CHE:TOT Oh good grief. Why did it take that long to come to the wrong decision on that obvious red card? And what is the rationale behind no OFR on something like that? Whoops I see y'all have been discussing OFR upthread. I'm coming in late.
https://streamable.com/vgwfu Just reported now on English television - PGMOL have communicated that a Red Card should have been given. Embarrassing, absolutely embarrassing for English refereeing.
Objectively, probably yes. But subjectively (and this is all highly subjective isn't it) I think the psychology is likely very different for a center doing an OFR on something like that red card shout to conclude "Wow, yes I was clearly wrong on that one" than it is for the VAR to declare "Yes he was clearly wrong." It's hard for me to imagine that Oliver would not have produced a card after looking at that foul onscreen.
The whole thing is turning into something that even the most pessimistic critic of VAR could never have imagined. Can you believe that DURING THE MATCH, the PGMOL announces that a VAR review was wrong? And an OFR should have been requested? Also, does this now preclude a further review where the Spurs player coukd be retroactively suspended? Stunning in it’s incompetence.
But MLS practice kind of shows otherwise. @ManiacalClown likely has the stats available on how many times an MLS OFR resulted in no change to the call. Not infrequently (and perhaps still far too often) an MLS VAR will say something is clearly wrong and the referee will disagree. At the very least, the different standard of training allows for that dynamic, which is seemingly far more satisfying to fans right now. I’d also note that your post does shift the expected psychology for VAR on its head. The initial worry was always that referees would be too stubborn to take advice or criticism. Now, with England, there is a belief that they’d be quite willing if only they had the chance. In no way am I accusing you of hypocrisy. But it is noteworthy how this assessment has shifted at-large. At the most base level, referees need to keep their jobs and with a brave new world like VAR, that means properly enacting training and standards. There’s obviously still confusion, but you basically see the training unfold in match situations right now. And it’s so out of whack in England that it’s hard to comprehend for anyone who has grown accustomed to other VAR leagues.
What is clearly wrong is the clearly wrong standard as it is implemented to request an OFR. Rephrase it how you like, though that bar needs to be lower to ask for an OFR than the standard the CR uses to make his decision. You are never going to get any sort of consistency on a subjective standard over subjective calls on the field. in so doing, you’re going to miss quite a bit. I’d rather the CR get a crack at something that is “close” even if that means a much greater number of decisions that “stand as called”
There are so many layers to this problem. The saddest for me is that it can be argued that VAR in England is poison to their referees. We have discussed how Taylor has become a bit hapless, and that VAR could be a culprit in his erosion. Oliver perhaps has managed to keep his edge but how can he be anything but feel frustrated and betrayed by this absurd failure and reversal on the locelso foul? EURO 2020 can it be said that the English refs will be as effective as ones where VAR is more developed? I know the instructions are different and and all that but I don’t think that one can argue that English refs have gotten better at doing games with VAR over this season.
VAR won't work as long as there is a notion that VAR = re-refereeing the game. VAR needs to be viewed as an equal part of the referee team that plays a specific role. He is one of the match officials assigned to the match. He is a fully qualified referee that could be assigned any of the in-field roles. The referee would take advice for a foul or card from any of the on-field officials. The VAR should be considered in the same light. The VAR is offering the referee advice on a decision to arrive at the correct outcome. Advice from the VAR should be considered equally authoritative by the match referee. Right now, the VAR is an outsider to the officiating crew, sitting in the London VAR Hub only calling in to point out a mistake made on-field. That's what a 'clear and obvious error' is, a mistake. And, some say the problem is training. It's more than that. The problem is philosophical. That philosophy resulted in a poor implementation. The standard for intervention of 'clear and obvious error' adds to the problem. Those words need to be eliminated from the VAR lexicon. These are subjective decisions bring made. The VAR is offering the referee information that should result in a better decision. But, no, the VAR is re-refereeing the match. My sense from PRO and their Inside Video Review feature is that the VAR is considered more as a member of the officiating team offering advice on a call. During an episode of IVR, you see the video being reviewed and the conversation between the officials. I would love to see that level of transparency on the Lo Celso review.
Do you mean England’s interpretation of the standard or the standard generally? Because if you mean generally, then I strongly, strongly disagree. You need a threshold pretty far above “probably wrong” or “you may want a second look” unless you really want to just ruin the sport. VAR is “working”—to some extent, though with continued issues—elsewhere. Lowering a standard just to get more OFRs globally is a bad idea. I feel like I’ve been quoted from 5 years ago. Right. And this is an inherent problem within VAR. It is based on a lie. It wants to treat subjective decisions as objective. Or only intervene when subjective decisions become objective. Of course, someone needs to make the subjective determination of when that magical threshold gets crossed. As much as England gets rightly slagged for its current implementation of VAR, there is a very real concern about too many OFRs and too much re-refereeing. I don’t want the sport to change beyond all recognition. I think people get often get too caught up with the idea that every single referee decision needs to, should be, or even can always be correct. It’s ironic saying it on this forum, but the more focus there is on just analyzing referee decisions, the less we are actually enjoying the sport for sporting reasons. I understand controversy generates headlines and it’s much easier for journalists to pontificate about a referee call (right or wrong) than to get into tactical analyses or individual player performance (far more subjective issues), so we get refereeing decisions driving headlines. But is that honestly what people care most about in soccer? Would people be more satisfied by the sport with a bunch of OFRs to ensure more accuracy? I say all of that as someone who thinks England has this horribly wrong and there needs to be a use of OFRs in the EPL. But you can easily go too far in the other direction, too. There’s a moderate happy medium that needs to be found. And we shouldn’t blow past it by just opening the dam and making an OFR almost a default mechanism for anything controversial.
