A&H

LEI vs BOU

Some of us pore over the protocol because if you don't know what it says, then you can make all kinds of errors (one might even say, "clear and obvious" errors) in making judgements about it. The number of times I've seen people on here say stuff about VAR that is just completely wrong (because they think the protocol contains things that it doesn't or vice versa) is probably into the dozens already.

It's similar to the situation (that often draws derision on here) where various commentators or pundits on TV make completely nonsensical statements because they just don't know what the wording of the law actually is - more often than not, preceded by the words, "according to the letter of the law."
I can afford to be ignorant and not read the protocol, because I've gleaned enough knowledge of it through the forum. My point being that it's fairly pointless studying the protocol because its never been adhered to properly and the PGMOL have shown they can do what they like with it. Similarly, the Laws are fabricated all the time. The new Handball changes (excluding the UK) were effective well in advance of the formal Law change. Regional based refereeing with Laws selectively modified and/or ignored is typical of football. I therefore take it all with a pinch of salt
 
The Referee Store
I've just scanned the VAR protocol and I can't find anything the Premier League are not complying with. They seem to be complying with the protocol 100%. Worth a read of the protocol before accusing them of non-compliance.
 
I've just scanned the VAR protocol and I can't find anything the Premier League are not complying with. They seem to be complying with the protocol 100%. Worth a read of the protocol before accusing them of non-compliance.
How about Principal Number 1?
A video assistant referee (VAR) is a match official, with independent access to match footage, who may assist the referee only in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’
 
How about Principal Number 1?
A video assistant referee (VAR) is a match official, with independent access to match footage, who may assist the referee only in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’

Ah, but what do they class as a clear and obvious error, or a serious missed incident?
 
Ah, but what do they class as a clear and obvious error, or a serious missed incident?
There are numerous precedents over recent weeks in which, without question, penalty kick offences have not penalised
These incidents would be classed as subjective (although some have been certain), for which the protocol says an OFR 'is often appropriate'
Don't get me wrong, I loathe the OFR so am happy to see it dispensed with. My point however, is that it is a mockery that the OFR is not being used. More importantly, (specifically) clear & obvious errors are either, a. not being reviewed, or b. the bar is so high, that it doesn't seem to exist
How much non-compliance is needed to substantiate my claim?
Latterly, the ROTW were reviewing incidents and overturning decisions which fell miles short of the criteria specified
 
How about Principal Number 1?
A video assistant referee (VAR) is a match official, with independent access to match footage, who may assist the referee only in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’
Let's not mistake 'may assist' for 'must assist'.
 
There are numerous precedents over recent weeks in which, without question, penalty kick offences have not penalised
These incidents would be classed as subjective (although some have been certain), for which the protocol says an OFR 'is often appropriate'
Don't get me wrong, I loathe the OFR so am happy to see it dispensed with. My point however, is that it is a mockery that the OFR is not being used. More importantly, (specifically) clear & obvious errors are either, a. not being reviewed, or b. the bar is so high, that it doesn't seem to exist
How much non-compliance is needed to substantiate my claim?
Latterly, the ROTW were reviewing incidents and overturning decisions which fell miles short of the criteria specified

So you are happy for there not to be any OFRs, but are complaining that there haven't been any OFRs?

As for the bar being set too high, I thought that was also what you wanted, i.e. as little interference from VAR as possible.
 
Forget what I want, that's not the discussion point. I'm indicating that the protocol is not worth the paper its written on. Whenever some aspect of Law or VAR protocol is ignored, the rest of the Law or protocol is undermined or devalued. I can't think of another sport which is officiated with such disregard to sections of the rules causing inherent inconsistency throughout the game
 
Forget what I want, that's not the discussion point. I'm indicating that the protocol is not worth the paper its written on. Whenever some aspect of Law or VAR protocol is ignored, the rest of the Law or protocol is undermined or devalued. I can't think of another sport which is officiated with such disregard to sections of the rules causing inherent inconsistency throughout the game

I agree, but it isn't just VAR, or even the professional game.

Referees who don't enforce correct sock tape and/or under shorts etc are guilty of the exact same thing.

Yet there are those on here who are very vocal about the fact that they don't agreed with various parts of the laws, and therefore refuse to apply them, despite the requirements being written down in black and white.
 
I agree, but it isn't just VAR, or even the professional game.

Referees who don't enforce correct sock tape and/or under shorts etc are guilty of the exact same thing.

Yet there are those on here who are very vocal about the fact that they don't agreed with various parts of the laws, and therefore refuse to apply them, despite the requirements being written down in black and white.
In my experience, rules are ignored when they're not fit for purpose. The PGMOL are effectively indicating that the OFR falls into that category. Its always been a core feature of VAR, but the PGMOL can ignore it because it's optional, strictly speaking. They must however, tweak their 'high bar' strategy, in order to not be guilty of dereliction of their duty. If they do so, the controversy will drop off and we can get back to debating other stuff!

