R6 vs Perth Glory | Sun 2nd Dec | 7pm | Westpac Stadium

As an FYI you are pretty close here but follow the process...... what did you see unfold on TV at the time (as a fan)? What may you have heard through comms (as a VAR)?

Sorry to anyone else if this is boring.

I find all this fascinating and I made my ‘sporting’ career on it. Refereeing is a major part of my life. I just want to add some colour and education to the masses.

From everything I've read the sequence of events went:

- AR: "Foul, foul, foul"

- Referee awards free kick and states "I didn't see it"

- VAR: "You need to review this if you have not seen it"

There have been so many different statements released on the incident that I've lost track but I believe Ben Williams, the director of FFA referees, said that the VAR thought the incident constituted "serious foul play" and, therefore, a red card. On this basis I'm assuming that the VAR thought this was a clear and obvious error as the referee "didn't see it" and was relying on the AR saying "foul, foul, foul".

If I'm right, the problem I have with all of this is that the referee (given that the AR and VAR can't communicate with one another) didn't walk over to the AR and ask him what he saw. If the AR saw the studs connect with the shin, then the involvement of the VAR should have ended there as this would be "intervening in a subjective and technical decision" (I don't think you get to make a distinction that, even though the AR saw it, because the ref didn't see it the decision can be reviewed). If the AR didn't see studs connect with shin, then the VAR should have been involved as both the AR and referee "missed" the incident.

The irony of it all is that Greg O'Rourke told David Dome that the use of VAR in this situation was a mistake and it was determined in post match review that the correct outcome should have been a yellow card for a reckless tackle.

Remember that the referee doesn't have to 'walk over' to talk to AR to discuss what happened as they can do that over the comms. And VAR can hear those comms. Which would suggest that what AR saw/ related to the referee did not cover the full extent of the incident and is presumably why the VAR got involved. 

Many nails on the head! Good work to both of you.

They have comms. AR has said nothing as to the sanction (just as the example I used with the punch) Ref just hears Foul Foul Foul and not yellow yellow yellow/red red red after that. The referee is not walking over to the AR to discuss what he has been told is ‘just a foul’ otherwise, they are doing this a couple of times a game. The only time the referee would most likely go over to chat would be if he gets the red call from the AR because that’s a ‘whoa, hold on. I saw nothing/didn’t see it, what the hell did you see?!?’ Some times officials can see ‘something’ but exactly what that ‘something’ is.

VAR reviews everything, so looks at the clip, sees no sanction has been given, and reviews. That’s a fair process because that gives the on field team first right to sanction and get it right which I don’t think is in dispute. They won’t get involved in yellow card incidents (unless its simulation) and are only getting involved in red card incidents which have been given and incorrect or not given at all. This is key.

So now you have heard the on field team, you see/hear no sanction, and have all the time to review from various replays and slo-mos (including real time speed)

Specifically to the footage available to the Lowry tackle that’s out there, everyone sees him play the ball with his left leg so no disputes there. He plays this roughly 2m from the other player. It’s that the slide continues, on a wet surface, and gets his right leg which was behind him, around. At point of contact, if you freeze frame (which is not ideal) what do you see? You see a player horizontal, two foot making contact with the studs to the side of the leg mid calf. Is that a fair summary? If so, then I’ve just described the basic outline for serious foul play. There are considerations (speed, force, brutality, contact point) which also come into it.

As a coaching point you won’t find in law, the general guidelines are if contact is on the ankle/foot or a downward motion, generally yellow. If it’s bottom of the shin pad and above or movement is horizontal or upward, generally red.

When you have this, you have considerations for serious foul play. Coupled with an AR that sees a foul and nothing else and a referee that didn’t see it, (and most people would be accepting of a yellow as has been mentioned) on the back of ‘just a free kick’ yes that’s a clear and obvious error because most peoples reasonable expectation is a yellow card. Over and above that, the contact point specifically give grounds to red card territory.

I mentioned Ronaldo in the Iran game at WC. Remember the VAR reviewed it down for possible red card. The referee saw the footage and decided himself that it did not meet the threshold for red but was strong enough for yellow so gave Ronaldo a yellow. The referee always has final say on sanction. As someone else mentioned to me, if you are getting a review for a challenge in the middle of the field, the subconscious does say ‘well it only gets reviewed if it’s potentially red’ but the referee does make the final call. I can’t/won’t tell you what the VAR said to the referee other than ‘You need to review this’ (which is pretty obvious)

Sorry Chris but your defence of the indefensible shows what a fudgeing shemozzle the whole politics of officiating is. 

