Dale Johnson believes there is still a long way to go for people to trust the referees in the premier league. The first part of the story is over. Video assistant referee causes controversy in the premier league but how are decisions made and are they correct We take a look at the major incidents after each weekend to understand the process of VAR and the Laws of the Game. The VAR decisions affected every club.
- VAR's wildest moments: Alisson's two red cards in one game
- VAR in the Premier League: Ultimate guide
Man United vs. Villa is one of the games to jump to.
The goal was ruled out for foul by the referee.
In the 90th minute, Maxwel Cornet thought he had scored for West Ham United, but the VAR reviewed the attacking phase for a foul on the goalkeeper, which resulted in a free kick.
The goal was ruled not to be a goal.
The main issue in all leagues is the point at which the VAR should be involved. Was it a challenge to get enough influence to stop it? When a challenge is so insignificant that it has no bearing on the goal, VARs in the premier league are more willing to intervene.
The VAR, who was Jarred Gillett, decided that the contact with Mendy was enough to cause an injury and that the goalkeeper couldn't attempt to save the shot. There is no argument that there was contact with Mendy, but it should not have caused him to be injured.
The VAR won't be used this weekend, but Gillet will be in charge of the game.
The VAR decided to stay with the decision on the field when there was contact between the goalie and attacker. The referee made a decision regarding the goal that was disallowed last weekend. The goal stood because the VAR stayed with the referee's decision. There was nothing wrong with the referee's decision here.
A point-earning goal would have been the most likely outcome of the game.
Mitchell's own goal was ruled out for foul by Willock.
The ball went into the goal after Joe Willock collided with Vicente Guaita and Tyrick Mitchell.
The goal was ruled not to be a goal.
There are a lot of similarities between the West Ham goal and the VAR review. The question is how the VAR came to decide that Guaita was not free.
Evidence shows that Willock was pushed into Guaita by Mitchell as he was about to head the ball. Mason decided that the contact was normal football contact. It's a view that a lot of people won't get on board with, and like the West Ham goal, it was an error.
One of the two full-time VARs in the premier league is Mason, and his sole responsibility is to be one of the best at judging when to intervene. He won't be at a game this weekend. The other full-time VAR, Mike Dean, was at the center of a controversy last month when he failed to recommend a red card for a player. Dean made a mistake in his column.
Where will the premier league go next? The only two incidents of a controversial weekend were questioned publicly by the premier league and they requested a review as a priority Will this be able to accomplish anything? Is anything going to get better? The premier league is taking steps to change the way it works and is not just standing back.
At the start of the season, a new five person independent panel was put in place to review all major refereeing incidents. As part of the training and assessment process of referees and VARs, its role is to assess each and give feedback to clubs. The hope is that this will improve the standard of officiating and the trust between the clubs and the PGMOL.
Unless the clubs themselves decide to reveal the outcome, the process will be private. That leads to a situation where information is leaked out, rather than being part of an open and transparent process.
The situation in the German league is similar. In the past, referees have issued statements to explain their decisions, but this season it has happened more often. There isn't a void between the controversy and the referee, even if supporters disagree with the reasoning. On Friday, Daniel Siebert, one of Germany's World Cup referees, decided not to give a penalty against Hoffenheim's Ozan Kabak. The reasons for not giving the penalty were explained by Siebert. The referee explained to Sky Sport that he didn't disallow the goal for Eintracht Frankfurt because they were in an ineligible position.
Can officials explain controversial decisions in the league? It's not likely to be something we see in the near future. Dean's weekly column in the Daily Mail will be the most transparent at the moment.
Mike Riley will step down from his role as general manager at the end of the year in order to make way for Howard Webb as the new chief refereeing officer. That's only part of the top-down rebuild within the organisation, pushed forward by the Premier League as part of its Elite Refereeing Development Plan to improve standards and change the way referees move up through the ranks.
It will take some time for any changes to make a difference.
There is no chance that VAR will be abolished in England. The richest league in the world can't make it work, so the premier league won't use technology. The other VAR decisions were not seen as part of the problem by the premier league.
The goal by Martinelli was ruled out for a foul.
The game was goalless in the 12th minute when Gabriel Martinelli scored from the side. The VAR initiated a review for a foul in the build up to Christian Eriksen.
The goal was ruled not to be a goal.
This decision probably wouldn't have caused as much uproar as it did. It was magnified as the VAR was once again Mason.
There are several aspects to this. The person on the receiving end of this challenge would expect the goal to be nullified. Whoever supports the attacking team wouldn't expect the VAR to be involved because it wasn't obvious that the ref made a mistake.
The referee will make a decision on what to tell the VAR. It's clear that Odegaard didn't touch the ball if he thought he did. The VAR has to subjectively believe a foul has been committed in order to send it to the monitor.
There is a discrepancy between the league's desire to allow the game to flow and its desire to look at all fouls in the build up. They won't view each incident in the same way because of the individual subjective opinions of the VARs.
The same should happen with the VAR if a referee has allowed such challenges to go through. It is hard to get right. In the first week of the season, a foul in the build up against Jordan Henderson was claimed by the Reds and they were able to get a goal. Stuart Attwell chose not to intervene because this wasn't immediately apparent to the goal. There is a big difference between the two incidents and supporters will struggle to accept that.
The whistle blew before the goal was scored.
The referee blew the whistle after Coutinho thought he had scored a goal that would have given Villa a 2-1 lead.
The VAR decision was not possible because the whistle had already stopped the game.
We can't consider this Villa being denied a certain goal because Ederson only made a token effort to stop the shot after hearing the whistle. How is this compatible with the VAR protocol?
