Post
by Duffer_ » Tue May 30, 2023 5:33 pm
Pretty much everyone is accepting of referees making mistakes based on a one-off viewing of an incident in real-time. Probably more so if they are at the game rather than watching it on TV because of the absence of replays.
I can completely understand the ref giving no penalty and a red card yesterday based on what he saw. I don't think that makes him corrupt or incompetent. The use of VAR at the game, and specifically the ways in which it is/is not used, make the decisions way more controversial and, one has to hope, inadvertently, heap pressure on referees.
I struggled with the referee not taking a look at the incidents again. It is commonly said that referees cannot ask to see a replay; they must be advised to review it by the VAR officials. The principles and protocols state that a referee cannot use VAR to make an original decision but I cannot see anywhere in those same rules and protocols that say they cannot ask for an on-field review to give them an opportunity to confirm or overturn their original decision. Now it may be that Tim Robinson had a perfectly good view of both incidents and felt highly confident about those decisions. However, given the technology was available and everyone watching knew it was, why didn't he think it was worth double checking, even if it was just for the optics of such a game-changing decision and the smallest shred of doubt? It may be that he felt under pressure to stick to his original decision and taking a second look would appear weak, even resulting in him potentially being marked down by the assessor.
There was a second option: the VAR officials could have recommended he take another look. There are problems with this option too. How can there ever be a clear and obvious error on a subjective decision of whether a challenge is reckless or uses excessive force? And when the referee is asked to look at a monitor by the VAR officials we know that encourages the ref to change their mind. They are effectively being told that, in the opinion of the VAR official, they got it wrong. In the rare instances that the referee sticks with their original decision, the authorities are concerned that this demonstrates inconsistency within officiating. This puts pressure on the referee to rely on the judgement of the VAR officials who, once they have shared their best angle/views, are at a disadvantage to the referee in terms of information to make the best decision.
The upshot of all this is that the technology appears only to be used to undermine the authority of the referee. Technology was available to give Tim Robinson absolute confidence in his decisions and to demonstrate that confidence to the viewers. Somehow the conventions/protocols/interpretations/norms of VAR and the relevant authorities, or his own ego, denied him that opportunity.
I accept that the referee will make mistakes in real-time (no VAR). I also accept that the referee may come to a different conclusion to me having seen a review (with VAR). The level of disagreement on here about the decisions suggest a high level of interpretation and judgement. But I cannot accept that the referee does not, or is not encouraged, to take a second look in these circumstances. How have we ended up with VAR being such a mess that referees are not being encouraged to use it to make the best decisions they possibly can in season defining moments? Where was the downside in Tim Robinson taking a second look and, if he was unmoved, showing that he was confident with the decisions he made?
Sorry, just reviewed before submitting, and hadn't realised that I had channeled my inner LTL. I haven't even mentioned the neutering effect on goal celebrations - bloody VAR!