RefSix

USA v Thailand

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
#1
Couple of obvious ( to me!) penalties not given and decisions not changed after VAR review.

Didn't matter too much in the end!;) but puzzling nonetheless.

Also in England v Scotland game ref went to monitor to review incident herself after it was reviewed by VAR, but here just listened to VAR verdict and went with that without looking again.

I'm guessing this was because these were fouls and not handball and she had seen the incidents herself?
 
#3
Couple of obvious ( to me!) penalties not given and decisions not changed after VAR review.
I think you may be conflating the ideas of a 'check' and a 'review.' The VAR team are checking everything, all the time. It's only when they see a 'clear and obvious error' - or a factual error such as an offside or ball out of play etc, that they will recommend a review (and they can only recommend, not initiate one). For the only potential penalty incidents I can recall and based on the replays I saw, there were no clear and obvious errors. Incidentally, if there is a clear and obvious error for something like a potential foul in the penalty area that will require a referee's judgment call, it will almost without exception need an on-field review (OFR). The VAR officials cannot make a decision, only relay information so unless it's a factual matter like offside, ball out of play or point of contact the referee is going to have to conduct an OFR if informed of a clear and obvious error involving a potential foul.

Here's an extract of the protocol:
The VAR will automatically ‘check’ every situation/decision to see if a potential clear error has been made in a match-changing situation or if a serious incident/offence has been missed; [...]
If no review is needed then communication with the referee is not necessary – this is a ‘silent check’. If a ‘check’ indicates that an incident should be reviewed, the referee should be informed immediately. In addition, if the referee suspects that a major error may have occurred, or something serious has been missed, a review can be requested.

Only the referee can initiate a review – other match officials (especially the VAR) may recommend a review but only the referee will decide whether or not to have a review and the outcome of that review.
So what I think we saw here were a number of VAR 'checks' (in particular the potential penalties) which did not lead to an actual review because there was no major error in evidence. The only actual VAR review that took place as far as I'm aware, was the disallowed offside goal early on.

Apart from the penalties what other kinds of decisions are we talking about that were not changed?
 
#4
Sadly, announcing relating to how VR works does not consistently show an understanding of the process. but I guess that really isn't different from anything else relating to referees . . .

One note on VARs and recommending reviews and Rs making the decision--if an R declines to do the OFR or declines to make a change after an OFR, she better be right from a perspective of her evaluation after the game. I'd be really curious to know, and doubt we ever will, how the powers that be evaluated the VAR and R on the two non-PKs. It may be that we are just seeing a very high intervention threshold for contact fouls (as opposed to handballs and OS).
 

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
#5
I think you may be conflating the ideas of a 'check' and a 'review.' The VAR team are checking everything, all the time. It's only when they see a 'clear and obvious error' - or a factual error such as an offside or ball out of play etc, that they will recommend a review (and they can only recommend, not initiate one). For the only potential penalty incidents I can recall and based on the replays I saw, there were no clear and obvious errors. Incidentally, if there is a clear and obvious error for something like a potential foul in the penalty area that will require a referee's judgment call, it will almost without exception need an on-field review (OFR). The VAR officials cannot make a decision, only relay information so unless it's a factual matter like offside, ball out of play or point of contact the referee is going to have to conduct an OFR if informed of a clear and obvious error involving a potential foul.

Here's an extract of the protocol:


So what I think we saw here were a number of VAR 'checks' (in particular the potential penalties) which did not lead to an actual review because there was no major error in evidence. The only actual VAR review that took place as far as I'm aware, was the disallowed offside goal early on.

