There's absolutely nothing wrong here. The "don't talk to me right now please," you can tell (or should be able to tell) from the context of her breath and the cheering from the crowd, that she's in the middle of important dynamic play. The VAR should not be saying something like "I'm still checking something." It's irrelvant. It might be useful knowledge during a lull, but it's a distraction when she needs to focus. A check either leads to "stop the game" or "delay" at the next stoppage, so the information that a check is ongoing provides no actionable information. She told him she needed to focus and she did so with a "please." And she's in control at the monitor. It's her job to make the review as efficient as possible. She absolutely should be talking over the VAR if it's about getting the right angle and speed to confirm what she needs to see. Why sit back and be shown unhelpful or repetitive information? People get numbers wrong. She asked. She then got it right. I'll leave things here, but if you think this was an unprofessional or combative CR-VAR interaction, I'll assure you that you're incorrect.
Im actually surprised when I hear them telling the CR during live play about how they’re checking something. Always seemed distracting. If you’re checking something, why not just have it where when the ball goes out of play, just start saying DELAY DELAY DELAY into the microphone
I think saying it as a courtesy during a lull in dynamic play can be helpful. It gives the referee a piece of additional information to help manage players and/or prepare for the next stoppage. Referees don't like to be surprised and some like more talking than others, so it's not inherently a bad thing. And some referees want it, all things being equal. But during heated dynamic play or with a referee who likes less talking overall (and, to be clear, Koroleva does not fall into that second category typically), VARs need to know when to be silent.
This kind untimely info is not limited to var. I imagine she would be equally frustrated at a 4th letting her know a sub was getting ready or an AR asking about stoppage time when she’s trying to make another penalty decision. Info has to come fast and direct in the middle of these moments and if it seems curt it’s for exactly the reason @MassachusettsRef says. She’s directing her crew with as few words as possible to prevent further occurrences. and yeah, she is a fifa and has been to two world cups. And operated as a referee, a VAR, and an AVAR. There is a fine line of “let the VAR show you the evidence” and her knowing what she’s looking at isn’t going to help her make the right one. She’s the boss on that field and everyone else operates according to her direction
While we are on the topic of video review in the NWSL, perhaps one of the worst VAR mistakes I've seen in awhile with the last clip. I can imagine that there's a lot going on during a review, but that one is unfortunate to see.
I don’t exactly have many errors in my memory but this is probably the worst VAR error I can remember, league importance notwithstanding. Even the EPL one where they check completed the goal/no goal (I forget which) which was the opposite of the on field decision which was catastrophic…it’s at least a little tiny bit understandable that you go through a long VAR check with all the considerations but forget what the actual on field decision was. This one was just… they didn’t even look at the entire clip. They just stopped the clip at the kick point and repeated it multiple times, but didn’t go forward a few seconds, playing through the whole play like the CR ALWAYS asks, to see that THAT wasn’t the touch that she scored on.
I'll take the opportunity to pile onto VAR reviews, specifically the PRO videos. I find myself thinking maybe 60-75% of the time that there was never a "clear and obvious error" firstly and secondly that the commentary provided by the VAR tends to be "leading" if not all together a re-refereeing of the play(s) in question. Could be my misunderstanding but I thought VAR was only for clear and obvious errors (of consequence) and that the aim was to give the CR the benefit of re-seeing the play from different angles and speeds for them to make a determination whether to stay with or change their call. Not to mention that the lead-up before calling the CR to the monitor after the CR has been told to hold play only leads to the CR having to wrangle players. Plus the sheer amount of time it takes to get the shots queued up. If you can't tell, I don't much care for it. I don't see VAR as a net benefit up to this point.
yes, but . . . The VAR is only recommending an OFR if the VAR has already come to the conclusion that there was a C&O error (within the meaning being used by the competition). So while the VAR is not technically making a recommendation to change the call, they are implicitly doing so by getting the R there. The line between being sure the R understands the basis for the recommendation for the review and advocating for a result is mushy at best. the extent to which C&O error men’s what the words say is another topic that can be discussed endlessly (which we have!). Putting a subjective C&O standard on top of a subjective foul ruling is never going to to be an objective activity. It’s essentially an impossible line to draw.
On the first review (the red card), Barkley j terestingly says the red card was properly rescinded without commenting on the YC being given. I don’t see a basis for the YC, either—what was reckless here? It feels like,e “the GK got hurt so I should give a card.” the OS one. Just WOW!
Everything else you write is correct so I'm interested in your phrasing here. Why do you think a VAR is not technically making a recommendation to change the call? You're usually very good on the technical/semantical stuff but I'm struggling to see what you're getting at here. A recommendation for a review is predicated on the idea that the VAR has identified a clear and obvious error. So of course they are recommending the call be changed. The recommendation for a call reversal isn't just implied, it's inherent. Is your argument that they are only recommending the review and not the change of call? Because I don't think it's possible to split a hair that fine.
