I think simply taking VAR's word for it/expertise by not going to the sideline would be better than what happened here. I have to believe that's what he was doing anyway, but as you said the way he handled it caused a lot more problems.
I was always under the impression that the only time to use a still for VAR was point of contact. I don't think that was in dispute here. The issue was whether there was some sort of unnatural position or deliberate movement to the ball. But like others have said, VAR execution in England isn't exactly the gold standard.
What?!? Video review should absolutely not be used to sell every call--the R is supposed to get it right live, and the VAR is there to help catch clear errors. If he thought it was obvious, he would have called it in the first instance--there was only an OFR because he missed it live. Perhaps the R told the VAR that he thought the player deliberately tried to contact the ball or made an unnatural movement, but missed the ball, so the VAR was just showing that there was in fact of contact? In that case the only thing he would need to see would be the still showing the contact. (I haven't been able to see a clip and am trying to find something that makese sense. I agree it makes no sense at all to be looking at only a still if the questions is deliberate or unnatural biggering.)
This is where some sort of disclosure/explanation would be very useful to help everyone understand. You're right - if Taylor is only questioning whether the ball did in fact hit the hand/arm, then a still is all that's needed. If not, this has the perception of "going to the monitor to quiet the masses".
The question for me is whether Taylor will discuss this post-game. This is what happens in the Dutch league. CR's will talk about any controversial VAR call post-game. Don't know if this is the case in the EPL>
At face value the review seemed short but perhaps taylor said “I saw his arm move forward but I wasn’t sure if it made contact” in which case just showing the clear contact was all that was needed.
What is needed to make the correct call isn't necessarily the same as what is needed to maintain *credibility*. Point of contact is objective. Position of the arm at the point of contact is objective. But the actual decision of whether there was a handball offense is not. It might be very obvious, but it's still subjective. So what's the cost versus benefit of taking an extra couple of seconds to see it at speed?
I understand that the ref should get it right live, and I believe he did. But for such a consequential decision (PKs and RCs are consequential KMIs on their own, two on them in a single play is doubly so), if you're going to go to VAR, I feel like Taylor should have at least stuck around for a minute, minute and a half to maintain credibility and sell it better, especially since everyone can see what he's seeing as he asks for it. Ask for multiple replays/angles, regular then half speed, etc. Make it obvious that you're talking to the VAR room like you are all talking through the decision. That way, when you reach the decision, it sells that you spent a lot of time and got multiple peoples' feedback on such a critical decision to the rest of the match a hell of a lot better than running over, seeing a very short replay clip and before it even ends you're already done. Taking an extra minute to carefully verify a PK+RC seems to be worth it over game flow and the slight knock on his ego that VAR "questioned" one of his calls. On the MLS Inside VAR YT videos where we can hear the conversation, I have heard referees say "I'm going to the video board so we can sell it", even if the VAR room tells him in his mic on the field that everything is good if there was any sort of subjectivity possible in the call.
I completely disagree with those saying he should have taken longer. VAR is only supposed to be used to change a clear and obvious error, and by looking quickly and making his call, he’s selling that the call is obvious. If you have to look at a play from multiple angles, at multiple speeds, how can you convince someone that the error was clear and obvious?
This is essentially the correct answer here. The idea that the amount of time Taylor took is what caused Chelsea’s protests is borderline insanity to me. People are suggesting Chelsea would have accepted the call readily if Taylor hemmed and hawed and deliberated for 90 seconds? That’s an utterly baffling proposition. The protests were due to the consequences of the decision and the magnitude of the game and the time of the match. They were happening no matter what. The only problem here is that he was shown a still rather than a 3 second loop. This should have taken 5 seconds instead of 3. But that’s inside baseball for those who understand the VAR protocols and how it’s supposed to operate. The rest of the stuff is all just noise. And given the ultimate decision is 100% correct, it’s not very compelling noise.
https://highlightsfootball.net/video/liverpool-vs-chelsea-highlights-6/ 7:50 live 8:12 replays start 8:50 was when he started going to the monitor. Nothing was cut from this video as to how long he was there. The live broadcast barely pulled up the VAR split screen and Taylor was already headed back on the pitch.
