Decisions - objectives and responsibilities

[TankersleyBlade]

Having had time to reflect on last night's controversy what has struck me is the lack of clarity on who is doing what with regards to decision making (Ref, Lino's, GLT, VAR, 4th official), i.e. responsibilities and what are they trying to achieve, i.e. objectives.

Contrast this with the importance on having clarity on objectives and responsibilities in almost everything we do and most certainly in our working life. Without this clarity things generally don't work very well, people leave things to each other or have the excuse that "it's not my responsibility".

In the case of officiating a football match this is so simple to resolve and i doubt that any football fans would disagree.

We can debate the precise wording of the objectives, but it must be based around getting decisions correct, especially significant ones. The bit where we seem to have got ourselves into a massive mess in the PL is who is responsible for this. There can only be one answer to this, it has to be the on field referee, he has seen the action live and must make decisions as he sees them. If he has any doubts then he must call on the available technical support. At the same time, the the technical support can watch all action live and if they feel the on field team have made an error in a significant moment they can alert the referee who can then check for himself and change his decision if he agrees with them.

This is not difficult, it's not even controversial, it's plain common sense. Yet we get the shambolic apologists for last night, "it's not the referees fault, the technology failed him". I'm afraid that should be BS but the system allows this argument to have some credence because it's unclear where the responsibility lies. We need the relevant authorities to come out now and make a clear statement - 100% of the responsibility for decisions rests with the referee. Only then can we avoid situations like last night with Michael Oliver looking like a rabbit in the headlights knowing he's got it wrong but not appearing to know who is responsible for getting it right!

 

[SuperSonicBlade89]

Aggreed.
My question in relation to last nights match is this:
If the goalkeeper caught the ball in his hands and let's say he fell over to the floor at the back of the net with the ball still in his hands or if he parried the shot and a United player bundles the ball in, would the goal still have counted if his watch never went off? That's the kind of excuse we are hearing that his hands were tied because of the watch not buzzing. But if it was more obvious would it still not count?

Also Hawkeyes "appology" is a load of bs. As it states in their technical manual that the technology has the ability to remove players from goal line decisions and just see the ball.

 

[PokerBlade]

The way I see it, it's about having some proper criteria as for when the VAR team can intervene. The problem last is that it doesn't seem clear from the statements so far that the VAR were even sure if they should get involved over the goal-line tech.

Collaborative decisions are often better than those resting on individuals. The ref on the pitch gets one angle, at full speed, while being required to watch mutliple things. I'm fine if the way we do things is that the VAR team then says "We need another look at that" and then they discuss on their headsets what's happened, whether the ref should view the monitor, whatever.

What I can't be doing with is we've got three teams last night, the on-pitch officials, the VAR team, and Hawkeye, and every one of them seemingly has a somewhat legitimate reason for abdicating responsibility (VARs being the weakest excuse). If there'd been proper communication between the parts, and they were all taking their burden, there's no way the correct decision isn't arrived at on review. But it's seeming like the refs didn't even know the tech could fail, that Hawkeye has no failsafe if it's cameras are blocked from making a proper decision, and the VAR team didn't even know if they were supposed to be watching.

The whole point of having these three groups is that because we know mistakes can be made we back them up to help can make better decisions. The point is NOT so that whichever party makes the mistake can say "Tough luck, not my fault".

 

[SittingontheBall]

You’re exactly right Tankers.
The root cause of all the issues with technology this year is dilution of the on field ref’s position.
There is one person should carry the can for this and that is Mike Riley.
He is the one responsible for the VAR debacle, insisting on our own English version when it appears to work fine everywhere else. He also carries overall responsibility for performance of PGMOL.
Why is there no need to change the system which is reported as being the PGMOL’s position on this? Mike Riley.
He was poor as a referee and is totally unsuited to lead PGMOL.

 

[TankersleyBlade]

You’re exactly right Tankers.
The root cause of all the issues with technology this year is dilution of the on field ref’s position.
There is one person should carry the can for this and that is Mike Riley.
He is the one responsible for the VAR debacle, insisting on our own English version when it appears to work fine everywhere else. He also carries overall responsibility for performance of PGMOL.
Why is there no need to change the system which is reported as being the PGMOL’s position on this? Mike Riley.
He was poor as a referee and is totally unsuited to lead PGMOL.