There are aspects of the law which are not appropriate for Sunday League. That's the root cause for inconsistent application. Personally, i think participation is King. My level of enforcement is strict, but it does vary according to the level appropriate for the league in which I'm appointed. So Senior County League, 100% enforcement... Sunday League etc. slightly less officious because some games wouldn't take place otherwise
 
In my experience, rules are ignored when they're not fit for purpose. The PGMOL are effectively indicating that the OFR falls into that category. Its always been a core feature of VAR, but the PGMOL can ignore it because it's optional, strictly speaking. They must however, tweak their 'high bar' strategy, in order to not be guilty of dereliction of their duty. If they do so, the controversy will drop off and we can get back to debating other stuff!

There are aspects of the law which are not appropriate for Sunday League. That's the root cause for inconsistent application. Personally, i think participation is King. My level of enforcement is strict, but it does vary according to the level appropriate for the league in which I'm appointed. So Senior County League, 100% enforcement... Sunday League etc. slightly less officious because some games wouldn't take place otherwise
And that is your choice, but if you want true consistency across all levels of the game then we should all apply the laws of the game as they are written.

I guarantee that if every referee in a particular league all correctly enforced things like sock tape and under shirts etc, then within a month or two all players would have the correct colours, or as close as possible.
 
I've just scanned the VAR protocol and I can't find anything the Premier League are not complying with. They seem to be complying with the protocol 100%. Worth a read of the protocol before accusing them of non-compliance.
That's like, a referee who has not called an obvious deliberate handball, saying I am complying with the laws of the game because in my opinion it was not deliberate.

Who are we kidding here. They may be complying with its wording but we all know, after 3 rounds and not a single subjective review, it's is not doing what IFAB intended it to do.
 
In my experience, rules are ignored when they're not fit for purpose. The PGMOL are effectively indicating that the OFR falls into that category. Its always been a core feature of VAR, but the PGMOL can ignore it because it's optional, strictly speaking.

Optional? I suppose in the same way that it is "optional" for a referee to give a red card for VC when a player punches another or "optional" to accept a flag from an AR when a player is OS.
 
That's like, a referee who has not called an obvious deliberate handball, saying I am complying with the laws of the game because in my opinion it was not deliberate.

Who are we kidding here. They may be complying with its wording but we all know, after 3 rounds and not a single subjective review, it's is not doing what IFAB intended it to do.

Poor analogy because a referee cannot award a handball if he thinks it was not deliberate (unless other handball criteria apply).

"it's is not doing what IFAB intended it to do"
If this is true, the blame has to lie with IFAB for not wording the protocol the way they 'intended' it to be enacted. However, we don't know what IFAB intended but we do know 'minimum interference' is an intention.

By the way, there has been a 'subjective' VAR intervention: Chelsea were denied a goal against Norwich for a foul on the goalkeeper after the referee initially awarded a goal.

I think the Premier League is doing a much better job than other leagues.
 
Optional? I suppose in the same way that it is "optional" for a referee to give a red card for VC when a player punches another or "optional" to accept a flag from an AR when a player is OS.
The VAR describes to the referee what can be seen on the TV replay(s) but not the decision to be taken, and the referee then:

  • makes a final decision based on the referee’s own perception and the information from the VAR, and, where appropriate, input from other match officials – VAR-only review
    or
  • goes to the referee review area to view replay footage
That amount to optional

I think the Premier League is doing a much better job than other leagues

Agreed, they couldn't have done any worse ;)
 
See the Manchester City v Brighton thread. It's a bit much to say that a law brought in only this season is not fit for purpose.
I was referring to sock tape and undershorts, although it's no secret that I'm not enamoured by the book in many respects
Just one of many opinions on football I'm drawn to vent on the forum :dead:
 
Poor analogy because a referee cannot award a handball if he thinks it was not deliberate (unless other handball criteria apply).

"it's is not doing what IFAB intended it to do"
If this is true, the blame has to lie with IFAB for not wording the protocol the way they 'intended' it to be enacted. However, we don't know what IFAB intended but we do know 'minimum interference' is an intention.

By the way, there has been a 'subjective' VAR intervention: Chelsea were denied a goal against Norwich for a foul on the goalkeeper after the referee initially awarded a goal.

I think the Premier League is doing a much better job than other leagues.
IFAB are not innocent in this, but not having precise wording in the protocol doesn't excuse the deliberate misuse of it. To give another analogy it's like when big companies deliberately don't pay tax by taking advantage of the loop holes in tax laws. There is a difference with using the flexibility you are afforded and taking advantage of it by misusing it.

And your example of use of VAR is being debated in another thread. In fact for me that is another example of misuse of VAR. There is no solid deviance for or again it (if a decision was made in the first place to be overturned by VAR).
 
Back
Top