Yup, I don't care how many people told the ref to go look at the challenge or what the process was to get him there. It wasn't and will never be a red card. I accept that there are "elements" but any referee looking at that tackle and producing a red card should not be refereeing high level football. Its indefensible.

There are definitely questions around the process but at the end of the day the wrong decision has been arrived at and this whole analysis has shown how much of a clusterfudge the whole VAR system is. I've gone from a strong VARin to VARout over the course of this season - the refs simply aren't good enough to use it properly and the guidelines in place, based on Chris' comments, aren't anywhere near up to scratch for it to exist in a professional league.

Ok, I’m not trying to defend anyone. You can feel free to think of the decision what you like. 

I am trying to educate around the process that happens. It’s easy to go ‘oh that’s shark’ but with a lack of knowledge and what’s supposed to happen, it just makes those comments look stupid and ignorant. Considering my 27 odd years of experience in refereeing, some of it at a decent level, I do think I offer some valid commentary around education on this which you are unlikely to get from the match officials on the HAL or anywhere else (and i’m not speaking for anyone, just trying to educate). I can stay silent, and you’ll be none the wiser (if that’s what you would prefer). Similarly around perhaps your jobs and what you guys may do, I’m sure you may not be too hot on someone rocking into your office and telling you your work is rubbish without understanding what it is you do or your experience for that matter.

As you can see, it’s not as simple as VAR pushing a big red button and yelling ‘send him off’. If you take anything away, at least let it be around the process that happens.

Im a bit old fashioned and frankly see no need at all for some of the so called improved technology in the game. Can live with goal line technology but when your asking a human to make a decision about something they watch on a screen it all becomes subjective and as has been shown mistakes are still being made. Would rather those mistakes are made in the run of play and NOT after viewing on a screen.

Anyway thats last weeks game time move on and await this weeks FK up 

Devil: Who did Lowry tackle to win the ball cleanly. Who moved out from behind a player into the path of a sliding Lowry? ;-)

How is any of that relevant?

Was not relavent

but it kind of is this, the VAR gets involved and it seems that the refs are either too scared to go against him or they feel obliged to follow their advise/instructions or they feel that they have to act more strictly because the VAR has got involved. Regardless, its pretty obvious that the way VAR is being used is not working.

The Lowry decision is a clear example, looking at the slowmo, freeze frames of the contact loo0ks completely malicious - but it ignores the full event. Lowry first wins the ball, he was clearly going for the ball not the player who was metres away - following that process suggesting that the event resulted in a serious misconduct would suggest that the VAR though Lowry has intentionally continued his slide to make contact with the opposition player. That, for mine is the only time you'd see a red.

Agreeing that the VAR getting involved was fine, the decision falls back onto the ref. Assuming the VAR has not recommended red and just said "take another look" the ref needs to justify why he didn't go to yellow which would have bene the correct result.

Oh I know exactly what you're saying and with the further education provided I've come to the conclusion that, based on the process outlined and the challenge made, the red card is an indefensible decision. Now I have that knowledge I'm far more confident saying 'oh that's shark'. The commentary you're providing is useful and I'm glad to have it but it doesn't make the decision any more correct and, if anything, going through that extensive process and arriving at a red card is an even less acceptable decision and shows that the process, as you've outlined it, is fundamentally flawed. It makes it seems as though VAR is not properly set up to work within established refereeing guidelines.

I find this a useful image to show Lowry at the point of making what some people are calling a 'tackle'. I don't even believe tackle is even the correct word, as that suggests he was in the process of dispossessing an opposition player. Clearly it's a loose ball. There's basically no opposition player within cooee of him. He's more likely to go through his own player at this point. There is a huge difference between a slide going through a player, and it having incidental contact at the end when close to motionless.

Some would have us believe an exaggerated example of if a player is lying on the ground injured and an opposition player doesn't see them and trips over their ankles, that is worthy of review for a red card because their studs were 'up' and there was contact etc

If what happened here is 'correct', then as a coach I'm telling my players that whenever you see an opposition player make any sort of slide, make sure you run towards tripping over their ankles. 

Actually, I'm wondering whether that's why our bench keep getting yellow cards, when they are sitting down and cross their legs with boots on, their studs are up, dangerous play.

Oops accidental this.

the reason it is not a red is the intensity/speed at which contact happens. That's the difference here, between reckless and dangerous, and Chris explains above. There is no concept of intent in law 12. He can intend to not touch the player, but when he goes to ground, gives up control and slides two footed into another player, it's going to end up as judged reckless (yellow) or dangerous (red)

To be fair, that still is taken from a couple of seconds before the actual incident occurs. If you watch it carefully, you can see after Lowry's made the contact with the ball and is already on the ground, he takes another swipe towards the ball with his right foot, misses the ball, and his foot ends up hitting Ikonomodis. It's that second effort from which the kick on the opponent occurs - and kicking an opponent is a foul under LOTG regardless of intent - and there is absolutely nothing incidental about that (when in general, 'incidental contact' means unavoidable contact with an opponent in the process of fairly challenging for the ball, with the emphasis on fairly).

