to take place just strikes me as bizarre.

Interested to hear what others think.

 

[es1]

it looked a clear pen. comms were amazed VAR didnt get involved

 

[bloovee]

it looked a clear pen. comms were amazed VAR didnt get involved
But not Peter Walton. (That's easy money, isn't it?)

As for the AR/VAR offside decision, the "edge" between handball / not handball on the arm can't be precise - unless they superimpose the red/green diagram on the VAR feed. With the vertical lines drawn it's dodgy enough to determine extremities like a toe or even an eyelash , but drawing a line somewhere along an arm looks very dodgy.

[MODERATOR EDIT] Conspiracies are the preserve of fan forums; not here. There have been plenty of reminders to keep these off of here. Please remain objective.

 

[socal lurker]

Slightly odd incident in the second half of tonight's game.

Jesus in possession in the box and is clearly fouled by Tarkowski, who kicks his standing foot. No penalty given by Martin Atkinson and apparently no VAR check carried out. Jesus did go down theatrically, but still a clear penalty.

I could understand if VAR had checked/recommended an OFR and still come to the conclusion that it wasn't a foul (though I wouldn't have agreed), but for no check to take place just strikes me as bizarre.

Interested to hear what others think.

You are either being inconsistent or don't understand how the VAR process works.

The VAR checks every possible PK and would have done so here.

The VAR is only supposed to be sending to the R for a review (OFR) if the VAR believes there was a clear error.

Equally, the R is only supposed to change the call if he concludes there was a clear error.*

In other words, it is the same standard for the VAR sending to the R and for the R reversing the call. The only time there is an OFR that does not result in a change is where the R disagrees with the VAR. So you can't say that the VAR should have sent down but you'd understand the R not changing the call, as the same standard applies to both.

_______
*Except for a missed incident, which this is not. The R was watching the play; it wasn't something that happened away from him.

 

[RustyRef]

You are either being inconsistent or don't understand how the VAR process works.

The VAR checks every possible PK and would have done so here.

The VAR is only supposed to be sending to the R for a review (OFR) if the VAR believes there was a clear error.

Equally, the R is only supposed to change the call if he concludes there was a clear error.*

In other words, it is the same standard for the VAR sending to the R and for the R reversing the call. The only time there is an OFR that does not result in a change is where the R disagrees with the VAR. So you can't say that the VAR should have sent down but you'd understand the R not changing the call, as the same standard applies to both.

_______
*Except for a missed incident, which this is not. The R was watching the play; it wasn't something that happened away from him.

This surely was a clear error though? It wasn't a slight clip of the ankle, he gave him an almighty kick.

 

[Matthew]

You are either being inconsistent or don't understand how the VAR process works.

The VAR checks every possible PK and would have done so here.

The VAR is only supposed to be sending to the R for a review (OFR) if the VAR believes there was a clear error.

Equally, the R is only supposed to change the call if he concludes there was a clear error.*

In other words, it is the same standard for the VAR sending to the R and for the R reversing the call. The only time there is an OFR that does not result in a change is where the R disagrees with the VAR. So you can't say that the VAR should have sent down but you'd understand the R not changing the call, as the same standard applies to both.

_______
*Except for a missed incident, which this is not. The R was watching the play; it wasn't something that happened away from him.

I think you may be misinterpreting my point slightly - I could have accepted the decision if VAR had recommended an OFR but the referee had decided that he had not made an error (the referee is under no obligation to change the decision). This was, IMO, a clear and obvious error and at the very least warranted a proper review (rather than a cursory check) from the VAR; this clearly didn't happen as the game resumed almost immediately.

 

[socal lurker]

I think you may be misinterpreting my point slightly - I could have accepted the decision if VAR had recommended an OFR but the referee had decided that he had not made an error (the referee is under no obligation to change the decision). This was, IMO, a clear and obvious error and at the very least warranted a proper review (rather than a cursory check) from the VAR; this clearly didn't happen as the game resumed almost immediately.

I'm not misinterpreting you at all. I'm saying that the same standard applies to the R and the VAR. If it is reasonable for the R not to reverse the call, it is by definition reasonable for the VAR not to send it down. And if it was a mistake for the VAR to not send it down, it would also have been a mistake for the R not to reverse. They don't have different standards to apply. They might disagree, but they aren't applying different standards. There is no such thing as "at the very least warranted a proper review (rather than a cursory check)"--the VAR isn't doing a more "cursory" check than the R is. If an OFR is recommended by the VAR (other than for a missed incident) and the call is not changed by the R, then one of them was wrong. That's how the process works. You might want more OFRs than that, but that's how the process works.

 

[Matthew]

I'm not misinterpreting you at all. I'm saying that the same standard applies to the R and the VAR. If it is reasonable for the R not to reverse the call, it is by definition reasonable for the VAR not to send it down. And if it was a mistake for the VAR to not send it down, it would also have been a mistake for the R not to reverse. They don't have different standards to apply. They might disagree, but they aren't applying different standards. There is no such thing as "at the very least warranted a proper review (rather than a cursory check)"--the VAR isn't doing a more "cursory" check than the R is. If an OFR is recommended by the VAR (other than for a missed incident) and the call is not changed by the R, then one of them was wrong. That's how the process works. You might want more OFRs than that, but that's how the process works.

