West Ham v Villa

[QuaverRef]

I'm surprised nobody has brought this one up (through fear I expect! ).

An interesting one, Ollie Watkins seemingly fouled into an offside position where a goal was subsequently disallowed but VAR couldn't give the penalty due to the challenge not being clear and obvious? Offside was seemingly correct, but it does feel like an injustice!

 

[socal lurker]

Come, come now, he interfered with the defender by attacking the defender's arm with his neck!

 

[RustyRef]

I suspect the argument is that the foul didn't prevent him from getting to the ball and the referee wouldn't have given it had he seen it real time. After all, when have you seen at any level a penalty given for holding when the ball is out on the wing.? The holding has only come to light due to the offside check following the goal, therefore VAR would be penalising something that is never given real time, and that would fall into the re-fereeing the game category.

Not necessarily saying I agree with it, but that's my take on their thinking process.

 

[Big Cat]

I'm surprised nobody has brought this one up (through fear I expect! ).

An interesting one, Ollie Watkins seemingly fouled into an offside position where a goal was subsequently disallowed but VAR couldn't give the penalty due to the challenge not being clear and obvious? Offside was seemingly correct, but it does feel like an injustice!

Jamie Carragher and Gary Neville were apoplectic (or some other extreme emotional state) after the game
I was watching Sky Sports at 4am (having my usual midnight snack) when the two of them were back on (recording from earlier!)
They were pissing themselves whilst looking at a freeze frame of Watkins being strangled and ridiculing the PGMOL who came out and claimed it wasn't C&O. Both of them were lamenting just how much the fans hate VAR
Even Peter Walton has been aghast lately

 

[one]

I wonder what the stats would look like at the end of the season when justify keeping VAR. They got 99.8% of their decisions right. And Clearly, this one is in the correct basket.

 

[onthebrink]

I suspect the argument is that the foul didn't prevent him from getting to the ball and the referee wouldn't have given it had he seen it real time. After all, when have you seen at any level a penalty given for holding when the ball is out on the wing.? The holding has only come to light due to the offside check following the goal, therefore VAR would be penalising something that is never given real time, and that would fall into the re-fereeing the game category.

Not necessarily saying I agree with it, but that's my take on their thinking process.

Doesn't Brighton V Liverpool sort of fall into that category though? Something no one especially spots or appeals for in real time, but has a completely different perspective when viewed on TV replays.

I think this is the issue referees are now having and going to have. There are offences they previously wouldn't give for the sake of game management, etc. which could be justified before but difficult to now when anyone can look at a replay multiple times. As Jamie Carragher said, it's exposing referees in many ways rather than helping them.

 

[JamesL]

Doesn't Brighton V Liverpool sort of fall into that category though? Something no one especially spots or appeals for in real time, but has a completely different perspective when viewed on TV replays.

I think this is the issue referees are now having and going to have. There are offences they previously wouldn't give for the sake of game management, etc. which could be justified before but difficult to now when anyone can look at a replay multiple times. As Jamie Carragher said, it's exposing referees in many ways rather than helping them.

It's a can't win situation.
Had that not been called then people would be saying why wasn't it given.
The probelm. Is people only make noise when aggrieved by it. Those that are happy tend to just move on making no noise.

 

[onthebrink]

It's a can't win situation.
Had that not been called then people would be saying why wasn't it given.
The probelm. Is people only make noise when aggrieved by it. Those that are happy tend to just move on making no noise.

Yes that's true. I'm sure if a penalty was given some would be saying 'Is this really why VAR was brought in? Are they being too forensic?'
It's a very difficult balance and unfortunately it seems VAR has lost its credibility amongst many so whatever decision they make is often opposed.

 

[RustyRef]

Doesn't Brighton V Liverpool sort of fall into that category though? Something no one especially spots or appeals for in real time, but has a completely different perspective when viewed on TV replays.

I think this is the issue referees are now having and going to have. There are offences they previously wouldn't give for the sake of game management, etc. which could be justified before but difficult to now when anyone can look at a replay multiple times. As Jamie Carragher said, it's exposing referees in many ways rather than helping them.

That was different because it was a challenge for the ball so the referee should have been and was looking straight at it. That means there is an argument to say that he should have seen it, and therefore it could be deemed an obvious error. Whereas on this one no referee in the world would have seen it as the ball was out on the wing and the referee would be looking at it. OK, the active assistant could have seen it, but I would say that very few assistants are going to flag for a penalty when the ball is on the wing.

Like I said, we are only talking about a potential foul because of the VAR offside check. Had there been no goal scored and no offside check no one would have even seen the holding let alone commented on it.

 

[cpw1978_]

Whilst I agree with the above to an extent, we have to remember that VAR also looks for fouls in the build-up to goals that officials may have missed, and will chalk it off if it's deemed there's a foul in the build-up, normally a foul that neither the referee nor assistant will have seen, which then strays into re-refereeing, so if you can do it one for one, you can do it for another. Plus the VAR Protocol allows for direct red card reviews that will have been completely missed by all the on-field team.

The foul in the box was unseen, a penalty is a match-changing incident, same as a direct red card, I'd have that down as an error by the VAR and A-VAR not to spot that. I'm confident that is given as a penalty in Serie A, Eredivisie and Bundesliga.

The problem in the UK is that decision is given 30 mins and 100 re-looks when it comes to post-match analysis, Serie A, Eredivisie and Bundesliga domestic channels will give it five, max.

 

[socal lurker]

Whilst I agree with the above to an extent, we have to remember that VAR also looks for fouls in the build-up to goals that officials may have missed, and will chalk it off if it's deemed there's a foul in the build-up, normally a foul that neither the referee nor assistant will have seen, which then strays into re-refereeing, so if you can do it one for one, you can do it for another. Plus the VAR Protocol allows for direct red card reviews that will have been completely missed by all the on-field team.

The foul in the box was unseen, a penalty is a match-changing incident, same as a direct red card, I'd have that down as an error by the VAR and A-VAR not to spot that. I'm confident that is given as a penalty in Serie A, Eredivisie and Bundesliga.

It is not, at least in theory, re-refereeing. The VAR is not looking for all fouls, but only fouls that would be clear errors. (YMMV on where that line is drawn--it's all over the map in different countries as to where that line is.) And that is also true for the potential PK, as well. The VAR can't "just" think it was a foul; the VAR must think it was clear error not to have called the foul.

 

[cpw1978_]

But the VAR can only recommend a review to the referee based on what the referee says he/she saw. If the referee says he/she saw the incident and deemed it no foul then the VAR can say that under the video review there appears to be holding around the neck, if the referee then says they saw it and it was 6 and 2/3s then it's not a C&O error.

If the referee says they didn't see any coming together, the VAR can suggest an OFR under a missed incident. IMO it's why hearing the conversation is key to understanding the decision, I know FIFA isn't keen on that at all, but the A-League example helps sell the decision to the players and coaches (on re-watch analysis), and of course, those watching live/highlights.