https://x.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1709298090383970405 Fascinating. You can see how much English referees see themselves as 'bound' to the laws (as Johnson just regurgitates PGMOL ideas), rather than using and interpreting them to their advantage. The (excellent!) discussion here is faarrr closer to reality, to best practice than that. The referees in the best league in the world read 'once play is restarted...' and genuinely think no more of it!! All while if Mikel Arteta slightly interferes with an opponent's throw-in he'll exercise "common sense" remains completely true as well. Baffling, and so typical.
I think you’re being harsh here in the sense that the VAR and AVAR didn’t necessarily “ignore” what the on-field officials were saying. 30 seconds pass between those statements and the VAR’s critical mistake. During that time, the VAR (must!) focus his attention on the technical decision on another screen, communicate with the RO, and make a decision. We’ve all been in situations where we lose awareness of what is going on around us because our monkey brains are pretty darn bad at multitasking. I want to highlight this excellent comment from @sjquakes08: In general, whenever these situations of disastrous human error happen, reactionaries in the media respond “how is such a mental mistake possible?” completely ignorant of the psychology behind the situation. I deeply believe that the mistake that Darren England made could happen to literally anybody with a stroke of bad luck. The potential travel fatigue obviously increases the risk of this sort of error. As does, I would assume, the fact that they’re in a room with just a bunch of monitors rather than a booth in the stadium directly overlooking the field (perhaps anyone who has been in a VOR can speak to this).
Yes, way back when. Not that this is important now, please remind me because I can't recall precisely, but didn't the delayed flag concept come before the advent of VAR? PH
Of course they feel bound, "They invented the game"... Begin crossfade... text on screen: Freemasons Tavern, 1863 voice over: You see, it all began when a group of public school boys met to decide if it was acceptable to use their hands or not... blah blah And they came up with association football as a name, and it was fashionable to drop the end of words and add "er" to the end... and that, my friends, is how the English gave soccer its name. End Flashback
I suspect I’m mostly in the minority on this, and not to understate the severity of the mistake in the first place, but I do think Darren England and Dan Cook deserve praise for their moral character in deciding to not deliberately break the LOTG to correct their error. Sure, the LOTG themselves provide that doing so would not have invalidated the game. But it would still be wrong, from an ethical perspective, to break them in a way that they specifically forbid. Like I said, I know I’m in the minority here, but they made a very difficult decision to do what they thought was the right thing at a big personal cost, and I happen to agree that it was the right thing, so the least I can do is voice my support for that here. Laws don’t mean anything if no one sticks up for them. If the IFAB thinks this is a stupid law, they’re welcome to change it.
Good post. And can I just add, news media publish retractions daily and they don't have to write these articles instantly.
Put me in the category that you have a very limited window to fix this. Just a couple of seconds. You are turning an error of fact into an error in Law. I’m trying to imagine the Spurs bench when you stop play after 10 seconds and award that goal. And while I admit to having no clue what if any appeal process is available at this level, I would assume that you would be inviting that possibility. The crew screwed up. Royally screwed up. We have all screwed up calls. It happens. I’m not a fan of compounding that error with one that is worse.
Had this been caught within a couple of seconds then maybe okay. But had we stopped the match after 30 seconds because a non ref executive said so and it ended up with the awarding of a goal then we have total chaos. It would have been incredibly unfair to put this on the ref. It would have been unfair to put the idea of gifting Liverpool the goal on Postecoglou.
Not very difficult. There are plenty of other industries that have been using radio communications for decades. Just bring in a couple of pilots and ATC folks to walk through the process and come up with new procedures and the problem will be solved. You hear it all the time in PRO comms, the VAR will routinely ask what the on-field decision is before saying anything else.
Well the concept generally speaking came before the advent of VAR. But that was around the idea of confusing offside situations where the trigger for an affirmative offence was doubtful. So like a questionable offside interfering with an opponent or a dubious touch. Language between the AR and CR could help postpone an early flag (and allow a referee to essentially flat-out say he didn't want it). The concept of deliberately delaying an offside flag on clear interfering with play decisions... that stems completely from VAR.