You are misinterpreting what I am saying and I fully understand how the VAR process works.

The VAR made a mistake by not completing a proper review of the incident. Not everything that the VAR reviews, even when the play is stopped, leads to an OFR; red card checks happen regularly, as do penalty checks and they do not always lead to the on-field referee taking another look. By "proper" review, I'm saying that the VAR did not take the time to determine whether a clear and obvious error had been made because play resumed too quickly for that to have happened. In my opinion Martin Atkinson made a mistake by not giving the penalty which was compounded by the VAR (Stuart Attwell) not reviewing the incident and recommending an OFR.

 

[bloovee]

I'm not misinterpreting you at all. I'm saying that the same standard applies to the R and the VAR. If it is reasonable for the R not to reverse the call, it is by definition reasonable for the VAR not to send it down. And if it was a mistake for the VAR to not send it down, it would also have been a mistake for the R not to reverse. They don't have different standards to apply. They might disagree, but they aren't applying different standards. There is no such thing as "at the very least warranted a proper review (rather than a cursory check)"--the VAR isn't doing a more "cursory" check than the R is. If an OFR is recommended by the VAR (other than for a missed incident) and the call is not changed by the R, then one of them was wrong. That's how the process works. You might want more OFRs than that, but that's how the process works.

I have no idea what all that means.

It's simple enough:

VAR can be used to overturn a subjective decision if a "clear and obvious error" has been identified.

The referee will explain their decision to the VAR, and what they have seen.

If the evidence provided by the broadcast footage does not accord with what the referee believes they have seen, then the VAR can recommend an overturn.

OR:

Only the referee can initiate a ‘review’; the VAR (and other match officials) can only recommend a ‘review’ to the referee.


Why would the VAR not recommend a review? Was it an obvious foul?

 

[socal lurker]

You are misinterpreting what I am saying and I fully understand how the VAR process works.

The VAR made a mistake by not completing a proper review of the incident. Not everything that the VAR reviews, even when the play is stopped, leads to an OFR; red card checks happen regularly, as do penalty checks and they do not always lead to the on-field referee taking another look. By "proper" review, I'm saying that the VAR did not take the time to determine whether a clear and obvious error had been made because play resumed too quickly for that to have happened. In my opinion Martin Atkinson made a mistake by not giving the penalty which was compounded by the VAR (Stuart Attwell) not reviewing the incident and recommending an OFR.

VARs never review. VARs only "check." A "review" is what a referee does on the field.

What you said is "I could have accepted the decision if VAR had recommended an OFR but the referee had decided that he had not made an error (the referee is under no obligation to change the decision)." That remains a fundamentally inconsistent position, as the criteria the VAR is supposed to use to recommend the VAR is the same criteria the R is supposed to use to reverse the call--if you think the call should have been sent to the R for an OFR, you either don't actually understand the process or you should not "understand" if after an OFR the R came"to the conclusion that it wasn't a foul." You now seem to be changing your position to argue that to the VAR did not take enough time in his check, which is a different issue altogether and on which I have no opinion.

 

[bloovee]

You are misinterpreting what I am saying and I fully understand how the VAR process works.

The VAR made a mistake by not completing a proper review of the incident. Not everything that the VAR reviews, even when the play is stopped, leads to an OFR; red card checks happen regularly, as do penalty checks and they do not always lead to the on-field referee taking another look. By "proper" review, I'm saying that the VAR did not take the time to determine whether a clear and obvious error had been made because play resumed too quickly for that to have happened. In my opinion Martin Atkinson made a mistake by not giving the penalty which was compounded by the VAR (Stuart Attwell) not reviewing the incident and recommending an OFR.

"There is no time limit for the review process as accuracy is more important than speed."

 

[socal lurker]

I have no idea what all that means.

It's simple enough:

VAR can be used to overturn a subjective decision if a "clear and obvious error" has been identified.

The referee will explain their decision to the VAR, and what they have seen.

If the evidence provided by the broadcast footage does not accord with what the referee believes they have seen, then the VAR can recommend an overturn.

OR:

Only the referee can initiate a ‘review’; the VAR (and other match officials) can only recommend a ‘review’ to the referee.


Why would the VAR not recommend a review? Was it an obvious foul?

I have no idea what your post means. The VAR does not recommend an overturn, per se, the VAR recommends a review (OFR). But the VAR only recommends a review if the VAR believes shows a clear error, so it is in essence a recommendation to change the call even if it isn't called that. And the R changes his call after the OFR only if the R decides it is a clear error. They are both making the same evaluation of the video evidence. Unless the VAR errs in sending it down, every VAR initiated OFR should result in a reversal.

