PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Its all subjective, but I really think if you're giving fouls for all challenges like that, you'll wear out your whistle by full time!
MUFC v LFC
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
As a Liverpool fan I was less annoyed by this - as at least the law is now clear. The 'subjective' opinion on the foul on Origi calls the value of VAR far more into question. Partly because of the multiple interpretations of what a 'clear and obvious error' might mean.
Fully agree. If they’re going to disallow goals for ‘fouls’ like that, so far away from the attacking goal, we’re going to see a LOT more simulation and almost every single challenge is going to be questioned. There is contact, but like you said, he throws himself to the ground totally unnaturally and holds the wrong leg, which is shows that the contact wasn’t enough to cause a foul
onthebrink
Well-Known Member
The defender kicks Origi in the calf. I just don't see how that's not a foul (although granted VAR has missed several clear fouls this season.)
Can we put this VARVAR bullocks on hold for 24 hours.... You can have it back on Tuesday 
"Clear and Obvious" does not mean the player needs to have been booted up in the air. The same conditions apply as for any other foul - was it careless, reckless or with excessive force?
For me, there's clearly contact that you have to assume the referee hasn't seen, and none of the Liverpool player's theatrics change that fact. It should therefore go to the monitor and let him decide if it meets the threshold for careless or not.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Say what?!?!? Do you actually watch basketball? Do y'all play a super sissified version of the game on that side of the pond?!?!? But seriously, basketball permissible contact is at a pretty similar level to soccer--though, of course, when it is and isn't permitted is different.
(Nor am I aware of any level of basketball that regularly uses video to call general fouls--though the NBA is experimenting this year with one challenge per game that could be used on a foul call. Like most sports, basketball has been very reluctant to get into judgment calls on review. They do review for flagrant fouls (somewhat like a reckless foul or SFP), but most reviews are clearly objective matters, such as who touched the ball last when it went out of play. Part of where soccer has made VAR so much more complicated is trying to use it for many judgment calls, and then adding the clear and obvious kicker on the top. (Indeed, while I haven't watched much, American football, which decided to add one non-objective foul call to what it can review, has been finding it a mess.)
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I don't think that standard has been used for VAR anywhere in the world. The VAR has always been expected to think there was a clear and obvious foul before sending it down. (see page 143 of what a VAR check means--if the check does not indicate a clear and obvious error, there is nothing for the VAR to tell the R.)
It's not as simple as that. Did the contact warrant the fall. I repeat. This is not a no contact sport.
Do you penalise every little bit of contact in a game? This was one of those fouls that probably falls into the trifling category. I might give it to kill a game, or if game is flowing I probably ignore it.
The player has to shoulder the blame here. He has been touched with very minimal contact. He is already going to ground at the point of contact. He then proceeds to feign injury by holding a different leg to the one the contact was made with.
You start ruling those out on VAR and all of a sudden you're 0-0s shoot up.
Maybe I meant netball
But that's all still a subjective decision. I really think this is an example where we would all be a lot happier if we knew what the referee and the VAR were saying to each other.It's not as simple as that. Did the contact warrant the fall. I repeat. This is not a no contact sport.
Do you penalise every little bit of contact in a game? This was one of those fouls that probably falls into the trifling category. I might give it to kill a game, or if game is flowing I probably ignore it.
The player has to shoulder the blame here. He has been touched with very minimal contact. He is already going to ground at the point of contact. He then proceeds to feign injury by holding a different leg to the one the contact was made with.
You start ruling those out on VAR and all of a sudden you're 0-0s shoot up.
Maybe I meant netball
Did he see the contact and deem it trifling? If that's the case, even if I think he's wrong I can accept the logic and accept that the protocol doesn't really allow an OFR for this subjective call.
Or did he not see the contact and the VAR has then decide on his behalf that it's trifling? If that's the case, I would say that it's wrong - if the referee didn't believe there was contact, I would argue that it's "clear and obvious" that there was contact that he needs to assess for severity.
You say yourself that it could be given or not - I think cautious refereeing principals dictate that it's better to give a "nothing foul" in midfield than it is to let play go on and allow a goal that came after a foul. Now the very presence of VAR might be messing with the referee's perception of how to apply cautious refereeing principals, but it shouldn't be allowed to give a different result just by being there as a background presence!
It was relatively trifling contact. Aspect of cheating involved with the reaction (which is generally acceptable). Point being, it was subjective, so no amount of process will do anything other than multiply the controversy whilst also killing the game (OFR)
Last edited:
onthebrink
Well-Known Member
They showed Atkinson's view on Sky last night and it looked like there was a player in his way so he couldn't easily have seen the contact.
I agree that we should know the conversations between the officials. At least then we could understand their reasoning and what exactly they're looking at and so on.
There are so many complexities with VAR
- phases of play, multiple incidents to check at the same time, reasoning for original on-field decision, clear and obvious errors - that it would be a major improvement to hear the audio. I think we'll always have major issues until this happens.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
If the VAR is not recommending that the R review (which would mean the VAR thought there was a clear error), about all the VAR is going to be saying to the R is "check complete." The VAR doesn't give other advice the way an AR does.
onthebrink
Well-Known Member
I would expect the referee to give some insight into what he had/hadn't seen.
I'd also expect the VAR to say something in the interim, even if not directly related to the decision.
See Inside Video Review for some examples of the interactions that occurs in the MLS -
Exactly, the clip starting around 5:50 is a great example. The VAR is talking to the ref to confirm the decision and to confirm what's been seen. When they get to the point where they recommend a review, they're explaining to the referee why they think he needs to take a look and the description of what he's seen affects the way that recommendation is explained to him.
To apply that to the example here, the VAR is able to confirm whether the referee has seen any contact or not. And that then determines if there's a factual error in what the referee has seen, or a subjective decision on how bad he thinks that contact was - which would then determine if he needs to go the the monitor and how he's briefed on what he's about to see if he does.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
My bad above. I misunderstood what you were alluding to, and thought you were suggesting what some people seem to think that the VAR is a bird in the ear quietly guiding decisions.