This is only one journalist's opinion, but I would suspect and suggest that it is probably more reflective of the average neutral's perspective than the one you are expressing here: https://x.com/Marcotti/status/1709291655386329267?s=20 I say that with some bias, of course, because I admittedly agree with him (though even I concede, as my posts illustrate above, there has to be a limit). That said, I find it really difficult to understand the argument that a second error would be "worse." Is it because that error would be a deliberate act to violate the Laws while the other is an honest mistake? If so, that seems like really tenuous grounds and something that few outside the referee world would hang their hat on. It is a sporting competition. With the goal to... score goals. One error is about wrongly disallowing a goal when you have all the factual evidence necessary to award the goal. It's essentially a clerical error to invalidate the most important sporting accomplishment in the game. The other is a deliberate error to restore that valid accomplishment. I'm trying hard to see another argument, but if this really comes down to... "it's okay for referees to make an honest mistake to screw a team out of a valid goal but not to commission a deliberate error to restore justice that was lost due to an honest mistake..." I don't think the larger footballing world is going to be sympathetic to the assertion that the second error is "worse" than the first.
Of course the snide retort to Mr Marcotti and this course of action is “are there any more Laws you would like me to ignore today?” They made a mistake. As I said I think you can get away with the fix quickly but it’s got to be fast. Beyond that I’m not willing make a second intentional error. At some point you have to live with the mistake. It’s lousy for Liverpool but mistakes happen.
Collina wrote about a situation in his book once where he took the decision not to have the teams switch sides at the half because the Ultras from the one team were throwing trash and other objects at the defenseless goalkeeper. He said who ever the match commission was praised him for doing something that was "extra legal" rather than "contra legal." Maybe we're in that space now, but I'm sure referees would feel much better about it if they were given that leeway written in the laws. it would be a bit harder to break this one since from day 1 we're told how you can never change a restart... Still, while I sympathize with the ethics of it all. Let's get real. The reason this is so crazy is because people are taking their sports entertainment product seriously and want referees to see the forest for the trees when they can't do it themselves.
The NHL uses a policy where the game reverts to the error, meaning puck goes in for a goal undetected, play continues, replay finds puck across goal line, a horn blows in the stadium, and the games is stopped. Goal awarded. Face off at center ice follows from where the clock would have stopped for goal. Does anyone think the other people in the room have too much respect (hierarchically speaking) for the VAR? They won’t jump in?
Hackett today: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...purs-diaz-var-darren-england-hid-behind-laws/ "England clearly is applying the laws of the game here, but that is just the wrong thing to do in this instance. There is the laws of the game and then there is context, the spirit of the game, and doing the right thing. The right thing would be to resolve the situation and correct this most basic of errors." For whatever it's worth I think this is the right approach; the laws are there to give a framework for the spirit of the game and not the other way around. Clearly there are limits to this but I would argue those limits are within the spirit of the game as well. It fits well with Collina's description - extra-legal vs contra-legal. regarding the comments that going against the Laws to award the goal after play has restarted would open this match up to protest, that's certainly possible. However, I can't imagine following the laws to the letter will protect the FA, PGMOL or EPL. FIFA paid the FAI 5 million Euros to settle a case regarding Henry's infamous handball. Say Liverpool miss a Champion's League spot by 1 point? Does anyone think they will hesitate to demand compensation for missed revenue if this happens?
I'm happy to see this distinction raised in this context. Acts done outside the law do not necessarily undermine it or the moral order.
In this case, the operator did attempt to respectfully and politely guide the VAR in the right direction, trying carefully to avoid going beyond his role as technician. His boss did indeed jump in, albeit over the phone and in communication with him.
VAR is essentially the same, though. Once the error is identified play is stopped. Or if play is stopped through other means, then a restart is held until the potential mistake is throughly checked and, if necessary, reviewed. The relevant question, if you’re going to introduce the NHL, is what happens if an error occurs, play goes on, the error isn’t properly identified, play stops and restarts, and THEN the error is identified. How far back would they go? Well the replay operator isn’t a referee. We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that he technically has the same authority as a guy sitting in the stands. So, no, I think he has the appropriate amount of respect for the hierarchy there. He tried. But from a practical standpoint, only the VAR has a direct channel to the referee anyway. The AVAR can’t just steal his mic. And, again, in this case even if he could he also had the wrong answer. So the point is moot.