Question Number: 35168

Mechanics 10/18/2023

Crebs Crem of Zagreb , Croatia asks...

Hi,

In the following case, should VAR intervene?

Player B7 crosses the ball towards the opponent's penalty area, after B7 hits the balls, player A3 commits a late tackle and clearly fouls B7 but the referee misses the incident. Then, player B9 heads the crossed ball towards the goal but player A5 intercepts the ball, starts a counter attack and team A scores. At this point, should VAR say that there is a foul in the attacking phase of play which lead to goal?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Crebs,
if a referee MISSES an incident that CLEARLY is a foul or misconduct, the ARs even 4th should ALSO be on his radio, identifying the incident. As AR I would get referee eye contact and tap my shirt pocket for yellow and back pocket for red on fouls I felt should be so. The referee could discount the input based on his own line of sight and evaluation but the important part is sharing what you do know, the assist part of our duties!

I would also raise the flag for a CLEAR foul if I -knew- the referee had missed it, not decided to play on or discount it just as the VAR could indicate to the referee there is an issue but might not be aware the referee missed it. The VAR could suggest, ohhh wow that late tackle by #3 looked bad did you catch that? NO? You should have a look. Well before the goal because the earlier a referee is aware of a problem, the better chance to resolve it, before a three ring circus is underway. Taking away Goals is NOT a good look!

As seen previously even with constant communications and feedback things can get discombobulated and a ugly stain on the game occurs. VAR suggests a look, they do not command the referee looks, but only a foolish referee discounts valuable neutral input. The whole concept is to get the calls right. Not appease egos or make one look bad or good!

The LOTG require a team scoring a goal to NOT have infringed these laws prior to doing so. So if the VAR info has been tardy and yet as NEW info that goal could be erased and the restart back at the point of the foul as NO restart has yet occurred! There will be dissent but it is the correct restart based on actual events .
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Crebs
Video technology is only used to correct clear errors and for missed serious incidents in defined match-changing decisions: goal, penalty/no penalty, direct red card and mistaken identity (e.g.the referee cautions/sends off the wrong player).
For goals, penalty incidents and DOGSO offences, the referee can review the play as far back as the start of the attacking move which led to the incident and, if relevant, how possession of the ball was gained at the start of that phase of play.

Now at the Pro level a referee crew should not be missing a late challenge so either the AR, 4th official will be shouting late challenge on the mikes and the referee has to decide if there was sufficient advantage for play to continue with the ball going to B9 in which case the matter is over perhaps until the next stoppage in which case a card can still issue to A3 if the challenge was deemed reckless.

As the goal phase began after a header towards goal by B9 that under the guidance is when the attacking move began. IFAB does not want play to be going back for a lengthy period just the start of the attacking move. In this case after B9 had a header towards goal.
If the late challenge merited a red card for serious foul play or a caution for reckless then VAR would be advising the referee to stop play to review the incident at the on field monitor in which case A3 would be cautioned / dismissed and the restart would be a direct free kick to Team B. It should not get to a goal at the other end by Team B .

If it was a questionable foul only and Team B having a header at goal it is unlikely that play would be brought all the way back to maybe a careless foul on B7. The decision will rest on the determination if the offence by the attacking team was in the build-up to the goal.
I personally think that the best option is for play to be stopped quickly in a neutral zone and I would say once the header was completed and the ball cleared for play to be stopped and the late challenge to be dealt with provided that the challenge was in a card category. A late coming together or a doubtful challenge is not a reason to use VAR.
Finally not every situation will be clear cut. If the header was cleared off the line by A5 then that is going to be considered a good advantage. Also if the late challenge merits a card allowing play to continue is not going to sit well with the conceding team.
VAR is not refereeing by video yet a tool to assist the referee crew at the highest level. Experienced referee crews at the Pro level using VAR need to be getting card situations in real time whatever about questionable contact in the build up to an effort on goal. If a card situation is missed then play should be halted in a neutral zone fairly promptly and the matter dealt with.

Maybe another way to look at it is if the B9 header ended up in the goal or a very good advantage would play be brought back to the foul? I don't think it would so VAR will judge accordingly.