RefSix

Manchester City v Birmingham City

ladbroke8745

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Just watching this match, and I get the VAR protocols and what it can give and not, but the challenge by San Jose on Foden, where they checked for a penalty. It was clearly outside, but was also, in my opinion, a definite foul. He has given a goal kick, so he is safely assuming (correctly) that San Jose did not get to, or touch, the ball, but he clearly took Foden out.
So because VAR can only give a penalty, the goal kick is continued to be awarded. But we have to allow that foul to go unpunished.
I don't think VAR should be re-refereeing games, but as they've had to review it for a potential penalty, I think things like this should be awarded as a free kick. The VAR first and foremost should be asking themselves is it a foul, if yes, then where did the foul take place? If outside, give the free kick, if in, give the penalty. The current thought though is if its a foul, if outside the area, regardless if its a foul, its a goal kick to the offending team, if its inside, its a penalty. How is that fair to the attacking team here?
 

bloovee

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
But VAR only deals with penalty / not a penalty - so what was daft was replaying the tackle (foul) from different angles when it was obvious it was outside the area.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
You can pretty much summarise your entire question as "How is it fair to allow a wrong decision to stand?" And the simple answer is that it's not. But people didn't want games being "re-refereed", so we end up with the arbitrary criteria that we have.
 

Jtpetherick1

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
Just watching this match, and I get the VAR protocols and what it can give and not, but the challenge by San Jose on Foden, where they checked for a penalty. It was clearly outside, but was also, in my opinion, a definite foul. He has given a goal kick, so he is safely assuming (correctly) that San Jose did not get to, or touch, the ball, but he clearly took Foden out.
So because VAR can only give a penalty, the goal kick is continued to be awarded. But we have to allow that foul to go unpunished.
I don't think VAR should be re-refereeing games, but as they've had to review it for a potential penalty, I think things like this should be awarded as a free kick. The VAR first and foremost should be asking themselves is it a foul, if yes, then where did the foul take place? If outside, give the free kick, if in, give the penalty. The current thought though is if its a foul, if outside the area, regardless if its a foul, its a goal kick to the offending team, if its inside, its a penalty. How is that fair to the attacking team here?

So do you want every single tackle to be reviewed and changed if necessary? And I thought American football games took ages....
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
So do you want every single tackle to be reviewed and changed if necessary? And I thought American football games took ages....

I think the point is, if a review already happens due to one the four criteria, then a wrong decision should be reversed even if it does not fall under one of the four. This already happens for yellow card offences hitch are not reviewable.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
I think the point is, if a review already happens due to one the four criteria, then a wrong decision should be reversed even if it does not fall under one of the four. This already happens for yellow card offences hitch are not reviewable.

Only true to a point. The VAR can only recommend the review by the R if the VAR believes it should be a red; when the R reviews, he can disagree and give only a yellow. The parallel would be if the VAR thought it was a PK, the R could decide it was a foul but outside—but that would almost never happen, as 99% of the time the VAR is going to habpve inside/outside right.

At the end of the day, it’s all about line drawing. A line between what is and is not reviewed has to be drawn somewhete, and wherever it is drawn, there will be events just on the other side of the line. So it comes down to how much delay and intervention we (well, IFAB) want in the game.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Only true to a point. The VAR can only recommend the review by the R if the VAR believes it should be a red; when the R reviews, he can disagree and give only a yellow. The parallel would be if the VAR thought it was a PK, the R could decide it was a foul but outside—but that would almost never happen, as 99% of the time the VAR is going to habpve inside/outside right.

At the end of the day, it’s all about line drawing. A line between what is and is not reviewed has to be drawn somewhete, and wherever it is drawn, there will be events just on the other side of the line. So it comes down to how much delay and intervention we (well, IFAB) want in the game.
My point is not about drawing the line on what to review. I am happy with the 4 criteria. It's about what decisions can changed after you started a review based on the 4 conditions.

When a penalty is given for a foul very close to the edge, then that is a reviewable incident. There is an inconsistency here if the incident was not actually a foul.

1. If it was inside, R is told it's not a foul, R can OFR and it becomes a dropped ball to the keeper.
2. If it was outside, VAR can only tell R it was outside, but not that it was not a foul. there usually isn't an OFR for in/out. With the specialist FK takers, there is a good chance a goal come from a non-foul FK that was reviewed and identified as a non-foul.
 

