A&H

Looking at you know what differently?

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
The WBA and Aston Villa non pens - both given and then overturned by referee after looking at monitor.

Genuine question for those who have studied the VAR protocol more closely than me.

I think if you did a quick poll on here re those two decisions, you would pretty much get a 50/50 split whether they were pens or not.

In both cases one team is going to be aggrieved and, for me you could sell both pen and non pen equally well.

Now ignore those decisions and whether you think the right or wrong one was reached in the end, but can anyone tell me how based on the 'clear and obvious' criteria why those decisions were recommended for review by VAR? - both so marginal in my eyes at least.
 
The Referee Store
Not sure about the WBA one I didn’t watch it in real speed. The Aston Villa one I think MO didn’t see the touch on the ball 1st time and the VAR showed he did and if he didn’t see contact the 1st time and didn’t think as he touched the ball 1st that it wouldn’t be a foul and that would be a clear and obvious error
 
The WBA and Aston Villa non pens - both given and then overturned by referee after looking at monitor.

Genuine question for those who have studied the VAR protocol more closely than me.

I think if you did a quick poll on here re those two decisions, you would pretty much get a 50/50 split whether they were pens or not.

In both cases one team is going to be aggrieved and, for me you could sell both pen and non pen equally well.

Now ignore those decisions and whether you think the right or wrong one was reached in the end, but can anyone tell me how based on the 'clear and obvious' criteria why those decisions were recommended for review by VAR? - both so marginal in my eyes at least.

My thoughts exactly. We were told that VAR wasn't there to re-referee the game, just for clear and obvious errors in such matters. Well these were both subjective in my opinion and the overturns were well outside the clear and obvious protocol.

This now moves us into the realms of the gane actually being re-refereed by VAR. As soon as the referee is told to go and check decisions like that then there's pressure to change his mind because another PL referee thinks his original decision was wrong. I much preferred the clear and obvious bar in which we started with VAR.

More importantly, my enjoyment of the professional game is beginning to wain. I was all for VAR but I find its become tiresome. It saps my enthusiasm. It saps the spontaneity and enjoyment out of the game. I've been all for it for years and I've given it every chance but on ballance I'm beginning to dislike it. Its not just VAR, its all these new law changes and interpretations. KDB nailed it in his interview. He said he's played for 12 years professionally and in the first 9 there were no law changes (not true but none that altered the game fundamentally) but in the last 3 he feels like there's been loads. I get the impression that the players hate all the changes too.
 
My thoughts exactly. We were told that VAR wasn't there to re-referee the game, just for clear and obvious errors in such matters. Well these were both subjective in my opinion and the overturns were well outside the clear and obvious protocol.

This now moves us into the realms of the gane actually being re-refereed by VAR. As soon as the referee is told to go and check decisions like that then there's pressure to change his mind because another PL referee thinks his original decision was wrong. I much preferred the clear and obvious bar in which we started with VAR.

More importantly, my enjoyment of the professional game is beginning to wain. I was all for VAR but I find its become tiresome. It saps my enthusiasm. It saps the spontaneity and enjoyment out of the game. I've been all for it for years and I've given it every chance but on ballance I'm beginning to dislike it. Its not just VAR, its all these new law changes and interpretations. KDB nailed it in his interview. He said he's played for 12 years professionally and in the first 9 there were no law changes (not true but none that altered the game fundamentally) but in the last 3 he feels like there's been loads. I get the impression that the players hate all the changes too.
One thing I did emphatically and correctly predict (on this occasion), was that the OFR would not help at all
It only took a few weeks for commentators to see the obvious reasons why its a waste of time (quite literally)
 
Last edited:
I believe that on some of these the R is telling the VAR what he has. If the R says it was careless and doesn’t matter if he got th ball, the VAR won’t send down for a touch on the ball. But if the R says that he called the foul because here was contact with the attacker and the ball was not played, then the VAR is going to send down.

I disagree that the OFR is pointless on judgment calls. While it should be that every OFR leads to a reversal (as it shouldn’t be sent down unless they be VAR thinks it is a clear error), VARs are human, too, and they make mistakes. The OFR keeps the ultimate judgment in the hands of the R. (And we do see times when the R properly rejects the VARs view—but they are rare, as they should be.

There is also an element of selling calls and making sure it is the R in charge and not the “eye in the sky.” (But I don’t like how far MLS/PRO has gone, as it requires OFRs on things no one else does, such as OSP—I think that is a waste of time when it is an objective issue instead of a judgment issue.

(Though I still would rather get rid of VR completely.)
 
In general, I think too many things have been missed in PL because 'clear and obvious' has been set so high as to hardly ever be reached.

I think the Aston Villa penalty wasn't 100% wrong but I would say no penalty is a more correct decision than penalty so I've no issue with VAR intervention especially now referee looks at monitor. At that point, it's a subjective decision and I think we have to sometimes be happy to go with that rather than going into full technicalities with every decision.

As mentioned above, if Oliver thought Brighton player didn't play the ball and VAR points out they did I think that's a reasonable VAR intervention.
 