Then, IMO, there is entirely too much hand wringing and angle finding and discussion in these moments leading up to the actual recommendation for OFR. If it is obvious should it not be near instantaneous to see? Can't like that enough. Depending upon the VAR, it oft comes across that they have made a decision for the CR. "Recommending a review" and "we have a ..." seems disparate.
Why have a review at all then? Have VAR whisper sweetly what the correct call is and why to the CR. They can announce it or not depending upon protocol and we move forward with the game much more quickly. I get it is not a perfect system but if there is truly a clear and obvious error, there would not/should not be CR's sticking with the on-field call. In short, maybe the threshold for VAR intervention needs to be higher? Maybe VAR is somewhat trying to justify their existence by being overly active? Could it be that they are getting involved when they justifiably can be rather than when they should be?
I see you're new this year so I want to be clear that I don't intend to be snippy here, but I do intend to be somewhat lazy and not recycle things... We've had these discussions a lot, going back to 2015. The straightforward answer to your question is because the referee needs to be in control of determining a final outcome (just like ARs don't actually make decisions for themselves). There's all sorts of arguments for this, including in-match consistency. Also, yes, if a VAR recommends a review and the refere rejects it, something has gone wrong. Someone is "wrong." The point here is that ultimately the referee gets to decide, though. If he's the one who is wrong, so be it. If a VAR inserts himself into the game and is "wrong," that's viewed as even worse. But at a basic level, from when VAR started, theoretically there should be very few situations where the referee rejects a review. In some leagues, that is still true. In others, not so much. I mean, we're way past this. In some leagues the competition wants a standard that is lower than C&O. The train has left the station. And no one is trying to "justify their existence." At this level, they are following instructions in the interest of job security. It's just that some are better than others.
The way the VAR protocols are written, technically what the VAR recommends is the review. 4. Only the referee can initiate a ‘review’; the VAR (and other match officials) can only recommend a ‘review’ to the referee. But I agree with you conceptually. Regardless of what the technical nature is (“I recommend a review for no red card”) , the de facto recommendation is that the R reverse the decision, as the VAR can only recommend the review if the VAR concludes there was a C&O error. I’ve always thought the framing was a bit disingenuous and they should just call it what it is, but the protocol is written as a recommendation for review rather than a recommendation to reverse the call. All that said, perhaps it comes down to “a difference which makes no difference is no difference.”
Now that MLS NEXT CUP is done and dusted. Here were some notable moments. U19 Homegrown Final 30th minute red card (2CT) (21' , 31' ), I think it's fair to say the referee completely forgot about the 1st yellow. 73' - Penalty () 99 - No call (Penalty shout) and some tackles () --- U17 Academy Final 9th minute DOGSO - Not much else happened in the other finals that was noteworthy or KMI-related.
You do NOT need the ball for a PK. You don't really need the ball ever. Pause the U19 match at 1:38:44. The referee is bent over at the waist to pick up the ball with 4 players within touching distance, including the offender who is protesting the decision. I also don't really blame the referee for missing that the player was already on a yellow. I counted 6 players that I couldn't distinguish on camera because of their hair looking the same. Plus, the player was in a different position than when he got his 1st yellow so that is more difficult to track. Rochester vs Sporting, from the camera it is hard to see if there really is enough for a foul. I'd say the two hands probably are enough to unbalance the attacker even though he falls after being released. The second replay at 15:15 is best.
USLC Tampa Bay Rowdies vs Lexington Al Lang Stadium (6PM ET) REF: Chris Penso AR1: Logan Brown AR2: Josh Lampkins 4TH: Stefan Perri Wonder how long it's been for Penso and Brown.
Far from it actually! https://proreferees.com/?s=Perri He's done mostly 4ths around Florida and has had a whistle or two for USL Cup/MLSNP.
Houston Dynamo 2 moved their Sunday match from 7 PM at their field to 3:30 PM at the first team stadium in conjunction with the watch party for the Mexico match. We all took pictures of the wet bulb temperature because none of us had ever seen it that high. We did two cooling breaks per half and the teams asked for no stoppage in the second half. We were happy to oblige.
Can't get the clip yet but for those that have ESPN/Hulu... during USL League One's One Knoxville SC vs. Fort Wayne FC ... SFP committed within THREE seconds to the start of the game.
Incredible USL League One scenes, where we've got a red card foul literally 3 seconds into the Knoxville-Fort Wayne game pic.twitter.com/ppLCtfKv8B— John Morrissey (@USLTactics) July 15, 2026 LOL