I've mentioned previously about why I think referees explaining VAR decisions might be a bit pointless, as pundits will just disagree with them. This video backs up that theory perfectly, Mike Dean explains very clearly why the referee can't change a decision once play has restarted but Paul Merson just repeatedly shouts over him. Michael Dawson tries to add a voice of reason but is just shouted down. By the end the show the host has to apologise for Merson's shouting. Sadly this is exactly what will happen if referees explain decisions on TV.
Why explaining decisions probably won't make any difference
- Thread starter RustyRef
- Start date
What are you referencing here? Ex-referees already go on TV to explain decisions - that's what's in the clip you posted. And the change people argue for where the referee explains decisions and/or VAR audio becomes more avaliable isn't going to come with a pundit right of reply mid-game!
It's a little bit more information for the benefit of people who actually want to know it. And if pundits choose not to listen or have uninformed disagreement with them...that already happens, so what's the harm? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
It's a little bit more information for the benefit of people who actually want to know it. And if pundits choose not to listen or have uninformed disagreement with them...that already happens, so what's the harm? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
It's like being on the pitch on a sunday!
There probably won't be a pundit right of reply mid-game, but that isn't to say they won't try to drive a bus through the explanation at half time or full time. And these days they often pull in the studio pundits during the game to talk about things, so they might not even get to the break or full time.
The point I am making is the pundits think they know law, but in reality they haven't got a clue, and sadly the general public are more likely to take the view of a pundit than a referee. Just look at the KMI panel decision today, where they said that Man City shouldn't have had a penalty against Wolves because Ait Nouri's challenge wasn't reckless. What has that got to do about anything, reckless only comes into whether it was a caution or not, yet a supposedly independent panel can chuck the match officials under the bus even though their reasoning is totally incorrect in law.
The wasn't reckless thing did make me chuckle. As did the fact that the headline on BBC was that the decision was deemed to be incorrect but only upon reading the article does it explain that this was a 3-2 split vote and it was a 5-0 majority that said it wasn't a clear and obvious error.
And what's the betting that the 2 who said it was correct were the EPL and PGMOL representatives, and the 3 that said it was wrong were the ex-managers / players? It is utterly ridiculous, in what other industry would people who have no qualifications in that industry be allowed to make judgement on decisions made by those that are qualified? If you were reviewing an electrician's wiring that went wrong would you ask a man off the street to do it, just on the basis that they use electricity?
I think the point this makes is that when you explain, you have to use the words of the LOTG for it to be accurate. That just annoys people more because they don't understand it, which doesn't help the situation. I tend not to bother with explanations in these scenarios for this very reason, although if it will help I will do it.
As opposed to what they currently do, which is try and drive a bus through decisions anyway even without any knowledge of what the decision was for? I just can't see any way this could be worse than what currently goes on.
There's just a chance it will further undermine referees. Currently the pundits criticise the decisions but there hasn't been an explanation from referees. If explaining decisions comes in they will still criticise but will also say the referee's explanation was wrong, and then there will be no right of reply for the referee. Which is exactly what happens with the likes of Mike Dean on Soccer Saturday, even when he is 100% correct they argue that he is wrong, as per the video I posted.
Criticising a decision that hasn't been explained is a lot less damaging than criticising a decision that the referee has come out to explain.
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
Well, colour me surprised if the referees support the referee's decision. And the people on the receiving end of decisions are less inclined to go with the opinion of the referees.
And the electricity regs change almost as often as the laws of football. But you really don't have to be "qualified" to know what's an offence.
Disagree. If the explanation is good, clear and correct, anyone gibbering nonsense in disagreement with it will come across as exactly that.
The video you post is irrelevant for dozens or reasons. First (and I'm baffled that I need to repeat this) there will be no right of reply! There is no possibility of a ref on a pitch getting in a "Heated debate" with a pundit, because the ref will have no idea what the pundit has said. A pundit can disagree with the ref, and they'll either be right or wrong, they'll come across well or not and that's the end of it.
Second - because it's a clear example of the refereeing team getting it absolutely wrong. Where a mistake is made, it doesn't matter if there's an explanation or not, it's going to get hammered regardless. There's no fix to that problem other then minimising mistakes.
And third - Dean has no credibility. He goes on about "the law says...", but he wasn't so fussed about what the law says when he chose not to embarrass AT by sending him to the monitor. It's frankly embarrassing that he's still paid for his "expertise" after that and I'm genuinely surprised he's given as much credit as he is - he should be laughed out of the room every time he opens his mouth.
But even Dean specifically aside, TV referees err far too much on the side of supporting their mates. If in that example the referee had been given the information and then chosen to stop and award the goal, everyone knows Dean wouldn't have been sat there spouting "the law says...", he would have been bending over backwards to congratulate his former colleague on his common sense and use of the "spirit of law". It's naïve to think people can't see through that kind of hypocrisy.
Taking TV referees out of the loop and at least hearing it direct from the horses mouth removes that immediate scepticism - you're hearing the real reason, not what someone with a vested interest thinks they can spin the reason as. It doesn't need to convince everyone the referee is right 100% of the time to be a benefit.
Last edited:
Where have I said that a pundit will be able to have a discussion with the referee during the game? I'll help you out, I haven't.
And the video is very relevant. It is a recent ex-referee explaining very clearly and eloquently why the referee has made a decision, or rather hasn't corrected a decision after play had restarted. This wasn't even a subjective decision, it was absolutely black and white, yet Merson still shouts over him to say he is wrong.
Runner Ref
Active Member
I'd rather they made the conversation between the referee and VAR live, rather than this idea. I dount they'd do this as the clubs and sponsors would be terrified of background language.
Howard Webb has said he wants to, but FIFA won't allow it.
You've posted a video of a pundit and a referee having an argument as an example of why this idea won't work. Here's a simple fix to that problem - don't set up a system where pundits can argue with referees. Which is exactly what's being proposed.
Any attempt to extend that to what pundits may or may not say in an unconnected studio after an on-field explanation is fearmongering speculation. You're trying to assume a link that isn't real - and absolutely isn't anywhere near a good enough reason not to at least try to improve communication and punter/pundit understanding of what's going on.
Let's wait and see what occurs if / when it happens then. When the pundits undoubtedly try to tear holes in the referees' explanations I'll come back here and tell you why it wasn't fearmongering
And now who's not reading someone else's posts?Let's wait and see what occurs if / when it happens then. When the pundits undoubtedly try to tear holes in the referees' explanations I'll come back here and tell you why it wasn't fearmongering
Obviously some pundits somewhere will disagree. I'm specifically not claiming that this is a magic fix that will instantly remove any disagreement from the game. But that already happens and any improvement is still an improvement.
So to prove myself right, I just need to find one example of an explanation followed by a commentator/pundit saying "OK, I get it" or "that explains that" or something along those lines. To prove this is a bad idea, you need that to never happen. I'm feeling pretty confident.
Last edited:
@GraemeS and @RustyRef - I think I'm correct in saying that you two argue quite a lot on this forum... whilst you don't necessarily take threads off topic - it does get pretty repetitive and annoying... 
I know that I could just scroll on past, but some of the threads are initially quite interesting!
I know that I could just scroll on past, but some of the threads are initially quite interesting!