Apart from the penalties what other kinds of decisions are we talking about that were not changed?
As ever its all opinions, but the two incidents certainly warranted the on field ref looking at them in my opinion. Means nothing I know but commentators staggered that firstly pens not awarded and secondly that VAR didn't recommend a review.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#6
I find the term 'check' (in the context of VAR) utterly pointless
Every second of every game is monitored and therefore 'checked' with multiple screens being glanced at throughout the game
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
#7
As ever its all opinions, but the two incidents certainly warranted the on field ref looking at them in my opinion. Means nothing I know but commentators staggered that firstly pens not awarded and secondly that VAR didn't recommend a review.
It's counter-intuitive and I only have the knowledge to say this because I've previously said what you said and been corrected. But. There's no capacity for the VAR to send it down for the ref to "have a look". If they send it down, it can only be because they have specifically identified a clear and obvious error and as a result, 99% of OFR's should result in a changed decision by design.
 
#8
As ever its all opinions, but the two incidents certainly warranted the on field ref looking at them in my opinion. Means nothing I know but commentators staggered that firstly pens not awarded and secondly that VAR didn't recommend a review.
Were the commentators in question, by any chance American? The commentators on the channel I was watching didn't seem to think there was anything particularly untoward, as far as I can recall.
 
#9
I find the term 'check' (in the context of VAR) utterly pointless
Every second of every game is monitored and therefore 'checked' with multiple screens being glanced at throughout the game
I'm not sure I quite follow. As you say, every second of every game is being monitored. In terms of the protocol, to make it understood that this is happening, you have to describe that process one way or another. If you don't want to call it a check, what would you prefer to call it?
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
#10
I find the term 'check' (in the context of VAR) utterly pointless
Every second of every game is monitored and therefore 'checked' with multiple screens being glanced at throughout the game
I think the distinction between a "check" and "someone watching a football match" is that a check can cause the game to be delayed. It's not as big of a deal as a "review", but it does mean the game can't continue until it's finished, wheras you wouldn't hold a game up just because the VAR wanted to re-watch a particular bit of skill or a close shot.
 
#11
I think the distinction between a "check" and "someone watching a football match" is that a check can cause the game to be delayed. It's not as big of a deal as a "review", but it does mean the game can't continue until it's finished, wheras you wouldn't hold a game up just because the VAR wanted to re-watch a particular bit of skill or a close shot.
And it is not true that everything is checked. The check is only goes to things that are reviewable--potential SFP/VC, potential PK, post goal OS or offense in the attacking phase and is the VAR team looking back at the tape. The vast majority of game is not checked.
 
#12
As ever its all opinions, but the two incidents certainly warranted the on field ref looking at them in my opinion. Means nothing I know but commentators staggered that firstly pens not awarded and secondly that VAR didn't recommend a review.
That's not the standard. The VAR only recommends a review to the referee if the VAR concludes that there was a clear error in not calling the PK. That means that almost every time the R goes for an OFR on a PK review the PK should be awarded.
 

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
#13
A bit of talk in the Mail about over celebrating when winning 13-0, showing disrespect and all that.

Not for me, as long as it’s not provocative it’s all good! Next...
 

one

RefChat Addict
#14
Not an explicit defenition but this is my understanding. A 'check' requires VAR watching at least one replay of an incident in the game which must be one of four KMI categories. When monitoring/watching the game live, VAR looks for incidents to be checked. Some checks may required a restart to be delayed.

So the order is, monitor/watch, check, review. Not everything that is monitored, is checked. Not everything that is checked, is reviewed.

Edit: correction made, game can't stop for a check.
Screenshot_20190613-233747__01.jpg
 
Last edited:
#20
Why though? You don't need to answer because I think we're on the same page. Thankfully, so is the FA
There referee makes decisions--that is nothing new in the game. And the R is (typically) expected to be a more skilled referee than the one in the box. There have been clear examples of an R properly overriding the recommendation of the VAR--but they are, as they should be, uncommon. And soccer isn't really comfortable with the idea of the "black box" overruling the judgment of the R on subjective calls, as it is the R who is in the midst of things. (Which is why there is OFR for fouls, but not for OSP.) It will be interesting to see if that changes with time, as it has in some other sports.
 
Top