The Ref Stop

Refereeing Decisions Explained

The entire team (ie the ref, VAR and AVAR) all didn't get given a game in any role the following week, that's quite a coincidence if it's not a suspension!

news.sky.com

Manchester United v Wolves: Referees dropped after VAR penalty controversy

Referee Simon Hooper, VAR Michael Salisbury, and assistant VAR Richard West are dropped for next weekend's round of Premier League fixtures following the controversy during Wolves's 1-0 defeat at Old Trafford.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
 
The Ref Stop
SammyT5 said:
And I think this is a bigger part of the problem than people seem to realise. The operation of and training for VAR seems overly complicated. The way “clear and obvious error” is judged provides more room for human error as the VAR is essentially making two judgements, both whether they agree with the on field decision, and if not whether they disagree enough to send the referee to the monitor. VAR is supposed to minimise human error but it actually does the opposite.

And as much as I like Howard Webb, this is where I have a bit of a problem with him. Instead of at least acknowledging some of these structural problems that still need resolving with VAR and the way he is training his officials to use it he often hangs referees out to dry to appease the public audience. I don’t have any problem with him being transparent but the frequency at which he apologises for decisions instead of sticking by his refs, at least in public, must suggest a wider problem.
Click to expand...
Naturally, Howard Webb (along with most Senior Referees) are bound to be massively pro-VAR.... it offers them a fantastic career opportunity
They will back it to the hilt. If anyone can improve it, I'd back Webb to be that man, but I'm not particularly optimistic he can achieve the impossible
 
Seeing some criticism on social media of Taylor asking Gillett to ‘tell me what I’m going to be seeing when I get to the screen’ as he runs over to the monitor after an on-field review has been initiated. Fair point I think as it makes it come across like the VAR has already decided and simply wants the ref to rubber stamp the decision, rather than giving the ref an unbiased look at the event and letting them make up their mind.
 
alexgr said:
it makes it come across like the VAR has already decided
Click to expand...
The fact that the VAR has recommended a review means he believes the referee has made a clear and obvious error... IMO any criticism of that shows a lack of understanding of the role of VAR.
 
ARF said:
The fact that the VAR has recommended a review means he believes the referee has made a clear and obvious error... IMO any criticism of that shows a lack of understanding of the role of VAR.
Click to expand...
I agree. I thought Taylor and Gillett probably had the best communication out of any of the clips.
 
ARF said:
The fact that the VAR has recommended a review means he believes the referee has made a clear and obvious error... IMO any criticism of that shows a lack of understanding of the role of VAR.
Click to expand...
Oh totally, I don’t disagree with you there. But if you want to improve public perception of VAR, then phrases like that don’t help
 
All supporters want to see is the correct decisions, and after all this time (and with the use of VAR) they are still getting them wrong at the highest level. Some are decisions i'd expect us to easily give in a grassroots game.
I think the biggest problem with VAR seems to be the wording "clear and obvious". Often VAR is picking up things that are debatable rather than the absolute obvious. That then leads to all the managers and supporters wanting every little decision reviewing. If it's taking 5-6 mins for the ref to view an incident 6-7 times from different angles, it can't be clear and obvious.
 
alexgr said:
Oh totally, I don’t disagree with you there. But if you want to improve public perception of VAR, then phrases like that don’t help
Click to expand...
100% disagree. The whole point of the OFR is to show the R what the VAR has seen on the replay. There is no reason not to discuss what VAR is going to show the R while the R is jogging to the screen--it speeds up the process.
 
Of all the people they could have used to present the show with Howard Webb, they went with Michael Owen, absolutely zero charisma or personality! :confused:
 
Big Cat said:
I watched it. Although I'm not sure I'd go out of my way to tune in again, just because I didn't sense there's much for us Refs to learn from it
I like Howard Webb. Although the show is recorded and may have needed many many takes to get it right, HW is a good orator and an intelligent fella. he has a lot to offer the game. But it's wearying to hear about how VAR is gonna improve. A soundbite that's been rumbling around for best part of a decade without much substance. IMO, it hasn't improved, because there's insurmountable challenges associated with the dynamics of the game and subjectivity (amongst other things)
Click to expand...
Think most of the failure in England, and let's not forget it has worked in other countries, has to come down to management. Under Mike Riley how many times did we see the bar on what VAR should get involved with change? It was several times a season, and that must have been a nightmare for the officials. Can you imagine if your boss told you to do your job differently every few weeks, you'd be all over the place. I'm pretty sure that won't happen with Webb, the bar has been set and it won't move, at least not during a season. Mistakes will still happen, such as the City vs Fulham, but that's just human error and will hopefully get fewer and fewer.

