VAR protocol correctly applied for two penalty decisions during yesterday’s UEFA Champions League round of 16 match with emphasis put on “accuracy over speed.”
Two VAR reviews led to penalty kicks being awarded during yesterday’s UEFA Champions League match between FC Schalke 04 and Manchester City FC (2-3).
Both instances occurred during a period of approximately 10 minutes in which a technical issue experienced by the VAR technical supplier impacted the ability to deliver replay images to the pitchside referee review area.
When such a malfunction of the system occurs, the IFAB protocol allows for the VAR to describe to the referee what can be seen on the TV replay(s) but not tell him the decision that should be taken. The referee then makes a final decision based on his own perception and the information received orally from the VAR.
In regards to the first decision, the inability to access the incident replays at the pitchside review area led to a delay in reaching the correct decision to award a penalty kick for a handball offence, while the VAR orally described the situation to the referee to allow him to make a final decision, and for the referee to then provide an explanation to the two team captains to clarify the circumstances regarding the pitchside review area and the decision-making process
The second decision was also correctly made on the basis of the Laws of the Game (Law 11 – Offside) which stipulates: “if a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence”.
The images in the picture above - taken at the exact same moment from two different angles - clearly show that a foul is committed inside the box before the Schalke player could even attempt to play the ball and hence such offence must be punished with the awarding of a penalty kick.
Commenting on these two decisions, UEFA’s Chief Refereeing Officer Roberto Rosetti said: “I am pleased that even without the possibility for the referee to review the incidents with his own eyes, the excellent cooperation of the team of officials led to correct decisions being made.
“It must also be underlined that – and as is described in the VAR protocol - accuracy is always in principle more important than speed when reaching a decision. Clearly, last night’s technical issues had a big impact on the time taken to reach decisions, but we are fully aware that reducing the time factor is key to the success of VAR and we are doing our utmost to make reviews as quick and efficient as possible.
“However, what we ultimately want is correct decisions in such match-changing situations and this is what we got yesterday.”
UEFA will also be addressing the matter of the technical failure with its VAR technical supplier to ensure that such issue does not happen again in the future.
Source:
uefa.com
"When such a malfunction of the system occurs, the IFAB protocol allows for the VAR to describe to the referee what can be seen on the TV replay(s) but not tell him the decision that should be taken. The referee then makes a final decision based on his own perception and the information received orally from the VAR."
ReplyDeleteThis is the key-statement to justify the procedure, however it is clear that del Cerro had missed the incident, but he trusted Hernández Hernández, whistling the penalty. Del Cerro can "save" himself from a technical mistake in applying VAR protocol, by saying that he had already seen something on the pitch.
Could you explain your last sentence? I don't understand that conclusion.
DeleteSorry, I was not clear. It is about the "own perception": I understand that referee should have seen at least something, otherwise, it would be impossible to decide based only on what VAR reported orally without video footage. In this case, it would be a decision taken directly by VAR, a handball can't be described only by words.
DeleteSo for this reason I think if del Cerro decided for penalty, without having a minimum perception of the incident, but having totally missed it, it should be still something like technical mistake. Am I wrong? Do you agree?
You might be right, but I did not conclude from the text, that the own perception is necessary.
DeleteIn my opinion, it would be rather worse, if del Cerro saw the handball himself. Because, why did he not give the penalty then - did he have a different interpretation? And then it really needed to be a clear mistake (which it is not IMO) to be changed. Otherwise it really is re-refereeing by the VAR.
Or del Cerro had an own, but factually wrong perception (e.g. ball touched the chest). But I think, a differentiation between wrong perception and no perception does not make sense.
If I am a referee and I have seen the incident clearly, Im trusting my own judgement and not something "described" over an ear piece. Just my opinion. If VAR was not working and pitch side review not possible, original decision should have stood.
ReplyDeleteIf del Cerro has seen the handball himself, it is more difficult to justify the VAR intervention, because in that case, it needs to be a "clear and obvious" error. And there are many doubts, that the decision was that obvious.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately it is not clarified in the statement, how much perception the referee had of the incident and whether it has been classified as a "clear and obvious" mistake.
So, it seems as we wont have explanations for Zwayer's game.
ReplyDeleteUbi maior...
I would have like to understand more about the disallowed goal after OFR, this is something very different from what we see in Italy.
Also, I'm starting to think that if this OFR was correct, then also the possible penalty in 1' should have been rewatched. For me, not whistling is OK, but again, if compared to the foul punished by Zwayer after the review... this is the point. I also hope to see consistency in such situations on next games, all referees should be called to rewatch an incident if they miss it, even in case of a very soft one.
But overall, the interventions in Madrid were all quite clear and there wasn't so much controversy. It was a right thing to explain the facts occurred in Gelsenkirchen.
But in 1', Zwayer clearly saw the incident and probably told Dankert that he noticed the contact, but did not evaluate it as a penalty. As you say "not whistling is OK" - so no reason for VAR to intervene.
DeleteOn the contrary, at the disallowed goal, Zwayer probably missed the contact. Then a possible infringement is enough to justify the OFR.
However in general, the VAR should avoid an OFR recommendation, if he thinks a change of decision would be unlikely. So in case of "very soft" incidents, I would not expect an OFR. But I agree, that there needs to be consistency.
Would be very helpful, if UEFA either confirms my interpretation or explains how it should be done instead.
I wanted to ask with respect to zwayers game it was once said here that if a penalty was reversed by VAR a drop ball should be given like Andre marriner did in an FA cup match involving Chelsea... wanted to ask is it only for wrong decision given
ReplyDeleteWhen a wrong penalty is assigned, play should be resumed before the (wrong) whistle. As it is impossible to create the same scenario as it was, then a dropped ball is used to resume the play.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/UOIZeZpoyhc
ReplyDeleteFull match of Sigma Olomouc u19 vs Olympique Lyonnais. Referee Enea Jorgji (Alb) Uefa second cat.
Formulation "clear and obvious" or something like that still leaves a lot of space for VAR referee to decide whether to call for an OFR or not. Many things are in his disposition and that is something that is bad, because he shouldn't be the one who should bring the final decision. For example: Dankert thought that he shouldn't call for OFR in 1st minute and before 1st (allowed) goal, but he called it after Morata's foul. I would prefer for OFR in all 3 occasions - the man in the middle should make final decision, and not one in the room. In case that Juve won, I can imagine what would happen then, what reaction from Simeone, players and fans would be. Every decision should be clear for everybody, not only for refereeing experts - football is been playing for the spectators. And the final decision should be made by the main ref and he should have the responsibility for it.
ReplyDeleteJust remember that after an OFR, referee has always the final decision, I also disagree about the OFR called for disallowing Atlético's goal, but once rewatched the incident, Zwayer could have confirmed the original decision, so under this point of view you are wrong. VAR decides, without main referee's intervention, only in case of objective situations (offsides, inside / outside the box...).
DeleteOne thing more about VAR: Premier League needed it years ago! It's a real disgrace what is happening there every week. Tonight, in West Ham-Fulham clash West Ham scored equalizing goal and it was clear handball. Lee Mason allowed it. Later the host team scored another goal. At halftime it should be 0-1, but instead of it - it is 2-1. Maybe this goal will cost Fulham the place in Premier league next season.
ReplyDeleteThis wasn't a CLEAR handling.
DeleteThis is one that is only really visible from a single angle at slow motion (that from low behind the goal -- the 5th and final replay in the clip below). The faster version of that replay (#3) and the one right after both make it look like the head makes contact.
https://streamable.com/n0kth