My interpretation is that "Oli" and Michael Oliver are two different people, but I can't back that up. I don't know why a fourth official would be talking directly to the RO like that. EDIT: I was too late. It's been covered.
Oli is PGMOL staff, the guy who communicates to the media what decision has been made, why, etc. Do you remember a VC that Michael Oliver didn’t give, David Coote didn’t intervene, and during the game it was announced that it was a mistake? That was because ‘Oli’ must have spoken to Coote at HT and they agreed it was a mistake, and Oli prematurely told BT Sport it was a mistake. Do PRO use this mechanism in the US? I don’t know about other countries. It might seem a bit strange but remember the whole raison d’etre of PGMOL as an organisation is ‘media management’. It’s why, I guess, Webb hasn’t ditched Gallagher, and the excruciatingly long Johnson defences remain - they are a feature, not a bug! And the end, with VAR-ing being essentially a question of ‘can you remain competent under pressure’, the pitfalls of that approach get laid to bare.
The empathy that I have for England when he is sitting there and saying in a mutter "##&%#" to himself. I'm sure we've been there at some time when we have made a poor call and mutter to yourself.
Obviously it’s terrible and inexcusable that this happened, but playing devils advocate in a way, unfortunately sometimes you don’t know which errors or oversights exist in a situation until a disastrous mistake happens, and then you have to make corrections and hopefully improve the process after these horrendous errors occur. This is almost as visible as a mistake can be, happening in premier league with two big 6 teams and it affected the point totals of the game. Hopefully this will help VAR reviews be better worldwide.
In a PRO VOR setting, there are four people in the room: VAR, AVAR, Replay Operator and VRC. The VRC is a Video Referee Communicator. That person is the one who is communicating with media once decisions have been made and effectively how this Twitter handle gets populated: https://twitter.com/MLSVAR It sounds like England has three people in the room and then Kohout is in the "hub?" But I guess the VOR at Stokely Park isn't a series of rooms (with one room per match) but a giant room with work stations, right? So is Kohout in that room lurking about or in some sort of separate room? It's all very strange. As I've said before, what I find VERY strange is that broadcast announcers seem to know an OFR is being recommended before the referee receives the information. It sounds like Kohout is the conduit for that. But I still can't fathom how he gets that information to the broadcast booths before the VARs get it to the referees.
At 1:39-1:40 in the clip, VAR says, "Oli?" and "Fourth Official" responds, "Yeah?" So all kinds of confusion.
Ah yes. Can't be paying a VRC to fly to Atlanta every week. I suppose you could recruit a bunch locally... but, forget that tangent.
The abject chaos that is going on in this audio with multiple people all talking over each other and (presumably) nicknames being used is hopefully another thing that this error will let Webb put a stop to. I think from past release as well that the EPL referees have gotten too comfortable with being very informal and quickly babbling to each other and a mistake like this was bound to happen. The inside video review videos from pro, the audio between VOR and CR seems much more organized and professional.
Thanks! Seems like PRO's is a (better,) less 'media management' and more factually-orientated role. Funny also that the order of competence in the clip would seem to go - 'VRC', Operator, AVAR, VAR. You'd hope for that but in the other order!
I don't think the talking over is in itself a problem and to be honest, I think more of it would have been beneficial here, specifically with respect to the communication between VAR and AVAR. But I come at this mainly as a consumer of CONMEBOL's VAR videos.
You can really hear the pain in Darren’s voice, this is one of those things that will literally stay with you forever. Hope he’s able to move past this. Reminds me of a similar story I heard from John Adams, who just passed away from cancer. John was the NCAA men’s basketball national coordinator for 7-8 years and assigned every March Madness game. He was at the Final Four one year when there was a replay review late in the game to see who touched the ball last and who got possession. I think it was Wisconsin and somebody. The ref reviewed the play for 90 seconds, looking at multiple angles. The refs had just left the monitor when a new, previously unseen angle came up on John’s personal screen. And in that moment he had to make a decision: do nothing, or stop the game and make a scene and make the refs come back. He chose to do nothing. He shared that as an example of sometimes being decisive, even though you are 100% wrong, and something he had to personally live with because that’s what leaders do.
PGMOL send review to #LFC, release audio and aim to learn through implementation of following (also including VAR specialists)… pic.twitter.com/4M4AuNeb7V— Henry Winter (@henrywinter) October 3, 2023 That last bit almost seems like it should have been there from beginning? And seems to always be included in MLS stuff?
This is nothing new in control room situations. A lot of the colloquial conversation is happening between people that are sitting right next to each other with communication channels not necessarily open. If you were to hear only the actual comms channels, I bet it would be different, but the recording seems to be a mix of all "hot mics", and is not really indicative of who heard what and when.
Two things here. At the beginning (and indeed, throughout, except when England is communicating to Hooper) you're hearing two different conversations simultaneously. You can even pick up some crosstalk when players or staff are talking to or near the referee or AR. But the VAR, AVAR and RO are all in the same room or booth having a face to face conversation. So there's not really a lot of "talking over" each other here and none on the radios. That part (and it's probably the only part) really isn't a problem here. It's the initial failure to recognize and comprehend the on-field decision. I mean everything from 0:13-0:56 is totally fine insofar as people speaking and offering their own communication goes. It's the failure to acknowledge and process the on-field decision that is the problem. Second, remember that PRO typically releases select portions of audio. To be fair to PGMOL, they released this unedited or spliced (though they sort of had to here). I say this as someone who would defend PRO/MLS VARs on process reflexively, but if you think it all happens as cleanly and smoothly as sometimes gets presented publicly, you're mistaken. There's a lot more dialogue you don't hear--a lot of it good, some of it useless or problematic.