Think we also need to look at the performance improvement of referees. Take Simon Hooper and Rob Jones as examples, they look like totally different referees and the change of regime must have had some contribution to this.
 
I think the referee should certainly feel enabled to stick with their original decision at the monitor where relevant but I think it's perfectly reasonable for the VAR to talk the referee through what they think they've seen and why they've initiated the review. The TMO in rugby will often describe things to the referee to help them in the decision making process. A collaborative approach seems to make far more sense than the VAR simply saying 'Go and have a look. I'm not going to help you out but let me know in a few minutes what you think I've seen'.

It's perhaps also useful to the broadcasters - they can hear the VAR audio at this point but not the referee so it helps to communicate to them the VAR's reasoning which can then inform their comments to the viewers.
 
What struck me was that VAR communication was overall not structured, not standardized, not efficient and often confused, self contradictory or just wrong - and I’m talking about: “I’m going to show slo-mo first, no full speed, no, slo-mo” and then full speed plays first - without VAR having planned the second angle.

Compare this to an actual trained live broadcast director/editor, calling multiple cameras, for example, in live sport broadcasting, like football and the cueing, shot selection and cutting between cameras and between replays etc.

VAR is amateur hour. It’s light years from professional level (Gilette at least is self-structured and clear). This is a fundamental flaw with the protocol. Lunatics controlling the asylum stuff really. Without far better focused training this won’t change.

It seems like jobs for the boys. IMHO trained referees seem like the wrong people to be in control in the edit suite - and I think the VAR mic review really highlights that.
 
RustyRef said:
it has worked in other countries
Click to expand...
Binary statement for something very debatable

Maybe in the US where it's culturally accepted, but Social Media is awash with controversy from around Europe
Although, I have to add, I don't watch any foreign stuff so maybe I'm not best placed to comment. I rarely watch the Champions League etc....
Although World Cups and Euros always a bit of a mess
 
Last edited:
santa sangria said:
What struck me was that VAR communication was overall not structured, not standardized, not efficient and often confused, self contradictory or just wrong - and I’m talking about: “I’m going to show slo-mo first, no full speed, no, slo-mo” and then full speed plays first - without VAR having planned the second angle.

Compare this to an actual trained live broadcast director/editor, calling multiple cameras, for example, in live sport broadcasting, like football and the cueing, shot selection and cutting between cameras and between replays etc.

VAR is amateur hour. It’s light years from professional level (Gilette at least is self-structured and clear). This is a fundamental flaw with the protocol. Lunatics controlling the asylum stuff really. Without far better focused training this won’t change.

It seems like jobs for the boys. IMHO trained referees seem like the wrong people to be in control in the edit suite - and I think the VAR mic review really highlights that.
Click to expand...
Well, I think you are describing the problems with VAR in England more than in general. VAR hasn’t been more accepted in the US just because of cultural familiarity, but because MLS has worked hard at training, standard practices, and transparency. (MLS/PRO had been working on transparency even before VAR, with weekly public reviews of key plays and explanations—that was some of the best ref training available at the time in the US, and with VAR coming in became the video review each week.) viewing the week in review regularly From PRO, we see standard practices, with the VAR routinely describing what will be shown as the ref makes the way to the screen, showing point of impact so the R knows where to focus, and then showing the clip. And the MLS refs are pretty adept at asking for what they want to see. All that said, I’m still not an advocate form video review in soccer. But I think it’s pretty clear that many of the PL’s issues are connected to its reluctance to learn what works from others and implement it. Webb seems to be working on it, but it takes time.

