Obviously they didn’t include the criterion ‘must know something about football’ in the tender application documents.
Obviously they didn’t include the criterion ‘must know something about football’ in the tender application documents.
I don’t think these were a “VAR” error though, as in the people reviewing the call. It was an error not having a functioning monitor on the sideline and an error on the referee for upholding his original decisions. The “VAR” flagged he may have got the original call wrong both times so they did their job.
So, are you saying that if the people manning the VAR disagree with the original on field decision, they can’t overturn it?
They can suggest to overturn it but the on field reff has final decision
Yeah, that’s how it works. The idea is to not undermine the referee, so that the referee remains in total control of the game. Very different to NRL for example.
Not necessarily advocating this, but a few months ago I watched the video of Sonny Bill Williams getting sent off for the All Blacks, and the process to make the decision was very interesting. Not sure whether the ref or TMO (television match official) started the review, but both touch judges then ran on to the field and stood with the ref while he watched the replay on the big screen. The ref then talked them through what he had seen, and his decision. The other officials had (at least in theory, it seemed) a chance to disagree or offer their own opinion, while the decision remained the ref’s. Food for thought.
Sounds like it would still take up a lot of time. The refs are mic’d up and can talk to the lines people, the 4th official and the VAR, so they could have those conversations anyway.
I think what would make the ref more accountable would be for the reason for his decision be shared with then broadcaster and the stadium. That way, it would come up on the big screen and people at least know why the decision was made instead of having to speculate. They do that in Rugby too.
I didn’t realise it worked like that - it is stupid to ask the ref to review it when you’ve just had the people in ‘bunker’ review it lots of times and come up with a decision, only for the ref to be put on the spot to try and justify his original decision with a dodgy sideline monitor and the whole ground jeering at the whole joke of a process. If it goes to VAR, there is a ref there, so they should know the rules and be able to make the call. Sure, the ref can provide his original interpretation, but once it goes to VAR, VAR makes the call
Yeah, I don’t disagree, and having the VAR make the actual decision would speed things up and would probably lead to a more accurate outcome (they’ve got bigger screens and arguably a bit longer to review them). But that’s way it’s called VAR (Video Assistant Referee), but they’re assistants just like the linesman (also called an assistant referee). I guess they don’t want multiple referees.
So, why have 3 people on the bunker? The FFA said that the whole point was to have a majority vote so that it didn’t rely on one person. But that majority vote is purely to decide whether they should make a recommendation to the referee, at which point it’s still down to one person ultimately making a decision.
A fundamental priority of any professional sporting league must be that all teams are judged by the same set of rules being assessed under the same conditions (as is humanly possible). Having one condition for one stadium and then different conditions for all other stadiums is ridiculous and makes an absolute mockery of VAR.
There is no way that this should ever have been allowed to happen. Decisions in this match were assessed differently to every other A-League game this week and that is neither right nor fair (for both teams, not just a Sydney fan’s point of view)
Tbh he reacts the same way every time he goes down.
I hold my breath every time he’s tackled.
Yes I agree I thought he tore his groin the game or two before he yelled like crazy and was on the floor for a week.
I guess it isn’t an acl injury, or the club is keeping quiet. MRI would definitely be done by now. Disappointing they aren’t telling the fans
He always looked a little bit terrified every time a big tackle comes in. With his injury record he can be forgiven for thinking every big tackle is about to be the end of his career
Yes but that also helps contribute to sustaining an injury.the guy would be tensing up, not going in with his weight behind challenges, leaving himself arguably more vulnerable to injury.
Just to clear a couple of things up on VAR.
VAR is an Assistant Referee and has the same authority as the AR 1 & 2, 4th Official and Goal Line Assistants.
IFAB have released a set of instructions on the use of VAR so that all trials are conducted within the same parameters and it’s role, duties & responsibilities. It is not a Law Of The Game nor does it have any caveat applied to it that excludes it from any aspect of the LOTG.
The referee does not and can not refer something to the VAR. It is not a “review” system like in other sports. The VAR does not and can not make a ruling.
The stating of otherwise is down to a lack of understanding of the process, lazy reporting, or commentating or just assuming that the VAR is a review system like in other sports. Much like when an AR signals to the referee that they need to discuss something, the VAR does the same. The advantage that the VAR has is they can show the referee what they saw, not have to describe it. The referee does not and can not refer something to the VAR and have them make the decision. The referee asks the VAR if they saw something or the VAR “virtually” puts their flag up indicating they need to speak with the referee. The referee then decides whether to view the incident as they either missed it completely (in back play) or because what they did see was reported differently by the VAR (foul inside or outside of penalty area). They can also choose to continue play without review as they believe they made the correct decision. The VAR isn’t reviewing the referees decision, they are reviewing their own decision as to whether they observed the incident differently to the referee.
When it comes to offside and why the referee doesn’t need, but can choose, to view the footage, it’s the same as what they do when the AR indicates offside. The VAR has put their flag up indicating offside but instead of only having the 2 options they have with the AR (agree or disagree with their advice), they have a 3rd of viewing the incident when they’re not certain either way.
Referees cannot speak to the crowd
Under the LOTG the referee is prevented from discussing or informing spectators of their decision. In fact they’re not required to discuss their decision with anyone, even the players. Any signals made by the referee not required under LOTG are optional, like holding the whistle above head and pointing to it at a free kick, and used for player management and game control. As it is a LOTG it can only be changed at the annual IFAB review because, unlike the mickey mouse codes that change the laws governing their games every week, a competition must finish under the same laws/rules as it commenced. Thus the referee cannot, NFL style, announce what is being reviewed, the decision and/or how they came to their decision.
After the review and feedback on its use at the World Cup IFAB said that they were going to investigate and try to implement ways to improve the communication when the VAR is being consulted.
This is all unverified (I have no reason to doubt this person and they have nothing to gain by telling me) but there is no changes occurring at this stage.
Developing a universal code (flag for offside, hand & ball for handball etc.) to indicate what decision the referee is confirming/overturning, their final decision, how play is restarted and their display inside the stadium and on TV was positively received. That was about all that there was general consensus on though.
Some of the biggest areas of contention are
The referee explaining, either as they are making it or straight after they have made it, their decision and why. (I don’t think this should be a thing)
What happens if another incident is seen on the footage but hadn’t been reported by any official, an area of contention from the start apparently. As it wasn’t seen or reported there is a thought that ruling on it would make the VAR a review system. Should it be ruled on or left to the Match Reviewer and how to communicate this. (I don’t think the referee should be able to rule on it).
Removing “VAR reviewing” footage inside the stadium prior to the referee deciding to consult with the VAR or not as so no communication of the decision to spectators is required.