I completely agree. Looking at it from 5 angles and wavering isn't what I want VAR for. I would rather that he just stayed on the pitch and said that his VAR team confirmed it without any question. I personally would be fine with that. I doubt the players would have liked any better though.
We don’t completely agree if you’re fine with that. It’s a subjective decision. The referee must take it himself. Unless people are admitting they are wishcasting about how they personally want VAR to work, a lot of the criticism and ideas here are off-base. Almost everything was done correctly and it was probably one of the most efficient reviews yet in England. Truly the only issue is the still versus loop question and even that sort of comes down to best practices—not something that’s codified.
Just to add, the two second loop showing the arm movement is playing as he approaches the monitor. It plays though twice and is completely visible to Taylor. He would have only needed to see it once to know it's a foul. But I'm glad we've reached the point where the referee is correct and he was too fast when it came to the OFR.
Also, this would have been a lot more fun (well, not for Taylor/Kavanaugh) if we didn't have the arm movement forward. That just makes it 100% under the movement towards ball or the "secondary action" consideration we get from FIFA. But if his arm doesn't move, then it would probably be a lot like a USA/Germany repeat of 2002.
And if that's the case, there's really no problem at all. He should definitely see it in motion, but we're talking *seconds*, not a microanalysis.
I don't know when exactly because there have been dozens of those videos. But I think my main is the Australian referee going through his final Australian league game. Yeah it's right here, he says "I'd better go to the video screen to sell it, the players are expecting it". Even though offside that he is reviewing is 100% objective, VAR tells him in his ear "it's offside" and it's done. I completely understand the view that going to the VAR screen for an extremely quick check makes it look like "wow he is very confident in his decision, he only had to look for a second" and Chelsea wouldn't agree whether he took 5 seconds or 5 minutes. But you don't think it's worth it at all to sell such a game-altering decision, especially a relatively subjective decision like a handball (having to "subjectively" decide if the arm is in an unnatural position and intentionally moved towards the ball) that results in a RC+PK by at least taking 30 seconds to view a few angles and speeds? I feel like going to VAR that quickly and viewing too short of a clip is basically mocking the game like it's all for show and he didn't take a RC+PK decision review seriously. My question to you is then, that's how most VAR reviews work, so do you think VAR as a whole is being used incorrectly then? Most of them take multiple angles, speeds, reverse, etc. I would guess that a very small percentage of them are instantaneous reviews like this to be "clear and obvious". But then again, I am in the crowd who prefers calls to be made correctly and not just have VAR be used in "clear and obvious error" situations but in any potentially game-altering situation where it can get the decision correct on the field.
So it didn’t happen in MLS. Though, it actually did. Once. Ever. Among hundreds of review and thousands of checks in the last four years. But you didn’t actually know that and just cast a broad umbrella about something that—with one exception—is completely and totally untrue. To use the excuse that there’s been “dozens of those videos” is quite odd. You’d think that would make it easier to cite a single example.
Correct. Though if we are micro-analyzing, it runs counter to the best practice of asking “let me know when you’re at the monitor” before playing the relevant loop. But, again, England going to England with VAR. They seem intent on not falling in line on best practices.
Uhhhh three then? One was Kelly on a penalty call in Montreal, I think? Against Minnesota? One was Villarreal in Houston. I think against RSL.
I hope this instructs referees to not go to the monitor because the aggrieved team will complain about it no matter what. Just let the VAR confirm it and then go on with the penalty kick. You can't satisfy them, stop trying and just ref the game.
I think if Taylor had taken longer at the monitor then it would have given Chelsea time to settle down and accept what they knew was inevitably coming. Y’all should know better than most — it’s not just about taking correct decisions.