In every match this season we will see several occasions of players leaving their feet and making contact with opposition players, usually far more substantial contact than this. Clearly it's not a red each time that happens, so it's absolutely absurd that this was given, especially to be given upon review.

All I'm saying is, it's a clear foul and not incidental contact. I don't think it's a red card, I think it should have been a yellow.

I'd have to unfortunately agree and say that if Burns and Singh had their shooting boots on we would have won even with all the BS. Both played very well otherwise but couldn't finish what they'd started.

https://www.a-league.com.au/video/ryan-lowry-shown...

 Just so the video is easy to find. And any secondary attempt at playing the ball is discounted. The angle of the slide/tackle is across players not at players until they move.

Firstly, that's a bad angle, as there is a different shot from a different angle that shows that Lowry is looking at the ball as he swipes his right leg. But again, what ultimately matters is that he kicks an opponent, and that is a foul under the LOTG.

IMHO the move movement of the right leg is only to stop it be trapped under his body at an orquid (un natural) angle. And rolls to his left 

(I have never said his stud did not hit the Perth players leg.)   

Can any one post a video clip of libby being taken out on the south west side line in the first 10 minutes of the game 

That angle is perported by FOX to be the angle used in VAR replay to ref

so if I kick the ball and come into contact with a player, that is a foul and yellow card? If so, that’s bloody ridiculous unless there’s some bad intent or recklessness. How on earth you can be called for a foul on someone not even involved in the tackle bewilders me. You can’t tell me the rule is designed for this type of scenario.

well the next issue is consistency across decisions and across the league.

And when forearms into the back of Roy's head will be treated the same way- I often see these carded in other leagues.

Libby's one differed IMO, in while it was a professional foul from behind, nowhere near the ball, the studs couldn't be argued to be anywhere near the challenge.

IIRCC "Studs" has been said to not be mentioned in FIFA laws of the game

There are about four different angles that were used for the VAR replay, stills from them are posted a few pages back.

What the ones I posted by chance LOL

Image 1 Castros foot obscures Lowry's right foot giving the impression he ran into it  :-)

(Hate paper work)

It really depends on the nature of the contact and challenges. ZonkNZ made a really good point a page back that when players go to ground, they have to ensure that they retain sufficient body control to ensure that they're not carelessly/recklessly/with excessive force endangering the safety of their opponents. All the points about playing the ball/didn't intend it/ wasn't looking at the opponent are irrelevant; what matters is the outcome, and whether the player, as a result of careless/reckless/excessive force action committed a foul under the LOTG. 

What? No. The ones ZonkNZ posted.

EDIT: actually on the Twitter link that ZonkNZ posted.

Lols, our forum is great. Very analytical 

The problem with referees is (not you Chris Kerr!) that they know the laws but they dont know the game

It has been mooted that ex A league players should be on the VAR.

Return of Cahill.

Look at Lowry's head, he is watching the ball throughout, There was no intent and I think Castro went into it with the intent of getting a player booked as the ball was well away from him. That he couldn't stop sliding within 3 inches is something else the referee did not consider. Surface conditions!

We don't need education. We need the process not to be so Shark. its not been thought through, its not reducing controversy or ensuring decisions are more correct or consistent. Handball has become a shambles now through over thinking and non helpful guidelines. There is no more consistency than there ever was, and penalties are being given when a speeding ball hits someone's arm. Which is bollocks. 

This is it in a nutshell for me. I can just about tolerate VAR as a tool for correcting obvious officiating errors but when it intrudes on the game to the point of directing an already inexperienced and/or substandard ref to peer at a prejudicial slow mo replay on a tiny tele then, as we've discovered recently with incidents involving the likes of Kurt Ams, Chris Beath and now Adam Kersey the result is going to be a huge misjudgement that impacts heavily on one team and changes the course of the game. And when officials grumpily defend themselves later by saying "technically we were right" you know you are dealing with a mindset that simply isn't in tune with the dynamics of a football match.

As for the whole VAR system it feels to me like there are too many people involved who on a VAR crusade to change the game of football by making it better and fairer. Well I don't think football needs to be made better - it's already great - and as for fairer forget about it, football's never going to be fair, that's part of the fun of it. Lay off the forensics and let the game breathe.