When the tech arguments were being had before they were introduced much of the commentary was about "helping the referee". Instead we seem to have introduced it in a way that makes them look like idiots. Totally unnecessarily, Mike Riley take a bow.

The PL website now contains an 'explanation'. The bit about VAR is unbelievable........

No VAR intervention
As for the Video Assistant Referee, PGMOL, the organisation responsible for match officials, stated after the match that under IFAB protocol, the VAR is able to check goal situations.

However, in this instance, due to the fact that the on-field match officials did not receive a signal, and the unique nature of that, the VAR chose not to intervene.


My interpretation, "we could have intervened but we couldn't believe what we were seeing so we decided to ignore it instead!!!!!!!" Unbelievable!!!

 

[robbiez666]

If they want to use VAR, why not use it properly for the rest of the season? There are no crowds to keep waiting. Once in a lifetime opportunity to see how it works. Sky gets the extra advertising revenue from all the delays.

 

[Jonboy60]

As has already been said, toe offside 10 mins, clear goal zilch.

 

[BusheyBlade]

I don't even think it's about objectives and responsibilities. It's about the referee using a bit of common sense. He has the technology to talk with his assistants, the 4th official and VAR. All it needed was a quick word to the others "lads, not sure about that one. It might have been over the line but the watch didn't buzz so I can't give it straight away, but do you mind just having a quick check on the replay just to be 100% sure?" Why he didn't do this is beyond me.

 

[west_yorks_blade]

I don't even think it's about objectives and responsibilities. It's about the referee using a bit of common sense. He has the technology to talk with his assistants, the 4th official and VAR. All it needed was a quick word to the others "lads, not sure about that one. It might have been over the line but the watch didn't buzz so I can't give it straight away, but do you mind just having a quick check on the replay just to be 100% sure?" Why he didn't do this is beyond me.

And equally, those VAR boys sitting around having a brew in front of multiple screens clearly showing a goal had been scored didn't think to act as .. Assistant Video Referees.. and say something to the ref.

Jizzing at the chance to rule out a goal because in an earlier phase of play someone on the wing had a 24 inch long clown foot offside, but won't do a damned thing when the world can see the ball over the line. I just can't understand the mentality at play here.

 

[TankersleyBlade]

I don't even think it's about objectives and responsibilities. It's about the referee using a bit of common sense. He has the technology to talk with his assistants, the 4th official and VAR. All it needed was a quick word to the others "lads, not sure about that one. It might have been over the line but the watch didn't buzz so I can't give it straight away, but do you mind just having a quick check on the replay just to be 100% sure?" Why he didn't do this is beyond me.

I agree with what you say, these things should have happened, but i don't think there's anything like enough clarity as evidenced by all the commentary since - "not the refs fault" "unusual circumstances so VAR didn't intervene" etc etc.

Let's just have it very clear - it should be 100% the referee's responsibility (using all available technology) to get his decisions correct. If Michael Oliver had that in his head i can't believe that given our reaction at the time he wouldn't have gone to VAR. If VAR know it's their responsibility to avoid any howlers i can't believe that they don't contact the ref.

At Villa both the referee (and his lino) and VAR failed in doing their duty. Everyone should know what's expected of them and we should not have anyone saying "that's not my responsibility".

 

[BusheyBlade]

I agree with what you say, these things should have happened, but i don't think there's anything like enough clarity as evidenced by all the commentary since - "not the refs fault" "unusual circumstances so VAR didn't intervene" etc etc.

Let's just have it very clear - it should be 100% the referee's responsibility (using all available technology) to get his decisions correct. If Michael Oliver had that in his head i can't believe that given our reaction at the time he wouldn't have gone to VAR. If VAR know it's their responsibility to avoid any howlers i can't believe that they don't contact the ref.

At Villa both the referee (and his lino) and VAR failed in doing their duty. Everyone should know what's expected of them and we should not have anyone saying "that's not my responsibility".

Just like in cricket when players don't walk or claim a ctach that has bounced just in front of them, the players generally know when they're in the wrong. One glance at the Villa keeper and the defenders around him would have given the ref enough doubt to check upstairs.