Match 50: ENG : DEN - MAKKELIE (NED)

Possible, sure. But unlikely given that Sterling started to go to ground before any contact. But the AR, who had a great angle, should be telling him it was nothing. Had he completed the OFR, I doubt he lets it stand.
Given the reaction of everyone involved, he should have had an OFR. If he changes his mind great, but even if he doesn’t, it’s a much better sell.

it’s part of the “clear error” fallacy.

 

Missed this yesterday. Did he really say this? Because that's remarkable in a couple ways.

First, does that mean without VAR he would "guess" (for lack of a better term) and occasionally give "soft" PKs but then occassionally not?

Second, given the instruction for VAR to only intervene on clear errors, a VAR should never be giving a recommendation for a "soft" PK. So his argument, taken to its logical conclusion if adopted by all referees, is that the advent of VAR would inherently mean to fewer PKs being awarded.

If this is what he said and you want to be very generous to him, maybe he meant that "if I have any doubts, I don't make the call and then put the onus on the VAR." That's how things should work. But, as @USSF REF just said, you have to allow for the very high probability that Makkelie, in his moment, had no doubts. Like it takes a few relative unfair jumps to conclusions to arrive at the argument that Makkelie saw a "soft" PK in extra time of a EURO semifinal and then dared the VAR to overturn him. And that seems to be what Clattenburg is implying if this captures his statement accurately.

 

Having heard Clays comments, that’s not the sense I got from them.
To me, he was basically saying that even if something isn’t “clear error,” it doesn’t me the call was the right call or that most referees would make the call. It just means it wasn’t technically wrong. It seemed that Clays was saying that on soft calls, VAR should be able to say take a look at that again and make certain that’s the call you want to make. It would definitely increase credibility.

 

I don't know where this comes from, but it does make me wonder how much Dutch soccer you watch. I personally see very little. But I also am very aware that Makkelie has a reputation for having a rather large ego so given he's one of the bigger fish in the Dutch refereeing pond, I'd be surprised if Makkelie doesn't have that kind of reputation.

To be clear, you think it is "unlikely" that Makkelie called a foul because he saw a foul?

You haven't officiated a match with comms, have you?

But you have no evidence for that. And remember that Makkelie's training would be van Boekel's training. The VAR is the first stop-gap. But Makkelie is still operating from the "clear error" standpoint. If the VAR sends it down and Makkelie doesn't think calling a foul is clearly wrong, he's trained to let the penalty stand.

But this runs counter to all instruction and all training. So you're advocating for him to do something that UEFA doesn't want and that the officials haven't trained to do. And you want it done for the first time all tournament in extra time of a semifinal. You don't see why that's a bad idea? As things stand, a soft penalty is awarded. Your route calls for extraordinary intervention that either still leads to the penalty being awarded or prompts the only penalty overturn in this fashion all tournament.

I'll say it again. It was a relatively soft penalty, but it's a penalty that often gets called in our game. This was not what VAR was invented to "fix" and the calls for it use here show just how dangerous the slippery slope really is. If this gets reviewed, I can think of several penalty situations off the top of my head that would have needed to be reviewed during this tournament. And then people are talking about how VAR gets used too much.

 

Okay to the first part of your explanation. But it still begs the question of how Clattenburg handled such situations pre-VAR when he was officiating. Did he give soft penalties and now he wouldn't? Or did he never give soft penalties in his mind and VAR is now a tool that could correct him if he's wrong?

 

I'm probably the one person who does watch a lot of Dutch league matches and not just the Ajax games. I don't know if Makkelie has a large ego or not. One of the sports papers grades all players and the CRs for every league game. Makkelie has both good and fair games as a CR. I don't know if they published season rankings of the officials, maybe @feyenoordsoccerfan knows the answer to that. While it is general consensus that Makkelie is #2 to Kuipers in terms of getting UEFA matches, I personally thing Gozubuyuk is more consistent (with the caveat I am not a referee).

Both Kuipers and Makkelie made calls during matches that were later changed because of VAR. In my experience, the Dutch league makes far more use of VAR than do the other leagues I watch (EPL, Italy, Germany). Maybe it is the confidence they have with one another. I believe all the CRs do VAR duty during the season.