Premier League 2019-20 Assignments and Discussion [Rs]

Given how long VARs are taking in England, probably not quicker right now. But that’s part of the problem. A recommendation from a VAR should be made in 30 seconds or so. The idea of English VARs being able to do that is laughable right now. So without better training, no, nothing will be quicker.

In general, though, a VAR reviews multiple angles, makes a recommendation, the referee runs over to the monitor, and then gets shown one or two of the best angles. If it’s clear, it’s done. Yes, it takes some time (one of my general complaints) but it’s more efficient than what we are seeing now. Also, note Oliver strolled to the monitor in the FA Cup last week. For whatever reason, English referees don’t think it’s dignified to run to the monitor. Add that to the list.

In theory, there shouldn’t BE dissent when it’s out of the referee hands. But there is. We are talking about managing it. Think of all the things a professional player can say—from the mundane to nasty—when a referee is getting his decision overturned. “Sorry it’s out of my hands” isn’t exactly negotiating from a possession of strength. “Guys, I literately just looked at it on the monitor and changed my own decision—get the eff out of here” is much more compelling. He can also describe exactly what he saw, so if a conversation is civil, he can engage. “Sorry it’s out of my hands” doesn’t allow for much substance.

 

The problem here is there are a lot of apples being compared to oranges with a few side dishes of pears and lemons.

Look, at a base level with all else being equal, of course an OFR is going to take longer than a VAR simply rendering a decision. OFRs adds a layer. No debate there.

But a few points/questions...

1. Is that average PRO statistic a measurement of the OFR only? Is a measurement of the initiation of the check through the conclusion of the OFR? Or is it a measurement of stoppage to restart when an OFR is conducted? Those are three different figures. And that matters.

2. In MLS, it would take under a minute from the occurrence of the tackle (and probably closer to 20-30 seconds for the better VARs as we move forward) for a VAR to recommend the OFR in this case. The referee then gets to leave the field, go away from dissent and attempted lobbying, look himself and return to the field to convey his decision. That gives the referee the luxury of seeing what he actually missed, being better able to convey his decision, and calibrate himself going forward as necessary and appropriate. The OFR isn't going to save time, no. It's a management tool. But the opposite argument--that not having OFRs will save time--has proven specious at best because VARs are so bad at their job in England.

3. Remember that a decision like the Aubameyang red card is the equivalent to a check everywhere else. If a VAR took that long to check a red card tackle in other leagues, they wouldn't be working the following week. That's where the problem lies on the efficiency side of things. Not having OFRs is supposed to be quicker, right? That's the argument that was made. VARs have around 20 cameras to look at and can zone in on the four best in a matter of seconds. A few looks at this tackle should have made it an easy red card, right? There's no mitigating factors to say otherwise. So the question that needs to be asked is why it's taking so long for a qualified VAR to arrive at a decision that VARs elsewhere can make in about 25% of the time. Yes, if the VAR efficiency reached where it was elsewhere and then you layered on an OFR, you wouldn't save time. That's true. But the argument for the OFR then goes back to point #2 above.

I'm beating a dead horse now, but this all comes down to training. Everything else aside about the merits of VAR and the decisions rendered by it (more on that in a minute), the training of VARs in England seems to be sub-par compared to elsewhere.

 

Jumping in a little late here...

First, that's a PK and a red card. The shot is irrelevant. Five years ago, maybe a different story. Ten years ago and prior, definitely a different story. But in today's game the expectation is that is a penalty. The defender deliberately cheated and made non-negligible and foul contact that significantly affected an OGSO. It should be a penalty and he should be off. No one should over think it.

Now, the question that needs to be asked is how a VAR rationalizes to himself that this isn't clearly wrong. The only thought process that I can think of is, "well, he did get the shot off and we have seen these not given before..." So, essentially, we have implemented the technology to catch cheating and rectify mistakes like this but we (VARs) don't take the opportunity to do so because we are able to reason that since said mistakes have been happening in the past, they can't be clearly wrong. We've allowed the advent of VAR to cause us to take a step back in our application of the Laws, rather than to help us do it more vigorously. It's bizzaro world come to life.

Here's my biggest problem with VAR as currently implemented and why it's going to ruin a major tournament soon...

We use VAR for the "objective" facts like millimeter offside decisions and accidental handballs leading to goals. But we won't use it for subjective errors where we can even think of a reason to doubt the wrongness of the decision. So almost arbitrary things (a toenail offside or a ball brushing an arm) lead to goals getting annulled while blatant cheating can get excused.

The irony here, in my opinion, is that if VAR were more active on major decisions that could lead to penalties or red cards, I believe people would then be much more accepting of the offside and handball decisions that are currently getting so much scorn. Sure, a lot (most?) people are never going to like those "objective" decisions. But I think what they really don't like is those decisions happening--almost out of thin-air with no expectations--at the same time stuff like this Walcott penalty goes uncalled. You cannot convince me that people wanted VAR to punish millimeter offside decisions but allow a two handed pull on a breakaway to go unpunished. But that's where we are right now in the EPL.

 

This phenomenon is not just EPL, though. It's happening everywhere.

Take a look at this and explain to me how this isn't a red card?

https://streamable.com/ng2qb

You need tortured logic and a willful disregard for reality to argue this is a leg foul/challenge for the ball. The shirt pull is clear as day. Per the Laws, this is a red card. But the VAR in Italy finds a way to reason that it's not because the attacker's leg flails out as he falls to the ground and then there is leg-to-leg contact (which has nothing to do with the actual "challenge").

Meanwhile, you can't reason at all on accidental handballs or offside.

That phenomenon is everywhere now. Sure, some leagues have a lower general threshold for red cards and penalties. And England's is among the highest. That is definitely true. But the phenomenon of finding ways to say "clear" things are not really "clear" is everywhere and it gets juxtaposed against the use of VAR on things that actually aren't all that "clear" on any single viewing, but can be proven to be 100% true.

 

He said (paraphrasing) in isolation, Aubameyang's challenge was a red card, but the problem was that quite similar challenges were only resulting in yellows or even no cards, ie., significant lack of consistency.

 

I preemptively used the phrase "tortured logic and a willful disregard for reality to argue" so it's hard to dial it back. But I would grant that any referee could make the mistake of this being a leg foul on first view (obviously a Serie A referee did).

But what isn't clear to you on video? He's pulling his shirt back the entire time. He's still pulling his shirt back as they fall to the ground. The only reason he's even near his opponent is because he's grabbed his shirt and pulled him, slowing his opponent's progress from the moment he gains possession of the ball. The leg contact that occurs doesn't even happen until the attacker is already falling to ground and his leg flails out to his left, with the fouling defender falls on him.

You'd look at that as a VAR and say it's not clearly a DOGSO red?

Now, if that's your answer, you're obviously in good company (as the VAR in this match agreed). But this all goes to my point. On the decisions that we tell ourselves there is subjectivity, like this one, VARs in some competitions are doing everything possible not to intervene. Juxtapose that against the allegedly objective calls (accidental handling and offside position) and I think you've created a recipe for disaster.

Either lax the self-imposed standards for clearly wrong on subjective decisions or allow some sort of subjectivity or margin of error on the allegedly objective ones. Do one or the other.