A&H

City v Lyon

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure why so many people are talking about whether the VAR should have intervened if there was a foul - and whether the foul was "clear and obvious."

This has been clearly stated since the first VAR protocol came out - the VAR is not supposed to look at whether it was a foul, but only at whether the referee's decision not to give a foul, was clearly and obviously wrong.

So if you're asking if I think it was a foul, I'd say probably yes, but if you're asking if I think the referee was clearly and obviously wrong in not giving it, I'd say probably no.
We're talking about it because (if you agree it was a foul) Manchester City have lost quarter-final CL matches in successive years after conceding goals that should have been disallowed. And because - even with the new wording - there is a 1984ish black hole of language that says subjective decisions should be by the referee using OFR but leaves it up to the VAR to make a subjective decision about whether the referee should take that subjective decision.
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
We're talking about it because (if you agree it was a foul) Manchester City have lost quarter-final CL matches in successive years after conceding goals that should have been disallowed. And because - even with the new wording - there is a 1984ish black hole of language that says subjective decisions should be by the referee using OFR but leaves it up to the VAR to make a subjective decision about whether the referee should take that subjective decision.
For starters nowhere does it say any decision 'should' use OFR.

Now if every subjective decision was to be made by the referee then the referee should also makes the decision on if his original decision was a clear an obvious error. And before that he has to make the decision for the second decision for the first decision. And in and on we go. An in any case isn't the second the decision also the first decision. Let's not twist things.

I can understand if you don't like VAR. But understand that in this incident it did what it was supposed to do. And if it is changed to do what you want it to do for this incident, then VAR would be changed to re-referee the game, and that, no one wants.
 
For starters nowhere does it say any decision 'should' use OFR.

Now if every subjective decision was to be made by the referee then the referee should also makes the decision on if his original decision was a clear an obvious error. And before that he has to make the decision for the second decision for the first decision. And in and on we go. An in any case isn't the second the decision also the first decision. Let's not twist things.

I can understand if you don't like VAR. But understand that in this incident it did what it was supposed to do. And if it is changed to do what you want it to do for this incident, then VAR would be changed to re-referee the game, and that, no one wants.
I'm not sure whether that middle paragraph is a joke, or a serious attempt to justify the previous or the new wording. What I want to do for this (and every) incident is get the decision right, and if it was a foul the decision was wrong.

If the referee saw the alleged offence what was his decision at the time? Presumably it wasn't that an offence had been committed by the attacker, or he would have given the foul. Was it a decision to allow play to continue? Well, yes, play continued. In practice, if the referee didn't see the alleged offence but saw a defender on the deck and heard the appeals, he allowed play to continue because he couldn't give a foul he hadn't seen. There remains the possibility that he saw the incident but wasn't sure it was a foul, so allowed play to continue. So that is the decision that was being reviewed; we were told the VAR was reviewing a possible foul.

"The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a 'clear and
obvious error'." But if the decision not to stop play was because the referee didn't see the incident how does that involve any error at all? The wording means we end up with the possibility that the VAR thought it was a foul, but the unsighted referee hadn't stopped play; as the referee's decision not to stop play for something he hadn't seen was the only decision the referee could have made, that decision (no matter how clear a foul) was never going to be a clear and obvious error. So if the referee hadn't seen it and VAR thought it was a foul, VAR could not even ask the referee to look at OFR and review an incident he hadn't seen in real time. In fact, logically, if the referee told the VAR he hadn't seen the incident, the VAR should have said "there's no point my even looking at it then".

Now I sincerely hope that isn't how it played out, but that's the logic. But we don't know.

There is of course the bit that allows a VAR review "if a serious incident is missed/not seen by the match officials". Now some on here reckon that only applies to red card offences rather than a missed incident with serious (e.g. goalscoring) consequences, but under "procedures" we read "The referee and other match officials must always make an initial decision (including any disciplinary action) as if there was no VAR (except for a ‘missed’ incident)" (with "serious" now omitted). So was this a case for a review on that basis? We don't know.

For some reason the referee decided to initiate a review. His own choice, or recommended by VAR? (We don't know)

In the end he decided to stick with his original decision to let play continue (but whether that was because he never thought it was a foul, or never saw it, we don't know). The final decision was obviousy based on information from the VAR, but as to what that information was, we don't know.

Did the "silent check" by the VAR mean there was no need to communicate with the referee? We don't know. Did the VAR recommend a review? We don't know. Or did the referee initiate the review (and on what basis, e.g. did he suspect that something serious has been ‘missed’)? We don't know.

But the VAR described to the referee what could be seen on the TV replay(s) and based on the referee’s own perception and the information from the VAR, the referee allowed the goal to stand. Unless the VAR had angles and/or slo mo that the broadcasters didn't use, the information must have been (because even Peter Walton thought so) "it looks like it might have been a foul". But we don't know. VAR might have said "I've looked at it every way and I can't tell for sure so there's probably not much point your doing an OFR" but we don't know.

I have spent way too long on this but it's all in the context of the bit of the protocol that says "The referee must remain ‘visible’ during the review process to ensure transparency."

