I would like to see VAR used differently. I think at all levels of refereeing when we make a key match decision & instantly know we would like a second look to confirm what we saw. I am sure AT would have made his own decision to go to the screen, which currently he can't.
Yes, this is one where the Referee needs a second look
Not quite correct. The R is the only one who actually decides to to to the monitor. (Though an R would have a really hard time justifying not going when recommended by the VAR.) the R has the authority in the protocols to initiate a review without a recommendation from the VAR if he suspects something serious was missed.
It's all a mess. Some challenges in games getting YCs after advantage played, though they look more SPA than reckless. Another law change that gives more scope for subjective decisions to give rise to inconsistency.
If you are going to argue with someone that has read the protocol then you really ought to have read it yourself first...
this is what he said:
I accept the referee 'can' initiate the review, but to my knowledge no referee has done that without a VAR recommendation (happy to be corrected).
De jure vs de facto. If no referee ever does something, a bit of text saying they have the right to do so may as well not exist.
I don't disagree. But it also means you can't say I don't agree someone could do it. If it is written down, they most certainly can do it, and when questioned point to the relevant text, in law, which proves them to be correct
Hard to say as we are not privy to vast majority of VAR Comms. I suspect in most cases the VAR is/should already looking, so it might be fairly moot, but it is still permissible for the ref to initiate it.
I never said you had to, but that you ought to. Especially where you are making comment/disagreement on technicalities of said protocol. That way you don't get smart Alec responses from smart arses like me
Before the law change, there was already 'inconsistency' after referees played advantage. Sometimes they would caution (Reckless OR SPA) sometimes not (Careless non SPA). That variability still remains but with only Reckless challenges being cautioned . However the law change brought two clear benefits ... firstly, less cautions overall, which is good for the game (and referees) at all levels. Secondly, an inherent sense of logic, as cautioning for Reckless is important for player safety, whereas cautioning someone for SPA when they didn't actually stop anything always felt somewhat weird ...
That's already the same explanation Mike Dean made, he originally corrected Gary Neville saying it couldn't be a caution as the promising attack hadn't been stopped, then eventually gave up after Neville wouldn't listen and said well he supposed it could be a caution.
While I don’t disagree about what happened, I think there are two problems with the analogy to the PK/DOGSO. First, on DOGSO, it only applies to challenges for the ball, not to other cynical play. Second, the PK is generally (admittedly not always) going to be comparable to the scoring chance that was taken away. But when advantage is played on a SPA scenario, it can have dramatically reduced the value of the scoring chance, but the opportunity that remains is still better from a FK (which might not be much of a scoring chance at all). I’m not at all disturbed by the idea that an “honest” foul in a SPA context should be forgiven the caution if advantage is played. But I think it is idiotic for the relief to be given against a cynical foul like blatant holding. I don’t agree with Mr. Elleray that the spirit of the game doesn’t support a caution for such cynical behavior.
