World Cup England vs Haiti

[cdsman]

I felt that the problem the ref had was once she said 'no penalty', there were loud cheers / boos in the stadium and anything that she said subsequent to that wouldn't have been heard anyway...

 

[CaptainsPlease]

The protocol makes it clear that only the referee can make any decision in relation to an incident that is being reviewed. Such as, for instance, whether a challenge was a foul or not.

So the basic principle is that the VAR can only offer information to help in the decision, they are not authorized to decide whether a foul has actually taken place.

The protocol also states that an OFR is "appropriate" for all subjective decisions (i.e. it should take place).

It further says the only time an OFR is not usually appropriate is when it involves:

Since this was not a factual decision but a referee judgement call, an OFR was the appropriate course of action

What I've been suggesting is that VAR should not have recommended a review. It should have been a check only, because the 'no penalty' decision was not a clear and obvious error due to the Russo foul immediately prior that should have been picked up in the check. There is nothing in the 'Check' part of the protocol that says a VAR can't evaluate other fouls in the APP when deciding whether to recommend a review. The VAR can look at anything during the check that helps them determine if there's a C&O error.

 

[GraemeS]

And the Russo foul is not C&O.

 

[socal lurker]

What I've been suggesting is that VAR should not have recommended a review. It should have been a check only, because the 'no penalty' decision was not a clear and obvious error due to the Russo foul immediately prior that should have been picked up in the check. There is nothing in the 'Check' part of the protocol that says a VAR can't evaluate other fouls in the APP when deciding whether to recommend a review. The VAR can look at anything during the check that helps them determine if there's a C&O error.

That would be completely contrary to the protocol. The protocol is that they look at the APP only if there is a C&O miss of a PK. So that is the first thing the R needs to review in the OFR because it is a judgment decision. And then the foul in the APP is also a judgment decision, which again calls for the R to review. You can dislike the protocol and want it changed, but this was handled 100% correctly from a protocol perspective. The
VAR is absolutely not supposed to consider a potential foul in the APP in deciding whether to send the possible PK down to the R for an OFR.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

That would be completely contrary to the protocol. The protocol is that they look at the APP only if there is a C&O miss of a PK. So that is the first thing the R needs to review in the OFR because it is a judgment decision. And then the foul in the APP is also a judgment decision, which again calls for the R to review. You can dislike the protocol and want it changed, but this was handled 100% correctly from a protocol perspective. The
VAR is absolutely not supposed to consider a potential foul in the APP in deciding whether to send the possible PK down to the R for an OFR.

The way I thought it was supposed to work is that we only interrupt play for reviews when the decision that has been made, 'no penalty', is clearly and obviously wrong. If the protocol does not work like that in a case like this then yes it should be changed. There is no point sending referees to monitors when they are unlikely to be changing their decision.

 

[socal lurker]

The way I thought it was supposed to work is that we only interrupt play for reviews when the decision that has been made, 'no penalty', is clearly and obviously wrong. If the protocol does not work like that in a case like this then yes it should be changed. There is no point sending referees to monitors when they are unlikely to be changing their decision.

It does only go down if, in the opinion of the VAR, the decision not to award the PK was C&O wrong. The fact that there was another failure before that doesn't change the PK decision itself.

The protocol, as it stands, preserves the idea that the R makes the final judgment decision on fouls. For example, on this particular review, the R very well could have decided that, yes, the failure to award the PK was a C&O error, but disagree with respect to the foul in the APP (which many people think is what should have happened, as many people disagree with the APP foul decision). In that case the PK would be given. And that is why the protocol is what it is.

IFAB could have given the VAR authority to simply overrule decisions on the field. But it deliberately chose not to in order to maintain the R as final arbiter.

 

[RustyRef]

For me this one is fairly clear. It was a clear and obvious error not to give the penalty, so they go back to check the build up. Russo clearly fouled the defender, I get that it probably didn't tick the clear and obvious criteria, but I don't think it needs to when checking the build up, that criteria is only for whether a review takes place in the first place.

The only thing I disagreed with is it should have been a red card not a caution, although that I accept at any level sending off a defender and restarting with a defensive free kick is never a good look.