#Barclays 23/24

[itzdrk]

33 minutes ago, senorsoupe said:

What a monumental cock-up.  "Replay Operator" caught the mistake and tried to convince the VAR to do something but was overruled.  He also tried to convince the VAR to heed the advice of "Oli" to try to stop the game but didn't to that.  Had the VAR at least tried to reach the ref on the field to explain the mistake it would not have been as bad.  

At 0:23 of the video the Assistant Ref clearly says "Coming back for the offside, mate" but the VAR wasn't listening.

If anything comes from this I hope that they do something similar to what they do in aviation where pilots and Air traffic controllers have an established set of terminology that makes it crystal clear what they mean.  In this case the VAR should not be saying simply "check complete" but something like "Check complete, good goal" to make it clear that he thinks the goal should have stood

Other than the very obvious communication problems, I don't understand what the point of the assistant raising his flag is when the goal is scored.  It will be checked anyway and that has undoubtedly played it's part in someone else fucking up badly.  

[Musketeer Gripweed]

Scene from inside the VAR truck...

[DrewDon]

They should arrest the VAR officials. 

[Ginaro]

16 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

Other than the very obvious communication problems, I don't understand what the point of the assistant raising his flag is when the goal is scored.  It will be checked anyway and that has undoubtedly played it's part in someone else fucking up badly.  

What are you on about, the AR has judged it as offside so that's the on-field decision and needs to be communicated to everyone on the pitch, in the stadium and in the VAR room. He's made a mistake but until VAR corrects him that's the call that stands, just as it would be in a game without VAR or if VAR goes down.

Edited October 3, 2023 by Ginaro

[Venti]

11 minutes ago, Musketeer Gripweed said:

Scene from inside the VAR truck...

Was thinking more:

 

[Diamonds are Forever]

27 minutes ago, EH75 said:

Echo the comments above regarding the absolute mess the communication is. I work in an industry where we do a lot of safety critical radio communication and standard phraseology and closed loop (where the receiver has to repeat the message back then the sender confirms it is correct) communication have been standard for years. 

Really astonished they don't seem to have implemented something like this from the start. Just seems to be a bunch of guys talking over each other, no wonder there's been mistakes. 

They shouldn't be able to restart the game until there is positive confirmation from the VAR which the referee then confirms he has recieved and understood. 

It's really not very difficult. Give me a £100k consultancy fee and I will go in and train them how to speak to each other on a radio. 

 

That's what I find interesting here, normally with refereeing mistakes it's individuals who get blamed, but it's clear with this that although there were individual errors it was the overall process that led to the problem. I've seen the usual pitchfork 'sack X' stuff online but that completely misses the point.

I'm not a big rugby fan but whenever I watch it this seems an area they are miles ahead. When they are discussing decisions with the TMO there is always confirmation back and forth of what is going on - 'I'm seeing this, or you see that? So I'm okay to award the try?' etc. Football could really learn from that. That's where having the conversations broadcasted helps, part of the reason for the clarity in Rugby is because they know everyone is listening and therefore it needs explaining clearly to an audience,  which has the added benefit of ensuring good communication between officials.

There also just seems to be so many people involved in the conversation and chipping in that it's easy to see how confusion like this happens. 

[Musketeer Gripweed]

8 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

What are you on about, the AR has judged it as offside so that's the on-field decision and needs to be communicated to everyone on the pitch, in the stadium and in the VAR room. He's made a mistake but until VAR corrects him that's the call that stands, just as it would be in a game without VAR or if VAR goes down.

Could they not have played on util the ball went out of play and brought it back, like they do with a penalty check?

Interesting to note it was the VAR operator that noticed the mistake, not the officials on duty.

Also, I get that Liverpool are being called out for complaining about it, but if no-one calls it out, are we all going to shrug and wait for it to happen time and time again and just say that mistakes will happen.

[Diamonds are Forever]

12 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

What are you on about, the AR has judged it as offside so that's the on-field decision and needs to be communicated to everyone on the pitch, in the stadium and in the VAR room. He's made a mistake but until VAR corrects him that's the call that stands, just as it would be in a game without VAR or if VAR goes down.

 

I assume he's just meaning that since VAR automatically checks all goals for offside anyway then what is the purpose of waiting and then putting the flag up, you could just assume it's a goal unless VAR says otherwise.

Your last few words are the answer I guess, if there is an issue with the technology then you need an original decision to use.

[Todd_is_God]

There is automated offside technology available that the PL opted not to adopt.

I suspect they now will.

[itzdrk]

20 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

What are you on about, the AR has judged it as offside so that's the on-field decision and needs to be communicated to everyone on the pitch, in the stadium and in the VAR room. He's made a mistake but until VAR corrects him that's the call that stands, just as it would be in a game without VAR or if VAR goes down.

That as a process is a waste of time in a game when VAR is working.  It's being checked anyway and you've already left your flag down.  Unless it's obvious they should be told to leave their flag down completely, it clearly wasn't obvious.  

Communication is absolutely where they have failed there (not the assistant, he signals his intent then calls it clearly) but If the assistant doesn't make the call they will have done a good and quick job there.  

