US PRO Inside Video Review

[socal lurker]

http://proreferees.com/2019/05/03/watch-inside-video-review-mls-week-9/

The week 9 installment is out.

Interesting (at least to me analysis) of a VAR OS reversal. In addition to saying pulling the goal out for OS with VAR was correct, also said the AR was correct to not flag it because of doubt. Essentially, PRO just officially said that the "correct" call in a game with VAR is different from in a game without VAR.

Also a nice explanation of why the referee team erred in awarding a PK for handling. Alas, they did not go on to say that it still wouldn't be a handling offense next year. (In fairness, that's beyond the scope, but I worry about a wild pendulum swing next year where too many referees conclude that any arm/ball contact is handling.)

 

[one]

In addition to saying pulling the goal out for OS with VAR was correct, also said the AR was correct to not flag it because of doubt. Essentially, PRO just officially said that the "correct" call in a game with VAR is different from in a game without VAR.

I can't see how you came to this conclusion.
As an AR you keep the flag down if in doubt of offside, nothing to do with VAR. Nothing the video it says if you have VAR you keep it down, if you have no VAR you flag it.

What the video is saying, is that although the decision was wrong, the process was right regardless of VAR. Which I think makes sense. "correctly kept the flag down" means correct action/process not necessarily correct call/decision.

 

[socal lurker]

Not that the flag by the AR should be different, it the ultimate decision by the R should be different: If the AR is correct not to flag, then in a game without VAR, it is correct to allow the goal to stand but in a game with VAR it is correct to call OS and take the goal off.

 

[one]

I think you are reading too much into it. Offside is factual. Allowing the goal when there was an offside offence can't be the correct call. I'd still say what the video is saying is that if they followed the correct process they would allow the goal, not necessarily saying it's the correct 'call'.

 

[socal lurker]

I think you are reading too much into it. Offside is factual. Allowing the goal when there was an offside offence can't be the correct call. I'd still say what the video is saying is that if they followed the correct process they would allow the goal, not necessarily saying it's the correct 'call'.

Is that really a difference? However you package it, they are saying that there are goals that should be allowed without VAR and that should be disallowed with VAR. (Whether this is really one is a separate question--is this call so doubtful that the AR should not have been able to identify it?)

 

[one]

Without trying to be pedantic of

they are saying that there are goals that should be allowed without VAR and that should be disallowed with VAR.

They are saying that there are goals that would be allowed without VAR and that should be disallowed with VAR.

There is a distinct difference.

 

[socal lurker]

Without trying to be pedantic of

They are saying that there are goals that would be allowed without VAR and that should be disallowed with VAR.

There is a distinct difference.

I think it is a bit more than that. He clearly says that the AR was correct to not flag because of the doubt.

 

[one]

I think it is a bit more than that. He clearly says that the AR was correct to not flag because of the doubt.

I think we are looking at this differently.

Saying "the AR was correct to not flag" is not the same as saying "the AR made the correct offside decision". Hence my reference to the correct action/process but not the correct call/decision.

 

[Russell Jones]

I think we are looking at this differently.

Saying "the AR was correct to not flag" is not the same as saying "the AR made the correct offside decision". Hence my reference to the correct action/process but not the correct call/decision.

I'd summarise this by saying "Because the AR was (understandably) in significant doubt about whether or not Nani was offside, he made the correct choice in this game with VAR to keep his flag down and allow play to develop." Whereas in a game without VAR he would have been required to get off the fence and make a clear offside decision one way or another.

Here's a radical alternative to the widespread adoption of VAR ... simply ban all TV stations from showing slow motion replays of decisions. If the officials (especially ARs) have made a mistake which is obvious when solely viewed at full speed then they deserve to be sanctioned / painted as the villain. If it's only obvious in slow motion then how bad is it really?! In all seriousness, I know we're now past the point of no return but (even as a fan whose team has massively benefited in a critical game this season) I remain very concerned about the overall impact that VAR will have in future

 

[Big Cat]

I'd summarise this by saying "Because the AR was (understandably) in significant doubt about whether or not Nani was offside, he made the correct choice in this game with VAR to keep his flag down and allow play to develop." Whereas in a game without VAR he would have been required to get off the fence and make a clear offside decision one way or another.

Here's a radical alternative to the widespread adoption of VAR ... simply ban all TV stations from showing slow motion replays of decisions. If the officials (especially ARs) have made a mistake which is obvious when solely viewed at full speed then they deserve to be sanctioned / painted as the villain. If it's only obvious in slow motion then how bad is it really?! In all seriousness, I know we're now past the point of no return but (even as a fan whose team has massively benefited in a critical game this season) I remain very concerned about the overall impact that VAR will have in future

Be concerned. Be very concerned
I'm in the denial phase

 

[socal lurker]

I'd summarise this by saying "Because the AR was (understandably) in significant doubt about whether or not Nani was offside, he made the correct choice in this game with VAR to keep his flag down and allow play to develop." Whereas in a game without VAR he would have been required to get off the fence and make a clear offside decision one way or another.

This is certainly not what they are saying. With VAR, ARs are instructed to make the proper call every time, and are evaluated on that. They are simply told to delay the flag on close calls with a significant scoring opportunity until the opportunity is past (goal scores or opportunity blocked). The "when in doubt keep it down," is the instruction for all ARs. (It may be, as others are suggesting, that what they are really saying is that since he had doubt (even though he should have been able to make the call, he needs to keep the flag down and not guess--which would also be true in a game without VAR.)

 

[JamesL]

This is certainly not what they are saying. With VAR, ARs are instructed to make the proper call every time, and are evaluated on that. They are simply told to delay the flag on close calls with a significant scoring opportunity until the opportunity is past (goal scores or opportunity blocked). The "when in doubt keep it down," is the instruction for all ARs. (It may be, as others are suggesting, that what they are really saying is that since he had doubt (even though he should have been able to make the call, he needs to keep the flag down and not guess--which would also be true in a game without VAR.)

My understanding is that if the attack breaks down, or a goal is scored then the AR should signal offside and play should be brought back or goal disallowed and restart from OS offence.