Jtpetherick1

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
So where do you draw the line? What if the same incident happens a yard further back? That way there wouldn’t be a VAR review at all but it would still be an injustice. The only option is to review them all.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I understand that not everyone would agree on where the line should be. But for me the most practical and effective place is, keep the reviews to the 4 existing KMI's. However if a review takes place due to one of those KMI's then any clear and obvious error or missed incident is detected and acted upon even if it is a simple free kick or direction of a restart. This way you don't have any additional reviews to what you already have.
 

Jtpetherick1

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
I understand that not everyone would agree on where the line should be. But for me the most practical and effective place is, keep the reviews to the 4 existing KMI's. However if a review takes place due to one of those KMI's then any clear and obvious error or missed incident is detected and acted upon even if it is a simple free kick or direction of a restart. This way you don't have any additional reviews to what you already have.
A tackle on the edge of the area - possible PK or FK.
The same tackle on the edge of the D - nothing.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
A tackle on the edge of the area - possible PK or FK.
The same tackle on the edge of the D - nothing.
Not sure I get your point. Assuming that the tackle is clearly careless in all cases and the referee hasn't called it. In my suggestion they would get 2 out of the three outcomes right without additional reviews. In the current practice they would get one of the three right. Are you suggesting the current practice is better?
 

Jtpetherick1

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
Not sure I get your point. Assuming that the tackle is clearly careless in all cases and the referee hasn't called it. In my suggestion they would get 2 out of the three outcomes right without additional reviews. In the current practice they would get one of the three right. Are you suggesting the current practice is better?
My problem is that its really unfair.
On the 35th minute the red team break and a foul that is missed by the referee occurs two yards outside the area - prime position for their specialist free kick taker. As its clearly outside the area, VAR doesn't intervene for a great goalscoring opportunity is missed.
On the 40th minute, blue team break and a foul that is missed by the referee occurs half a yard outside the area - given its proximity the VAR checks it and (under your system) recognises that its a foul.

So for the sake of a yard and a half, the blue team has been given the chance that the reds missed out on. In what world is that a better system?
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
My problem is that its really unfair.
On the 35th minute the red team break and a foul that is missed by the referee occurs two yards outside the area - prime position for their specialist free kick taker. As its clearly outside the area, VAR doesn't intervene for a great goalscoring opportunity is missed.
On the 40th minute, blue team break and a foul that is missed by the referee occurs half a yard outside the area - given its proximity the VAR checks it and (under your system) recognises that its a foul.

So for the sake of a yard and a half, the blue team has been given the chance that the reds missed out on. In what world is that a better system?
I see your point but what you are saying is to mitigate one injustice you would create another injustice. How about if they were both for the red team or both for the blue team? Look at the bigger picture.

'My solution' really is about less injustice without adding any additional interruptions. I am not saying it's perfect. But it is better than what we have. It already happens for yellow card offences (when discovered under one of 4 KMI's).
 

Jtpetherick1

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
I see your point but what you are saying is to mitigate one injustice you would create another injustice. How about if they were both for the red team or both for the blue team? Look at the bigger picture.

'My solution' really is about less injustice without adding any additional interruptions. I am not saying it's perfect. But it is better than what we have. It already happens for yellow card offences (when discovered under one of 4 KMI's).
But in order to be a yellow card offence it has to be a) mandatory due to a change in the position of the foul, the foul being awarded etc which is no different to FKs being awarded after the foul is deemed to be outside of the box - ie a natural consequence or b) the referee sent over for a red card review and deciding it is only a yellow which is impossible to transfer to the awarding of FKs.

I'll be honest and say I don't know the solution but to change one questionable system for another hardly seems like it.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
My point is not about drawing the line on what to review. I am happy with the 4 criteria. It's about what decisions can changed after you started a review based on the 4 conditions.

When a penalty is given for a foul very close to the edge, then that is a reviewable incident. There is an inconsistency here if the incident was not actually a foul.