I don't think there should be a conversation between R and VAR before VAR determines there is a clear and obvious error or not. That is re-refereeing the game. Let's say there is a physical challenge and one player goes down. The referees blows and says I have it for a trip. VAR sees there clearly was no trip whatsoever but a push that could have easily been a foul. Is this a clear and obvious error?
Clear and obvious error should be based on if the decision was clearly wrong and not if the reasoning behind it or the means to get to that decision was wrong.

The protocol requires VAR to assess the footage 'independently' and decide if the 'decision' was a clear and obvious error.
 
I don't think there should be a conversation between R and VAR before VAR determines there is a clear and obvious error or not. That is re-refereeing the game. Let's say there is a physical challenge and one player goes down. The referees blows and says I have it for a trip. VAR sees there clearly was no trip whatsoever but a push that could have easily been a foul. Is this a clear and obvious error?
Clear and obvious error should be based on if the decision was clearly wrong and not if the reasoning behind it or the means to get to that decision was wrong.

The protocol requires VAR to assess the footage 'independently' and decide if the 'decision' was a clear and obvious error.
I'd say the VAR is re-refereeing more if they decide that the push was a penalty. In that scenario, I certainly think it would be reasonable for the VAR to advise the referee there hadn't bene a trip and then the push could be considered.

Personally, I didn't think it was a penalty in the Villa game on Saturday. Kavanagh clearly didn't either and neither did Oliver once he'd seen the replay and seen (seemingly contrary to his original view) that the defender had played the ball. I know that doesn't mean it can't be a foul but it seems to have been of significance here.
 
Not sure about the WBA one I didn’t watch it in real speed. The Aston Villa one I think MO didn’t see the touch on the ball 1st time and the VAR showed he did and if he didn’t see contact the 1st time and didn’t think as he touched the ball 1st that it wouldn’t be a foul and that would be a clear and obvious error

Well two things there

a) as we know a touch on the ball doesn't always negate a foul challenge - especially in this case where the ball brushed the outside of the defender's leg and

b) the touch, slight as it is was, was only spotted by VAR after several replays and then MO had to go over and peer at a screen to spot it himself.

My point is that whatever you and I think of the decision(s) they were not clear and obvious errors by all sensible criteria.

I have recently heard both Head of Refereeing at UEFA and Howard Webb on the RA zoom meeting explain how VAR is there as a back stop for referees to stop incidents like the Thierry Henry handball - but the way it is being used now is a far cry from the narrative being used by those in charge justifying its use.
 
One thing I did emphatically and correctly predict (on this occasion), was that the OFR would not help at all
It only took a few weeks for commentators to see the obvious reasons why its a waste of time (quite literally)
and lo and behold, after all managers moaned about referees NOT going to monitor, here you have Dean Smith (albeit with some justification in this case) moan about the ref erm........ going to the monitor!
 
In general, I think too many things have been missed in PL because 'clear and obvious' has been set so high as to hardly ever be reached.

I think the Aston Villa penalty wasn't 100% wrong but I would say no penalty is a more correct decision than penalty so I've no issue with VAR intervention especially now referee looks at monitor. At that point, it's a subjective decision and I think we have to sometimes be happy to go with that rather than going into full technicalities with every decision.

As mentioned above, if Oliver thought Brighton player didn't play the ball and VAR points out they did I think that's a reasonable VAR intervention.
but even in this case with the ball 'played' ie its brushes his leg, I'm not sure that would negate the foul challenge for me. Of course its just guesswork that MO said that to the VAR - with all due respect think we're looking a little too hard to find a reason to OK this one.

The WBA change of mind didn't have the ball touch argument to justify the VAR intervention though!
 
Well two things there

a) as we know a touch on the ball doesn't always negate a foul challenge - especially in this case where the ball brushed the outside of the defender's leg and

b) the touch, slight as it is was, was only spotted by VAR after several replays and then MO had to go over and peer at a screen to spot it himself.

My point is that whatever you and I think of the decision(s) they were not clear and obvious errors by all sensible criteria.

I have recently heard both Head of Refereeing at UEFA and Howard Webb on the RA zoom meeting explain how VAR is there as a back stop for referees to stop incidents like the Thierry Henry handball - but the way it is being used now is a far cry from the narrative being used by those in charge justifying its use.
Mate, I agree with your point, I was trying to find. a reason it was overturned. I think until the laws aren’t this flawed, VAR isn’t being used for maradona handballs but they look to pick up anything slightly wrong and that’s why it’s so unpopular, no one would disagree with the maradona handball type decisions being overturned but it’s not good for football to be petit about things
 
Mate, I agree with your point, I was trying to find. a reason it was overturned. I think until the laws aren’t this flawed, VAR isn’t being used for maradona handballs but they look to pick up anything slightly wrong and that’s why it’s so unpopular, no one would disagree with the maradona handball type decisions being overturned but it’s not good for football to be petit about things
The problem is, what you've written isn't a consistent law that can be followed the same way around the world. People don't like injustice - the Henry-type handballs is one type of injustice, but so is being penalised for something you've just seen someone else not be penalised for elsewhere.
 