[craigkillie]

19 minutes ago, Musketeer Gripweed said:

Could they not have played on util the ball went out of play and brought it back, like they do with a penalty check?

Interesting to note it was the VAR operator that noticed the mistake, not the officials on duty.

Also, I get that Liverpool are being called out for complaining about it, but if no-one calls it out, are we all going to shrug and wait for it to happen time and time again and just say that mistakes will happen.

Are you asking if they could have come back to award the goal after they noticed their mistake? If so, no they couldn't, because the final decision had already been made by the referee and play had restarted.

[craigkillie]

8 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

There is automated offside technology available that the PL opted not to adopt.

I suspect they now will.

I'm not sure that would have helped in this case. Even with the semi-automated technology, a decision is still made on the pitch, and they wouldn't have had the automated decision through much faster than they managed to get the 2D lines on the pitch on Saturday. You'd still have the same opportunity for the exact same mistake.

[Musketeer Gripweed]

11 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Are you asking if they could have come back to award the goal after they noticed their mistake? If so, no they couldn't, because the final decision had already been made by the referee and play had restarted.

Fair enough.

I assume you have listened to the audio that been released, what do you think the VAR officials should have done after the Hawkeye employee had poined out they had royally messed it up? 

Also,

Do you now think that statement is factually correct after listening to the audio?

[Diamonds are Forever]

2 minutes ago, Musketeer Gripweed said:

Fair enough.

I assume you have listened to the audio that been released, what do you think the VAR officials should have done after the Hawkeye employee had poined out they had royally messed it up? 

Also,

Do you now think that statement is factually correct after listening to the audio?

 

The 'VAR failed to intervene' bit implies heavily that they should have intervened, which is to say they should have stopped the game and changed the decision.

It's hanging the VAR out to dry when it was an error in the process that's primarily to blame.

It was a stupid statement to release which seemed to apportion blame before their review, how can you decide it's all human error before your review? They should just have said they acknowledge it was a huge error and that they'll be reviewing it.

[Salvo Montalbano]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

Are you asking if they could have come back to award the goal after they noticed their mistake? If so, no they couldn't, because the final decision had already been made by the referee and play had restarted.

There was only about 30 seconds between the free kick to restart play and the ball going out of play again, and no major incidents (injuries, bookings, etc) had happened. I'm not one to usually agree with anything that Steven Warnock says, but he suggested that he could have stopped play, went over to speak to both managers and captains and said "Look, we fucked up here - it should be 1-0 to Liverpool so when we restart can you [Spurs] let Diaz score?" just like when goals are scored when players kick the ball out for an injury or whatever. Announce something on the PA so the fans don't riot and jobs a good 'un. The right outcome is reached, Spurs get some kind of Fair Play award from FIFA, everyone says "They fucked it but fair play, they've rectified the mistake" and Sky get to legitimacy say "Only in the Premier League".

[Molotov]

We have seen situations previously where teams have allowed the opposition to score into an empty net without challenge to allow a goal to be scored when it’s deemed “fair play” due to a referee fcuk up. 
I am sure the Spurs manager would have allowed such a goal to happen. 
 

[Diamonds are Forever]

21 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

There was only about 30 seconds between the free kick to restart play and the ball going out of play again, and no major incidents (injuries, bookings, etc) had happened. I'm not one to usually agree with anything that Steven Warnock says, but he suggested that he could have stopped play, went over to speak to both managers and captains and said "Look, we fucked up here - it should be 1-0 to Liverpool so when we restart can you [Spurs] let Diaz score?" just like when goals are scored when players kick the ball out for an injury or whatever. Announce something on the PA so the fans don't riot and jobs a good 'un. The right outcome is reached, Spurs get some kind of Fair Play award from FIFA, everyone says "They fucked it but fair play, they've rectified the mistake" and Sky get to legitimacy say "Only in the Premier League".

 

Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but I'd have been stunned if Spurs let that happen. I think they'd just take the attitude that it's tough and that every team has to deal with referees messing up, so why should we give them a goal when in 5 minutes time we could get done over by a decision and not be gifted a goal.

I don't think it's the same as when players score from not kicking the ball back. In those situations the referee is irrelevant, it's a decision made by the players because of actions by the players. In your scenario Liverpool would be asking Spurs to correct an officiating error, which isn't their responsibility.

[Molotov]

1 minute ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but I'd have been stunned if Spurs let that happen. I think they'd just take the attitude that it's tough and that every team has to deal with referees messing up, so why should we give them a goal when in 5 minutes time we could get done over by a decision and not be gifted a goal.

I don't think it's the same as when players score from not kicking the ball back. In those situations the referee is irrelevant, it's a decision made by the players because of actions by the players. In your scenario Liverpool would be asking Spurs to correct an officiating error, which isn't their responsibility.

Big Ange seems a fair guy who would say “fair enough - let them score unopposed!” had he been shown the error. 

[Mr. Brightside]

So we're just making resolutions up that are completely against the rules "because only about 30 seconds had passed before the ball went back out of play"?

[Musketeer Gripweed]

From what I have read tonight, the referee didn't actually know the goal should have stood until half time, which I find surprising.