For the sake of completeness, I note that the wording about subjective decisions is now "For subjective decisions, e.g. intensity of a foul challenge, interference at offside, handball considerations, an ‘on-field review’ (OFR) is appropriate". Ah, the dreaded "e.g." - does that mean that whether it's a foul challenge or not may not be appropriate for OFR, but only the intensity of a challenge (to decide any disciplinary sanction)? We don't know. And is that in conflict with "Reorganising the text emphasises that ‘on-field reviews’ (OFRs) are expected when the incident/decision is non-factual." We don't know.
 
Last edited:
TBH I only read parts of your post. I want to make this simple for myself. I know you are saying they got the decision wrong for the foul. Nothing to worry too much about there as we all know referees are human and will always get decisions wrong from time to time, which ones, well that depends who you ask.

But Are you also saying the referees on the night got the VAR process wrong? Or are you saying the VAR process is wrong in general? or both?
 
The problem is, the VAR process worked exactly as it should... but that's not much comfort to City fans as the 'wrong outcome' contributed to the defeat. I just can't see how VAR will ever provide a solution for anything subjective
 
The problem is, the VAR process worked exactly as it should... but that's not much comfort to City fans as the 'wrong outcome' contributed to the defeat. I just can't see how VAR will ever provide a solution for anything subjective
With that I agree. How many of us have been to County/National FA events where we've been shown video clips and asked what we would do?

I know the ones I've been to, some are clear cut, others have the referees split in terms of what the "correct" outcome should be.

For anything non fact based the only person who should be making a decision on a subjective decision is the match referee.
 
With that I agree. How many of us have been to County/National FA events where we've been shown video clips and asked what we would do?

I know the ones I've been to, some are clear cut, others have the referees split in terms of what the "correct" outcome should be.

For anything non fact based the only person who should be making a decision on a subjective decision is the match referee.

Surely that's pretty much how VAR is meant to work though - it's designed to intervene on the clear cut ones.

The borderline ones where people are split should largely be left as if they were a non-VAR game.
 
Surely that's pretty much how VAR is meant to work though - it's designed to intervene on the clear cut ones.

The borderline ones where people are split should largely be left as if they were a non-VAR game.
Define clear cut subjectively and we'll get back on the merry-go-round
 
TBH I only read parts of your post. I want to make this simple for myself. I know you are saying they got the decision wrong for the foul. Nothing to worry too much about there as we all know referees are human and will always get decisions wrong from time to time, which ones, well that depends who you ask.

But Are you also saying the referees on the night got the VAR process wrong? Or are you saying the VAR process is wrong in general? or both?
I don't know if they got the decision wrong. Most people think it was a foul. I don't know what the referee saw or what he missed. I don't know what angles the VAR saw or what slomo he used. I don't know if he thought it was a foul. I don't know what the referee told the VAR or vice versa. But by a combination of the wording in the laws about VAR it seems quite possible that the referee didn't see it, or saw it and thought it may have been a foul, and the VAR thought it was a foul, but even if the VAR was certain it was a foul the way the law is drafted means he didn't even ask the referee to do an OFR (or the referee didn't want to do an OFR). So I don't know if the team on the night got the process wrong (without knowing what they saw and thought and said to each other) but, yes, the process is wrong if they can look to see if there was a foul in the build-up and, even if both referee and VAR thought there was, they still couldn't meet the criteria for disallowing the goal.
 
Define clear cut subjectively and we'll get back on the merry-go-round

Clearly that's the challenge and I agree it's never going to be 100% but i don't see that as a way some problem do. I think some people take the view that every decision has to have a 100% black and white decision as to what it should have been and VAR has to get everything 100% correct.

I think Saturday's could probably fall somewhere between - some VARs would think it clear enough to intervene and some wouldn't. I'm largely comfortable with that, within the confines of reality.
 
No chance would I give that whether seen on-field or not. That's not handball under 18/19 laws. Arm is tight to his body. That said, I'm not certain a handball call on-field would be overturned. But a call to allow the goal certainly would not be overturned.
Except Champions League referees had been instructed by UEFA to apply the new law during the previous season.
 
Except Champions League referees had been instructed by UEFA to apply the new law during the previous season.

I'll be honest, I've found no evidence of that and have spent a few days looking. There is also no space in the laws of the game to allow law changes to be applied early.
 
It was reported by various people in the media, including Jacqui Oatley, after the Wolves V Man City Willy Boly goal in August 2018 that the PGMO had told them that any goal scored by the hand should be disallowed, even if it was accidental.

Here's an example of such a media source -
I think the suggestion at the time was that IFAB were largely writing the handball law change based on how the Premier League and UEFA etc had agreed to interpret it.
 
That's all well and good but the PGMOL aren't UEFA. An unofficial line from PGMOL is in no way proof that UEFA were encouraging referees to do the same.
 
That's all well and good but the PGMOL aren't UEFA. An unofficial line from PGMOL is in no way proof that UEFA were encouraging referees to do the same.

Of course - but my recollection at the time was that both were thinking along similar lines (I think the Neymar goal disallowed in the CL final for accidental handball was cited as an example.)

I doubt we'll ever know for certain now and it's so long ago that I doubt too many people really care!
 
Iturralde González explicitly said that UEFA's chief refereeing officer Roberto Rosetti had instructed referees to apply the new law.


Although it's behind a pay wall there's this: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stricter-handball-rules-in-champions-league-warns-uefa-6hh0gs38n
but that may refer to all handball changes.
Certainly there's plenty to say they were using the 2019 definitions of handball generally before they were law.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top