I posted this earlier this week: verification again today! "I never thought I would ever have to say this, but the officiating in the Premier League is really abysmal. If they have lost me, who knows how many others feel the same." So very sad, considering the worldwide exposure of the EPL. Definitely time for a change in the administration of PGMOL. PH
But it is working elsewhere, no? And other places have, mostly, guarded against “re-refereeing.” A few things. First, just from a technical accuracy standpoint he’s not always fully qualified. Some MLS VARs are trained for that role but not qualified to referee in the league. And then you have the AR v CR issue. Minor point, maybe. But important for accuracy. Second, I can’t think of a worse idea than having a VAR give advice on fouls and the game as a whole. Talk about re-refereeing! Why bother having a referee if we have a video referee who can analyze everything? Finally, working under your premise of the referee taking advice from all qualified officials... wouldn’t that mean no OFRs? After all the referee accepts an AR’s advice without looking at a monitor. Logically, if we are treating VARs the same way, the need for a monitor disappears. We would just trust their input, which is what England does now. And no one likes that. The issue of sitting at the hub versus traveling to the match is a very big one that goes unnoticed by most. So this isn’t a bad point on that issue. Traveling could make the VAR more part of the crew. Sadly, MLS is considering going in the other direction. Well, sure. But that’s England’s philosophy. So if we are strictly talking about EPL, yes. They’d have to admit their philosophy is wrong in order to change the training. We will see if pressure results in that outcome. A thousand times, no for me. We shouldn’t blow up the sport just because England can’t figure it out. It would be the height of irony if England being over conservative causes the world to become more liberal with a system that actually got implemented in a somewhat responsible way when it could have been much much worse. Just because England is bad in one direction doesn’t mean the fix is for the entire world to give up and make this video-ball. Some of this is right and some of this is very wrong. Yes, he or she is far more part of the team. And yes they have a conversation about what the referee saw and they walk through things like the protocols say you should (some officials, like Gantar and Stott, are incredibly skilled at this). But they absolutely are not offering “advice.” PRO is very clear on what line the VAR should go up to and ones who have crossed it have been admonished. As far as transparency for EPL goes, given the referees never see the monitor, there isn’t much to disclose. It would be a joke at this point because they aren’t doing what MLS or Dutch or Australian referees do. You’d hear a bunch of dead air while Oliver waits for a verdict.
Ignoring VAR for a moment... the SFP miss at Chelsea is a reminder of another English quirk. And that is fourth officials are still nothing more than pylons or rodeo clowns for the technical areas. How a fourth official doesn’t have advice for Oliver there is beyond me. You would fail in MLS if you didn’t have that assistance for the referee. But in England, no one expects a fourth to actual officiate, it seems.
They won’t cop to this one. Honestly, if this one had been given it would have made the Chelsea non-intervention look even worse, so they are probably happy without the red given the overall situation today. Consistently bad is easier to explain than inconsistently bad (particularly when the worse, more high-profile, incident would have been the one with lighter punishment).
Ultimately, whatever words one uses to set a standard for VAR to stop play and request a OFR and then the CR decision on an overturn, the proof of how things are working would be borne out by statistics. How many OFR per game? We don’t want to stop the match 10+ times for reviews. How many OFR result in no change? 80% wouldn’t be good as that would mean plenty of things were needlessly sent down, though I would also argue 5% would be just as bad as that would likely mean VAR would be would holding things back that should be overturned. Finally, the post match assessment of how many calls were missed.
I wasn't advocating expanding the role of VAR. Its currently used for critical match incidents, and that limitation is fine. I'm questioning the perception of the VAR in the officiating crew. Strictly speaking, the referee is taking advice from the VAR, but currently it's in the form of which video views to watch. The referee doesn't need to see the video to do that. Being able to view the video is important, but that doesn't mean the referee has to see it in all instances. Why shouldn't the ref just show a red card if the VAR tells him that the player should be red carded because he went studs up and into the player's shin? On the other hand, there may be instances where the referee doing a review is appropriate.
Burnley vs. Bournemouth had two goals called back because the ball hit a player's arm in the sequence. When Burnley's goal was taken away, NBCSN said you can't tell if it hit his arm or his shoulder. While down 1-0, Bournemouth thought they equalized, but were called for a handball (off an arm) in their own box that gave Burnley a PK goal. VAR can decide give PKs even if Bournemouth hadn't gone down the field and scored, but it makes me wonder if VAR would have been used if Bournemouth didn't score. By "scored" I mean got the ball in the goal, not that it counted. Burnley won 3-0.
I need to clean this up a bit... What the VAR is providing is information to the referee. That information can take the form of actual video, or a brief verbal description. The decision whether an OFR is needed can be reached by the referee based upon the description. There is no absolute need for an OFR in all circumstances, but it should be an option.
There are a couple of real reasons why not, which both have to do with management. First, you want referees to be able to see what they missed and calibrate going forward. Remember that they will have an image in their head of what they thought they saw and you want to be consistent in a match. Not all studs into shins are reds, so seeing what really happened and knowing what they missed helps. If it is a red but barely a red in a given referee’s eyes, he needs to know that going forward. Same for he level of physicality of challenges or veracity of fouls on penalties. Second, for player management and dissent purposes. Being able to say, “hey, I just saw it and I had it wrong originally” with a blow by blow recap of what was on video goes a long way with most professional players. The alternative leads to situations where a referee was adamant he was right, gets told he was wrong, and has to reverse a call without ever seeing it. Both sets of players can use that to undermine credibility and have a go at the referee for the rest of the game. “No, I looked and I was wearing originally” is a much much much better player management tool than “someone told me I was wrong”—particularly when VARs aren’t exactly setting the world on fire with their assessments.