for those who haven’t seen it, heres an example from PRO:
 
socal lurker said:
Well, I think you are describing the problems with VAR in England more than in general. VAR hasn’t been more accepted in the US just because of cultural familiarity, but because MLS has worked hard at training, standard practices, and transparency. (MLS/PRO had been working on transparency even before VAR, with weekly public reviews of key plays and explanations—that was some of the best ref training available at the time in the US, and with VAR coming in became the video review each week.) viewing the week in review regularly From PRO, we see standard practices, with the VAR routinely describing what will be shown as the ref makes the way to the screen, showing point of impact so the R knows where to focus, and then showing the clip. And the MLS refs are pretty adept at asking for what they want to see. All that said, I’m still not an advocate form video review in soccer. But I think it’s pretty clear that many of the PL’s issues are connected to its reluctance to learn what works from others and implement it. Webb seems to be working on it, but it takes time.

for those who haven’t seen it, heres an example from PRO:
Click to expand...
Fair enough

Maybe I should rephrase things and say, 'I don't think VAR will ever be accepted in the UK' because our culture is toxic
 
Saw the rerun of this yesterday evening. Overall I think it is a good development. Howard Webb comes across very well - transparent, clear in his aims and determined to make things better. Just a shame it wasn't a bit longer and they couldn't have found a more inspiring presenter than Michael Owen. It doesn't need a gob on a stick like Robbie Savage, but a Neville or Carragher providing some intelligent challenge would make it a better watch and also more impactful - my only 'do better' for Howard is that he understandably descends into referee speak at points and it needed a better presenter to pull him out of that.

What I would have loved is a part II where they replay the most ludicrous remarks from commentators and 'expert' pundits over the same cohort of games and explain why they are utter BS. Hold that lot to account too and provide a bit of enlightenment on the LOTG at the same time !
 
Quarryref said:
Saw the rerun of this yesterday evening. Overall I think it is a good development. Howard Webb comes across very well - transparent, clear in his aims and determined to make things better. Just a shame it wasn't a bit longer and they couldn't have found a more inspiring presenter than Michael Owen. It doesn't need a gob on a stick like Robbie Savage, but a Neville or Carragher providing some intelligent challenge would make it a better watch and also more impactful - my only 'do better' for Howard is that he understandably descends into referee speak at points and it needed a better presenter to pull him out of that.

What I would have loved is a part II where they replay the most ludicrous remarks from commentators and 'expert' pundits over the same cohort of games and explain why they are utter BS. Hold that lot to account too and provide a bit of enlightenment on the LOTG at the same time !
Click to expand...
I think you could make a fortune monetizing some YouTube mash ups!
 
When VAR was being introduced I thought it was a great idea as it could prevent referees making either an incorrect decision or to alert them to something so obvious to everyone but the ref missed it.

As it’s evolved it’s become way more than that and every single decision seems to be checked and it’s like they’re looking for stuff. I just think if they have to review an incident x amount of times and spend ages drawing lines for mm decisions on offside then just accept the on field decision. That said the managers want this so they shouldn’t be angry when one goes against them
 
Darren83 said:
When VAR was being introduced I thought it was a great idea as it could prevent referees making either an incorrect decision or to alert them to something so obvious to everyone but the ref missed it.

As it’s evolved it’s become way more than that and every single decision seems to be checked and it’s like they’re looking for stuff. I just think if they have to review an incident x amount of times and spend ages drawing lines for mm decisions on offside then just accept the on field decision. That said the managers want this so they shouldn’t be angry when one goes against them
Click to expand...
It's called re-refereeing of every match changing situation. Arguably, the dangerous trend is towards the on-field decision becoming irrelevant, although it may take a number of years of extrapolation to get to that point. I agree there's way too much emphasis on slow motion and freeze frames, even though such footage is not meant to be used in the way that it is
 
Big Cat said:
It's called re-refereeing of every match changing situation. Arguably, the dangerous trend is towards the on-field decision becoming irrelevant, although it may take a number of years of extrapolation to get to that point. I agree there's way too much emphasis on slow motion and freeze frames, even though such footage is not meant to be used in the way that it is
Click to expand...
Been watching a bit of the rugby last night and today and noticed that whilst they seem much more efficient in using video review technology (TMO), it seems to be the official off the field/video operator conducting the final decision. That is something I’d like to avoid in football otherwise the on-field referee just gets demoted to some sort of human communication device.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top