1. If it was inside, R is told it's not a foul, R can OFR and it becomes a dropped ball to the keeper.
2. If it was outside, VAR can only tell R it was outside, but not that it was not a foul. there usually isn't an OFR for in/out. With the specialist FK takers, there is a good chance a goal come from a non-foul FK that was reviewed and identified as a non-foul.
You're garbling terms. A foul close to the PA is checked by the VAR; it is only reviewed by the ref if the R concludes it is a clear error and should be reversed.

On 2, I think what you wrote is correct if the call on the field was a FK. But if the R called a PK, the VAR is checking the PK call, which involves both the foul and the placement. I think he could tell the R its a clear error because it isn't a foul. I'm not aware of anything in the protocols that would require the review of in/out to take precedence over whether it was a clear error in calling the foul.

(This is nitpicking, but on 1, it is probably a DB to the GK, but not necessarily--depends on whether there was any delay on the whistle, and if there was a delay what happened. Restart could be a GK/CK/TI if the ball left the field, or could be a DB to the attacking team if the R had paused and an attacker touched the ball outside the PA before the whistle.)

I'll be honest and say I don't know the solution but to change one questionable system for another hardly seems like it.
The only solution to that is to abolish VAR. It doesn't matter where you draw the line on reviews, there is always going to be something just outside what is reviewable. (That is somewhat abolished by the challenge system--but that still has the problem of an egregiously bad call that happens after a team has used its challenges.) There is no way to make VAR a cure for all.
 

Nij

Well-Known Member
You're garbling terms. A foul close to the PA is checked by the VAR; it is only reviewed by the ref if the R concludes it is a clear error and should be reversed.

On 2, I think what you wrote is correct if the call on the field was a FK. But if the R called a PK, the VAR is checking the PK call, which involves both the foul and the placement. I think he could tell the R its a clear error because it isn't a foul. I'm not aware of anything in the protocols that would require the review of in/out to take precedence over whether it was a clear error in calling the foul.

(This is nitpicking, but on 1, it is probably a DB to the GK, but not necessarily--depends on whether there was any delay on the whistle, and if there was a delay what happened. Restart could be a GK/CK/TI if the ball left the field, or could be a DB to the attacking team if the R had paused and an attacker touched the ball outside the PA before the whistle.)


The only solution to that is to abolish VAR. It doesn't matter where you draw the line on reviews, there is always going to be something just outside what is reviewable. (That is somewhat abolished by the challenge system--but that still has the problem of an egregiously bad call that happens after a team has used its challenges.) There is no way to make VAR a cure for all.
But the system as currently used is arbitrarily arbitrary - there's no consistent logic behind the details of decisions that cannot be reviewed and the disallowed outcomes, except that they've been picked as.. the decisions that cannot be reviewed and the outcomes that are disallowed.

At the very least, IFAB could have looked at how this is managed by existing systems, and build from their experiences, including the areas that are still not quite smoothed out. But no, we have clinging to a pretence of "not re-refereeing the game" and "only using VAR for important decisions" and the most farcical idea, that "the referee on the field is the one who makes the decisions".
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
But the system as currently used is arbitrarily arbitrary - there's no consistent logic behind the details of decisions that cannot be reviewed and the disallowed outcomes, except that they've been picked as.. the decisions that cannot be reviewed and the outcomes that are disallowed.

At the very least, IFAB could have looked at how this is managed by existing systems, and build from their experiences, including the areas that are still not quite smoothed out. But no, we have clinging to a pretence of "not re-refereeing the game" and "only using VAR for important decisions" and the most farcical idea, that "the referee on the field is the one who makes the decisions".
Every set of rules for video review is arbitrary--lines have to be drawn somewhere.

I'm not sure why you think this is so different from other sports. All the sports where I understand the video rules have very clear rules on what can or cannot be reviewed. I know of no sport where everything can be reviewed.

But one place soccer has departed in a very major way from most video review in that it readily reviews judgment calls. That is part of why I think it has more controversy. Deciding if a ball or foot touched a line is pretty crisp from a video review perspective. But virtually no calls reviewed in soccer are like that--even OSP involves not a line but two moving people and a single moment in time.

And soccer is not episodic with delays the same way most other sports are. American football is an easy example--there is a break after every single play. Basketball similarly has endless stoppages and time outs (though some of the review in basketball also creates unfair extra time outs that help one team or the other). I love the fact that soccer is the only sport televised without commercial breaks (at least here in the US). So the review doesn't break the rhythm of the sport. But video review unambiguously breaks the rhythm of a soccer match every time the game is held up. The more it is used, the more it breaks up the game.

