A&H

VAR in the US

The Referee Store
Had a quick scan through this and am really impressed with how straight-talking the text seems to be. They're more than willing to say "No, the ref/VAR made a mistake here", which is the kind of honesty you don't often get from PGMOL and the ex-ref pundits over here.

Will have to watch the videos and see if I agree later mind...
 
I have one problem: in the Chicago DOGSO, the text says that "For DOGSO all four considerations must be met."
This is not what the laws say - they say: "The following (DOGSO criteria) must be considered:"

You can have major doubt about one criterion but have an avalanche on the other three and make a DOGSO decision (extreme case: player is facing away from goal with the ball and the only defender rugby tackles them. The "direction of play" criterion is clearly not met, but it's an easy DOGSO... or a case where the attacker is advancing from the centre circle, GK is up for a corner, open goal, and the only defender brings them down - distance to goal not met - but DOGSO).

Anyway... good article though;)
 
They're more than willing to say "No, the ref/VAR made a mistake here"
Disagree. Look at the last one. Clear foul. How could they support a no foul (even after seeing the replay) here is beyond me. It sounds like they are saying unless it is a deliberate foul, it is not a foul.

1553072599927.png
 
Disagree. Look at the last one. Clear foul. How could they support a no foul (even after seeing the replay) here is beyond me. It sounds like they are saying unless it is a deliberate foul, it is not a foul.

View attachment 3297
As I said, I haven't actually watched the clips yet, so have no idea if when they disagree, the ref/VAR or PRO are correct. What I'm saying is that in equivalent English incidents, all you usually get from the official union is support of the ref. Seeing disagreement from PRO is interesting in itself.
 
Back
Top