Is interference with play currently the most difficult area for referees? – Whistleblower | Soccer News

VAR is not about perfection.

We would like that, but in reality VAR is a check on the validity of the referee’s decisions on the field. And as referee-in-chief Howard Webb revealed in August, there has been a subtle move to prioritize on-field decisions even more this season. VAR has been told to only intervene if there is an “obvious mistake”. If it is a subjective or questionable decision, VAR will stick to the referee’s decision and remain silent.

This necessarily means that VAR may not agree 100% with the on-field referee’s decision, but if the decision does not meet the criteria of ‘clearly wrong’ then VAR will not intervene. The idea is to prioritize the referee and limit the number of stoppages of play.

In this regard, the PGMO, which oversees the Premier League, is taking a different approach from FIFA, which is considering extending VAR’s involvement to corner kicks at next summer’s World Cup.

Which do fans prefer?

When VAR reviews disrupt the flow of a match and dampen the atmosphere, it’s understandable that frustration arises, especially in the stands. Dissatisfaction arises when referee mistakes are left uncorrected. Combining the two is a very difficult balance.

In the Premier League, certain areas in particular of the game have come under greater scrutiny than ever this season. When a goal is scored and an attacking teammate is in an offside position. This seems to be the most problematic area in refereeing today and has caused much debate.

Why is it so difficult? Offside is an objective fact, so when the ball is played, a player is either offside or onside. However, whether a player in an offside position is interfering with an opponent is a subjective judgment and is up to the referee’s interpretation.

In all situations, the referee and VAR must step-by-step assess whether the level of interference exceeds the threshold for a goal to be disallowed.

The evidence is…

Seven times in the last seven weeks, an attacking player has scored a ‘goal’ from an offside position. In only two of these seven cases did VAR intervention change the referee’s original decision. This highlights how match officials are following instructions from their bosses to only intervene if a serious mistake has been made.

The Key Match Incidents Panel, which considered the overturning of Virgil van Dijk’s controversial goal against Manchester City last month, ruled that while the goal should have stood, it was not a clear mistake and VAR was right not to intervene.

None of the other seven objectives we are focusing on here have been highlighted by the PGMO or the clubs involved, so it is safe to assume that all seven incidents under the KMI Panel’s investigation can be considered to have been correctly addressed.

Remember, these five-person committees are made up of former players and managers, with one representative each from the PGMO and the Premier League. And remember that referee decisions are delicate. This is because, accepting that many referee decisions are subjective and marginal, panels will not say that their decisions are wrong unless they are clearly wrong.

So if those familiar with the matter have determined that officials did not make a mistake in making these calls, why is it so controversial among fans? And Liverpool fans, in particular, have spent the last 14 days claiming that Andy Robertson was accused of interfering offside. How can we accept that Dan Doe was offside and so close to Alisson’s line of sight when Van Dijk’s header was canceled out and Murillo’s goal stood alone in Nottingham Forest’s match against Liverpool?

The answers to these questions are complex, but important.

The system…

First, each case is considered individually by the authorities. Referees do a lot of work to ensure that when making new decisions, they are not influenced by outside sources, previous decisions in the match, or previous events that they may have personally seen or dealt with. And no two events are exactly the same. How is that possible?

In the case of these two Liverpool “goals” (one for, one against), it’s clear that Robertson is lined up head-to-head with Gianluigi Donnarumma, and that Liverpool defenders duck when Van Dijk’s header heads towards goal. It’s a conscious movement. There was therefore no reason for VAR to intervene when a goal was canceled on the pitch. It would be impossible to argue that the referee made an obvious mistake.

In the case of Murillo’s goal, where Ndoye was in an offside position, there are of course similarities to Liverpool’s choked goal against City. But the crucial difference was that Alisson had a clear line of sight when the Forest defender hit the ball – Ndoye was a few feet to his right. Would the goal have been overturned by VAR if the match referee had interpreted it differently and disallowed the goal? Impossible to say. But probably not.

This would almost certainly fall into the category where VAR would not have intervened had the referee gone either way, goal or no goal. This may sound unsatisfactory to many fans and pundits who wish there was a more black-and-white, clear-cut standard for determining whether an attacking player is interfering. But that’s not the system we have, and it’s necessarily subjective in cases like this.

Trevo Chalobah’s goal against Arsenal was another controversial incident that deserves analysis. Sky Sports News revealed in a new angle, which was not shown during the live broadcast of the match, that Enzo Fernandes was in an offside position when Chalova flicked the ball towards goal. So did Enzo interfere with Cristian Mosquera when the goal went in? Many people would feel that he was. There is no doubt that there is some truth to that opinion.

However, the opinion is similar that Enzo did not shock the Arsenal defenders enough to prevent him from reaching the ball. Again, this was a subjective call and although it became clear to me that VAR had reviewed the replay of the incident, he did not intervene again as he felt the referee’s decision could have been taken legally. There is nothing to complain about about how Mr. Webb’s associates covered the incident. Even though many felt the wrong decision was reached by a close margin, the protocols were followed correctly and there were no obvious mistakes.

I still believe that if a goal is awarded on the pitch, there must be a really compelling reason for VAR to get involved and tell the referee that it’s clearly wrong.

Is there another way?

Imagine if IFAB, or the PGMO, an independent body that decides the laws of the game, tried to define more clearly when a goal should be canceled for an attacking player in an offside position. For example, it would be clear if the rules stated that if an attacking player is in an offside position within the distance between the two central goalposts, all goals should be ruled out.

But is that what football wants? Was the 25-yard screamer chalked off because a player was offside on the goal line, a few yards in front of the scorer?

Perhaps instead a rule could be introduced that says a goal cannot be scored if an attacking player is offside in the six-yard box. But what happens if a teammate scores from close range in the center of the goal, but a player commits offside in the far corner of the six-yard area, not even close to the ball?

There is no perfect solution. In this case, there is no single rule that can be put in place to cover all eventualities. So we are stuck with the system that the PGMO is trying to enforce. A subjective system in which match officials determine whether a goal is scored based on their judgment of whether there is interference from an offside player.

At least currently with VAR, the final decision is based on the opinion of the committee, with the referee, the referee’s assistant and the VAR all involved before the final decision is made.

VAR is not a perfect system. That can never happen.

Mistakes happen. Differences of opinion prevail when it comes to determining thresholds. But it is a game of soccer that has been dominated by debate and opinion ever since it became professional in 1885.

When VAR was introduced, many thought it would be the “golden bullet” to end controversy and make the right decisions. It is not and never will be.