When the attacking move comes to an end, the assistant is told to always flag when they think there is an obstruction. If they don't flag, they don't know if there is a problem. They must always flag if they spotted something that they think is not true.
When an attacking move ends is all that matters. He had a shot and scored. We see similar incidents over the weekend, but they are never noticed. The referee stopped the play because of the assistant's flag when Timothy Castagne was about to shoot in the game.
There is no question that the assistant made a mistake. The VAR protocol explains why the flag was raised.
Coutinho is in front of the penalty spot when the direction of the pass is irrelevant.
He moved away from goal to get the ball. The goal would have counted if the flag stayed down when he hit the shot.
When the linesman raises his flag, the player in front of him has three defensive players in front of him, and he is about to be challenged. The assistant doesn't think there will be a chance of Coutinho having a shot on goal. It was in line with protocol because he wasn't moving towards the goal.
The referee was able to hold his whistle even though the flag was raised, but there were concerns about the impact on the defensive team in doing so.
It was an unfortunate sequence of events for the assistant, first getting the decision wrong, and then raising the flag for the goal to be scored. The assistant has a valid argument that the period to delay the flag had expired when he raised it.
There is a possibility of a red card on Onana.
In the 76th minute, Van Dijk was booked for catching Onana with his studs. The referee gave a yellow card.
There wasn't a red card.
The force and intensity of the challenge is more important than the point of contact. There would have been a strong case for a red card if Van Dijk had gone into the challenge at a slower pace.
A yellow card is not considered to be an unacceptable outcome when it comes to disciplining a player.
The Coady goal was ruled out for an obstruction.
The man thought he had given the team the lead in the 69th minute.
The goal was ruled out for being in an ineligible position.
There is no question that Coady was not in possession of the ball. The blue line is drawn to the ball by his foot as he leans forward.
The offside phase doesn't change when James Milner's toe is hit. A blocking action from a defensive player is not considered to be a deliberate play of the ball. The correct decision was made to rule it out.
The penalty was given for a foul by Sinisterra on Toney.
Ivan Toney moved in on goal when he was challenged. The referee Robert Jones said no foul should be committed.
There was a penalty and a yellow card.
The VAR review resulted in the correct review for the penalty after referee Jones thought that Sinisterra had gotten some of the ball when he challenged Toney from behind.
There is a chance of a penalty on Summerville.
Crysencio Summerville went to ground inside the box in the 62nd minute when he tried to run into the box under a challenge from an opposing player. The referee denied the appeals for a penalty.
There was no penalty.
Jesse Marsch was sent off for protesting the VAR review.
The VAR couldn't assess the initial shirt pull because it was on the blind side of the referee.
There was contact between the players on the lower half of the body when Summerville reached the edge of the box. There was a question as to the foul contact being inside the area, though this never came into the thinking of the VAR. Jones thought that this was coming together with minimal contact.
The earlier VAR decision went against them and they will struggle to accept that.
The Mbeumo goal was allowed after an incorrect call.
Bryan Mbeumo scored in the 80th minute to make it 4-2, but the flag went up for an incorrect goal.
The VAR decided that the goal was allowed and that it was not an obstruction.
The assistant thought the long pass had been scored on by Toney, but the ball actually came off Robin Koch, meaning Mbeumo couldn't be ruled out of bounds. The goal was allowed to be scored.
The VAR overturned a penalty against Kelly.
Lloyd Kelly took a shot from Neco Williams in the 42nd minute. The referee gave a penalty for obstruction.
The penalty should be thrown out by the referee.
For the first time in more than a year, the referee ignored the advice of the VAR and stuck by his own decision. It's something we need to see more of in order to give more confidence to the system.
The goal of a high bar means that a VAR decision should not go to the monitor unless there is a definite error, but as we saw from the incidents at the weekend, it isn't the case. It is assumed that the referee and the VAR will never agree on anything. Not once last season did the referee get sent to the monitor, even though he got the decision right.
Oliver thought Kelly would make it bigger with his arms after Williams shot him. He didn't see anything to change his opinion after watching the replay.
Mac Allister's goal was ruled null and void.
Alexis Mac Allister scored a brilliant goal in the 47th minute, but there was a VAR check that showed he was not in fact in the game.
The VAR decided that the goal was not valid.
The time it took to make a decision is what makes this frustrating. It was due to a struggle to find the best angle to plot the last defender's position. There's an argument that if the VAR can't find this then the on-field decision should stand, as was the case in the 2020-21 season when West Brom's had a goalMbaye Diagne disallowed against Saints when it seemed like he was onside. The VAR was unable to plot all the players.
If Mac Allister had scored the Goal of the Season contender, there would have been a lot of anger about this. It's probably not.
The question is whether the Seagulls player became involved in the play because of the influence of Harry Kane.
Mwepu tried to hit the defender behind him with an overhead kick, but missed. The referee has to make a final decision on whether the player who hasn't touched the ball is involved in the game.
Kane couldn't score on the shot from Son.
Son Heung- Min thought he had scored in the 10th minute, but the flag went against him.
The VAR decided that there was no goal.
Kane was in an offside position and ducked out of the way of the ball, which resulted in the goal being disallowed.
Kane was in front of the ball when he scored the second goal.
Richarlison's goal against Sessegnon was ruled null and void.
Richarlison thought he had scored his first goal for Spurs in the 90th minute but Ryan Sessegnon was in an ineligible position.
The VAR decided that the goal was not valid.
Sessegnon was in an incorrect position when the ball was thrown. Even though the goal was ruled out, Richarlison still has to pay for removing his shirt in his goal celebration.
The information was provided by the league.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