OFRs are a slightly different issue, but flow from the idea that has permeated the sport for decades that one referee is responsible for all the decisions. And having that one referee reversed by a voice from the sky didn't suit the sport. You can argue about that, but it is part of the culture. I do think there could be some more limitation on OFRs at the referee discretion--referees act on the advice of ARs all game. I wouldn't have an issue with the R having full discretion as to whether to review on the monitor or not. But my sense is that teams are more comfortable with the idea that the same guy making the calls all game is the one making a final decision on key elements of the match. That culture could change.

VAR was a bigger step for soccer than for many sports because of the culture and traditions about refereeing and flow. The current rules are a compromise between keeping that flow and avoiding match changing incorrect calls. But it isn't perfect and will never end debate and controversy as many of the calls being reviewed are ultimately going to have differing opinions, even after days of debate, let alone in the few reasonable moments that a play can be reviewed in the course of a game. I'm not a fan of VR in general, and especially not in soccer. (But I'd also note that as best I can tell, the PL has been one of, if not the, worst implementations of its use.) If I were the grand guru of soccer, we'd never hear the word VAR again. But I'm not, and the genie is out of the bottle and not going back in. And once out, it grows. There's no doubt that what can be reviewed is going to expand--that's pretty much the trend line in every sport that has introduced video review.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
Burnley-Man United has an event that is somewhat similar to hypos we're kicking around. (I've read descriptions, not seen the play.) Foul and caution (reckless or SPAA) given on the filed. VAR check leads to OFR resulting in a foul by the attacking team in the attacking phase resulting in a caution.

To have an OFR, either (1) the VAR thought it was DOGSO, which would be red, leading to review of events creating the OGSO, or (2) the VAR thought the attacker's foul should have been red.

Apparently the OFR only looked at the attacking foul, which might suggest (2) with the R disagreeing, and able to give the yellow.

If (1), interesting that the OFR went straight to the attacker's foul, which it could only get to if there was DOGSO. If the OFR went to the DOGSO first, and the R disagreed that it was DOGSO, then the OFR never would have got to the attacking foul. (I have no idea what the protocol should have been.)
 

es1

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Burnley-Man United has an event that is somewhat similar to hypos we're kicking around. (I've read descriptions, not seen the play.) Foul and caution (reckless or SPAA) given on the filed. VAR check leads to OFR resulting in a foul by the attacking team in the attacking phase resulting in a caution.

To have an OFR, either (1) the VAR thought it was DOGSO, which would be red, leading to review of events creating the OGSO, or (2) the VAR thought the attacker's foul should have been red.

Apparently the OFR only looked at the attacking foul, which might suggest (2) with the R disagreeing, and able to give the yellow.

If (1), interesting that the OFR went straight to the attacker's foul, which it could only get to if there was DOGSO. If the OFR went to the DOGSO first, and the R disagreed that it was DOGSO, then the OFR never would have got to the attacking foul. (I have no idea what the protocol should have been.)

Good grief, my head hurts reading that! Lots of VAR talking points tonight...the one you mention though I saw:

Shaw commits a borderline sfp/reckless challenge but not seen by the ref, United break and immediately striker is fouled by the defender, possible dogso although ref gives yellow. Review indeed looks at Shaw tackle first then the dogso challenge, completely removing the yellow card for the potential dogso and giving Burnley a free kick for the Shaw foul (and a yellow card). TBH it seemed the right outcome though I saw someone suggest it took 6 mins from Shaw tackle to Burnley free kick which seems excessive.

Several other talking points tonight:

seemed to me Maguire goal was wrongly ruled out on the field in the first half and VAR should have allowed it.

Penalty to sheff utd was spot on in the early game, good use of VAR

Suggestions Burnley should have had a late pen for a Maguire handball but I haven't seen this so can't comment further!
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
@socal lurker
(our previous discussion got a bit convoluted)
In your scenario, assuming (1) and foul given, VAR thinks it is DOGSO-R if attacking free kick is given (not for foul severity). The referee had given an attacking FK and SPA. However VAR discovers during check that it is clearly a defensive FK. What is the process there?
 
Last edited:
Top