They obviously had to release it. But I just wish they kind of didn't because the incompetence is just incredible and without explanation. I just can't understand how he thought a goal was given. I almost wish they lied and said "the mics temporarily went out or something." You can quibble with some of the process and I'm sure that will the learning points from PGMOL. You could make an argument that there should have been some additional checks and balances here in terms of communication. The referee and AR should have MORE CLEARLY said that the decision is offside (i.e. "the decision on the field is offside." The VAR should have said "check complete goal confirmed" instead of "check complete." That would have then triggered the Hooper and the AR to say "no, we have an offside." It's minor quibbles here. This is a mistake that could have maybe been justified and explained in year one of VAR, but we are not in year one anymore. England and the VAR have heard "delay, delay, etc." a million times by now. It should be automatic at this point to know it's offside. I know I speak in hyperbole here, but can you really ever put England and the AVAR back in the booth ever again? You fired/resigned Dean and Moss for far less. Can you even put him back on the field as a referee? This is the guy that basically didn't know what was happening in a match as a VAR.
I'm actually not sure what the last bit does. In this case, didn't both the VAR and AVAR sort of slip and believe it was offside? If they're both wrong, what does confirming things to each other do? I am back to a long-since dead horse, but even after hearing this I still don't understand what the AVAR was doing. Like England has a brain fart somewhere along the way and inverses things. Okay. Horrendous and massively consequential mistake. But the AVAR just also rolls with it and doesn't pay attention to the restart to understand the mistake? As @Mikael_Referee and @El Rayo Californiano both allude to, the idea that the Replay Operator--who is supposed to have no officiating role whatsoever--is the one who tries to correct course here is fascinatingly sad. In some ways, I want to fault him for not just screaming at England to say "STOP THE GAME" but then you pause and realize he was already way passed his remit in even suggesting something was wrong. I think that probably had a lot to do with the reaction here; England doesn't understand because the Replay Operator's attempted intervention is likely unprecented. Of course, he was reacitng to something else that was unprecedented. He tried to put on his superhero cape to save the day, but the VAR team just didn't let him fly. Must have been a fun second half.
I've listened to this multiple times and again you can have minor quibbles with some of the communication it's pretty standard and not too far off from what is going on in MLS. Other than not saying "decision on the field is offside" and "check complete, goal confirmed," it's all standard stuff and nothing out of the norm. It's just incomprehensible how both the VAR and AVAR just seem to ignore "delay, delay offside coming back." You're a professional referee in like year three of VAR, you shouldn't need further protocol to tell you that the decision is offside. You almost can't legislate that a VAR doesn't know what's going on in the game. It's like saying "we need to make sure our rocket scientists know that 2+2 = 4 and not 5" after a rocket blows up.
What's amazing is really how much time they actually had to save the plane. It was actually way more than I thought they did. IFK is taken and immediately the Operator and the VAR know they have screwed up. Play is going and then play goes out for a throw-in. The throw-in is not taken quickly. Liverpool is taking their time on the throw-in. They have an additional 20 seconds before the throw-in is taken (once the throw-in is taken, there really is no going back) and England just decides to eat a potentially career ending mistake because "he can't go back." Yet, I'm sure if Mikel Arteta slightly interferes with an opponent's throw-in he'll exercise "common sense." Ridiculous.
We're in uncharted waters here and I'll let @RedStar91 answer for himself. But for my money, I think you easily have until the goalkeeper releases possession of the ball. Restart is 0:59 of the video. RO is pointing out the mistake at 1:00, almost simutaneously with the restart. Even with all the confusion, the ensuing attack doesn't end until 1:13 and the goalkeeper releases the ball at 1:15. I think if they had killed the game there, with the goalkeeper in possession of the ball, it would have been bad but salvageable and everyone would have understood. The partial counter-attack and the ball going out for the throw-in 1:15-1:24 with the restart at 1:51 (worth noting a run-of-the-mill throw-in can take 27 seconds, but I digress) is a different ball of wax. I think you probably could try to sell anything up to that point, but it would be a lot more challenging and invite a lot more questions and complaints. Of course, per the Laws the cut-off is theoretically 0:59 but we've gone over that part already. First few seconds feel like a totally acceptable grace period. Next phase seems doable--sellable but not great. After that becomes a challenge. And, of course, once the throw-in is actually taken I do think it becomes impossible.
I mean, the line has to be somewhere... The question I keep asking myself is, knowing what we do, is it acceptable to deliberately break the law in order to correct accidentally breaking it? They did this is MLS with Tim Ford a few weeks back (although they tried to say it was mistaken identity...) in the end everyone was OK with that. But, here is a case where the law is pretty black and white. If the game goes on for more than a few seconds where you could claim miscommunication, as you've pointed out, I think the big worry for officials becomes what if Spurs decide to appeal for a deliberate beach of the law, could they be entitled to a replay. In fact, if that were fixed more than 5 or 10 seconds later, I'm fairly sure a bunch of folks on the internet (who now criticize these officials for a lack of common sense) would be critical of them for failing to apply the law correctly, because sniping the officials on social media is a bloodshot in England, but I digress. Needless to say, it becomes a serious matter if any goal or kmi occurs in the short span we're possibly considering and then what do you do? Probably need to put a caveat in law 5 that is nimble (like so much of the book) that says "if VAR realizes that a critical miscommunication has occurred or that they make an error they may call down to the referee to correct the situation as long as they do so immediately" or something like this.