Last week I wrote about some of the trials, past and present, that precede the introduction of most new laws.
I mentioned VAR, which was slightly different because FIFA was determined to use it in the 2018 World Cup, following the obvious error over Frank Lampard’s disallowed goal in 2010.
I only received limited information about the six nations involved in the trials, except from the MLS in America and Canada.
Here it was introduced by England’s former World Cup Final referee, Howard Webb.
What I liked about it was that it stuck to the principle of the instruction of VAR which was ‘clear and obvious’ errors.
For example, if there was a possible offside, and if the referee after viewing the monitor didn’t think it was clear and obvious, he didn’t give it.
Howard Webb’s own view is that if you have to look at the defining replay more than twice, it can’t be obvious.
When it was introduced into the Premier League, the PGMO took a different view.
For instance they decided that the referees would not view the monitor but leave the decision to the VAR and to use a spurious line across the pitch to judge offsides.
When I queried with one PGM referee their decision to judge offside by the nearest foot to the line, he replied, ‘that’s the law Dick’.
But of course it isn’t the law which talks about any part of the head, body or feet (but not including the hands/arms).
So a defender’s head might be nearer than the attackers foot but that wouldn’t count. Does this sound like clear and obvious or even in accordance with the law?
When FIFA took control of the use of VAR, they immediately instructed Premier League referees to view the monitor on the basis that otherwise it was a breach of the laws, which say the referees decision is final.
The PGMO are now using two lines for offside decisions but say these have improved the accuracy of the system.
If used last year, and this is the PGMO figures, 20 disallowed goals would have instead counted. I rest my case.
By Dick Sawdon Smith