The problem is, what you've written isn't a consistent law that can be followed the same way around the world. People don't like injustice - the Henry-type handballs is one type of injustice, but so is being penalised for something you've just seen someone else not be penalised for elsewhere.
I know but the laws need to suit VAR, if a clear and obvious error occurs, then give it but spending 2-3 minutes attempting to find something or draw up lines is not clear and obvious
 
On the same subject but a different slant - interestingly Howard Webb said that the reason they don't draw lines in the US is because they don't have enough cameras in the right positions at every stadium.
 
What is happening at the moment isn't helping referees as a whole. We've spent years trying to explain to players that winning the ball doesn't mean it can't be a foul, yet now we have top level referees and VAR overturning penalties because there has been the slightest of touches on the ball. It is sending out totally the wrong message.
 
The very first and most major principle when VAR was first introduced seems to have been forgotten.

‘minimum interference – maximum benefit’

At the moment we are getting a lot of interference for comparatively very little benefit to the game.
 
In my opinion, the Villa-Brighton play was a penalty regardless of whether there was a touch on the ball. The Brighton player swung his leg in a careless, kind of desperate manner. Yes, he got a slight touch on the ball. But he whacked the heck out of the Villa's player shin.

I had a play almost identical to this - even down to the spot of the foul - in a game I did last month. Unskilled defender had a wild swing at the ball. He made a little contact with the ball, but he drilled the attacker in the shin on his follow-through so hard I heard the shoe-to-shinguard contact from about 15 yards away. I immediately pointed to the spot. As you could imagine, the defender's coach immediately cried out "but he got the ball!"

I didn't even bother trying to explain it to him. It was a clearly careless play, and it was a penalty all day long. But when people see plays like this overturned via VAR, it definitely makes things tougher for us.
 
I had one in the middle of the filed I only gave a foul for but tempted to caution as well. Defender slides in with speed (on the ground) from directly in front of the opponent with control of the ball in front of him. Opponent had two options kick/roll the ball away but get flattened by the defender immiediately after. Let the defender get the ball and jump over him. He chose the latter. That for me that perfectly fit the definition of careless if not reckless.

At half time, I had my AR (a decent young referee) saying it was a fair challenge.
 
Well two things there

a) as we know a touch on the ball doesn't always negate a foul challenge - especially in this case where the ball brushed the outside of the defender's leg and

b) the touch, slight as it is was, was only spotted by VAR after several replays and then MO had to go over and peer at a screen to spot it himself.

My point is that whatever you and I think of the decision(s) they were not clear and obvious errors by all sensible criteria.

I have recently heard both Head of Refereeing at UEFA and Howard Webb on the RA zoom meeting explain how VAR is there as a back stop for referees to stop incidents like the Thierry Henry handball - but the way it is being used now is a far cry from the narrative being used by those in charge justifying its use.
I think that it's a very difficult balance to find. I agree we don't want referees going to the monitor 7 or 8 times a game but equally we want to get the best decision possible.

I think sometimes the media and some fans, etc. lack maturity when discussing referee decisions. There have been a lot of cases where either:

1. VAR has not intervened in something - people will say 'Don't you think that was actually a penalty?' 'What's the point of having VAR if they're not going to use it?' 'Why not let the referee look and make his own decision?'
2. When VAR does intervene - 'Even if you agree with the decision, do you think it was 100% a clear and obvious error?'

I think there's often a very thin line between 1 and 2, and it's rarely black and white. People use the phrase 50/50 split but obviously that doesn't mean every person is in t wo minds about what to give. It just means there's not a full overall consensus, which is something you can largely only find out subsequently.
My view on Saturday was that the Aston Villa one wasn't a penalty. That was Chris Kavanagh's view seemingly and then Michael Oliver's after reviewing the footage. I think that is a credible decision, although equally I can understand the opinion of those who say it is, and the fact it's a 50/50 debate only really becomes clear after as the two officials won't know that at the time. Ultimately, they are paid and trained to use their judgements to make what they feel is the best decision and both have done that, and I think it is a reasonable decision personally.

People often reference the likes of Thierry Henry handball as why VAR was introduced but I think that's only part of it. I remember when England conceded a penalty against Italy in a friendly before 2018 World Cup and Rusty Ref said 'I thought that's why people wanted VAR?' It seems to me that the bigger criticisms of VAR since being introduced, certainly to England, have been (outside the handball/tight offside) of VAR being used too little rather than too much.

Danny Makkelie has been one of the best VARs I've seen. I can recall a few cases where people have said 'I think the officials made a good decision using VAR in the end, although perhaps you could ask if it was 100% clear and obvious?'
Let's imagine a referee's original decision is 95% 'wrong' I think certainly last season the VAR would probably use the 5% slight justification to not intervene, even though the vast, vast majority of people watching probably feel it's wrong and the referee most likely will either. I think the strongest VARs will intervene in such situations so that the 'best' decision has more chance of being made (this is where the monitors are much more useful.) If the referee's still in the 5% and wants to stick with their decision then so be it.
 
Back
Top