My only point is that it is inherently illogical (under current protocols) to say the VAR should have sent it down but it would have been OK if the R didn't reverse. (And I have no opinion on this particular play, I'm only talking about the existing protocols. Whether they should be different and more liberal in letting Rs second guess themselves is a wholly different question that balances correcting smaller errors with the flow of the game. And my opinion on that isn't particularly relevant, but you can probably guess what it is, as I've said before that I'd rather abolish video review entirely.)

I will withdraw, as I have nothing left to do but repeat myself.

 

[Matthew]

VARs never review. VARs only "check." A "review" is what a referee does on the field.

What you said is "I could have accepted the decision if VAR had recommended an OFR but the referee had decided that he had not made an error (the referee is under no obligation to change the decision)." That remains a fundamentally inconsistent position, as the criteria the VAR is supposed to use to recommend the VAR is the same criteria the R is supposed to use to reverse the call--if you think the call should have been sent to the R for an OFR, you either don't actually understand the process or you should not "understand" if after an OFR the R came"to the conclusion that it wasn't a foul." You now seem to be changing your position to argue that to the VAR did not take enough time in his check, which is a different issue altogether and on which I have no opinion.

We could continue going round in circles all night here, so I'll keep this brief. You're getting hung up on my use of "understand"; had the VAR recommended a review and MA had then looked at the monitor and stuck with his decision it would have been wrong, but I would have accepted that decision. As it is VAR didn't step in to correct what I think was a clear and obvious error.

 

[socal lurker]

We could continue going round in circles all night here, so I'll keep this brief. You're getting hung up on my use of "understand"; had the VAR recommended a review and MA had then looked at the monitor and stuck with his decision it would have been wrong, but I would have accepted that decision. As it is VAR didn't step in to correct what I think was a clear and obvious error.

I guess the red is where you continue to lose me. I just can't understand why you would accept what you consider a clear and obvious error just because the R looked at it on the monitor down at the field? I just don't understand why you are willing to accept the R making that error and not the VAR making that error, as it is exactly the same error. (Indeed, if anything, I think it is actually easier for the R to get right than the VAR; the VAR has to find and evaluate possible angles while being aware that he is holding up the game, etc., whereas the R gets shown the best angles at the OFR screen and knows that an experienced referee has already deduced that he made a clear error.)

 

[bloovee]

So we're back to PGMOL at the start of last season when there were no clear and obvious errors? Which is when FIFA stepped in...

Was it a foul? Should it have been a penalty? If the answers are yes, what's the point of VAR?

 

[Jtpetherick1]

So we're back to PGMOL at the start of last season when there were no clear and obvious errors? Which is when FIFA stepped in...

FIFA didn't 'step in.' FIFA took over worldwide VAR management from IFAB as was planned from day 1.

Was it a foul? Should it have been a penalty? If the answers are yes, what's the point of VAR?

I can think of very few situations in the PL where the answer is 'yes' or 'no' in such a cut and dry way.

 

[JamesL]

FIFA didn't 'step in.' FIFA took over worldwide VAR management from IFAB as was planned from day 1.

I can think of very few situations in the PL where the answer is 'yes' or 'no' in such a cut and dry way.

I believe he is referring to fifa threatening to take away the PL VAR license.

 

[Jtpetherick1]

That sounds like the CV of someone applying to PGMOL as a VAR!

How many decisions are discussed on this forum as being definitely right or wrong? We are yet to reach a consensus on the Martial penalty three days on - thanks for the patronising comment though!

 

[bloovee]

All the more reason to query the non-use (or non-intervention) of VAR when it does look cut and dried.

Was Jesus kicked? Is there any doubt? It only needs the VAR to think there's a clear and obvious error to advise an OFR. If there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever in a month of Sundays and it was 100% definitely clearly and obviously wrong, what's the point of an OFR? VAR might just as well tell the CR to give a penalty.

 

[socal lurker]

All the more reason to query the non-use (or non-intervention) of VAR when it does look cut and dried.

Was Jesus kicked? Is there any doubt? It only needs the VAR to think there's a clear and obvious error to advise an OFR. If there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever in a month of Sundays and it was 100% definitely clearly and obviously wrong, what's the point of an OFR? VAR might just as well tell the CR to give a penalty.

A really good question. I think the answer is that soccer has always had the R as the sole decision maker, with linesmen (who became ARs) to assist but not with the (technical) authority to make decisions. To keep that philosophical purity, on judgment calls, the powers that be want the R who is making all the judgement calls in the game to see it and make the final determination rather than having the "eye in the sky" reversing the R, which I think the powers that be also think might undercut the Rs authority more than if the R sees the OFR. And there is a view that it "sells" the reversal better if we have the theatre of the R running to the screen before making the decision. But I agree it is an oddity that, if VAR and R are both performing perfectly, every OFR (except arguably for a missed incident) will result in a reversal.

Aside: MLS, which I think in many ways has done VR better than the PL, has bought further into the "selling" aspect of the OFR and is requiring OFRs even for some non-judgment decisions. I don't recall the details, but I think they mandate it for OSP if a goal was scored and for ball over goal line errors (MLS does not use GLT).