Miss of the season and VAR (Manchester City/Lyon)

[bloovee]

I hesitate to draw attention to City's dismal performance and tactics but what about the VAR protocol?

The law is now clarified to emphasise the expectation of an onfield review so why wasn't there an onfield review? Nearly everyone who saw Lyon's second goal says the attacker who went on to score fouled a defender (even if not intentionally). If that wasn't a "clear and obvious error" that needed an OFR, then that must mean the referee is only asked to look at an incident where he's made such an obvious error that it doesn't really need an OFR!

But it doesn't even need to be a clear and obvious error:

• If the ‘check’ indicates a probable ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’, the VAR will communicate this information to the referee, who will then decide whether or not to initiate a ‘review’.


50 seconds in: https://www.mancity.com/citytv/mens/city-lyon-match-highlights-63733124

 

[onthebrink]

It does need to be a clear and obvious error (or serious missed incident, which generally is taken to relate to a possible red card offence that the referee didn't see at all - like the Ronaldo yellow card against Iran in 2018 World Cup.)

 

[es1]

I fail to see how that's not a clear and obvious error and exactly the sort of thing VAR should be intervening for.

 

[bloovee]

It does need to be a clear and obvious error (or serious missed incident, which generally is taken to relate to a possible red card offence that the referee didn't see at all - like the Ronaldo yellow card against Iran in 2018 World Cup.)

"Generally is taken"... ?

If that had been the defender clipping the heel of the attacker it would have been SPA and a YC...

My point is that the law has been amended to say that subjective decisions are for the referee to decide after OFR, but the VAR has taken that subjective decision (and we have no idea how many angles the VAR had or what was communicated with the referee) so (fan post bit) City fans can still say VAR has stitched them up, again.

Either that or just junk the pretence that "clear and obvious error" is an objective decision by the VAR. Change it to "all the commentators and even Peter Walton think it's a foul but in my subjective opinion that's not clear and obvious".

 

[onthebrink]

"Generally is taken"... ?

If that had been the defender clipping the heel of the attacker it would have been SPA and a YC...

Yes - yesterday's situation certainly certainly wouldn't count as a 'serious missed incident'.

You can certainly argue that it was a clear and obvious error but VAR obviously didn't think so.

 

[bloovee]

I'll take this to the other thread, as what annoys me is the pretence that VAR is not making subjective decisions when the decision as to whether there is a clear and obvious error is subjective.

 

[Big Cat]

VAR was meant to mitigate controversy. Instead, it magnifies the level of grievance experienced by fans
I reckon FIFA love it, simply because VAR relentlessly maintains football's prominence in the media. Ruining the game is of no consequence, as long as the publicity satisfies the sponsors