Why everyone, and not just Liverpool, has a stake in Pickford’s VAR error

At a controversial moment in Saturday’s Merseyside Derby, Jordan Pickford made a dangerous challenge, seriously wounding Liverpool defender Virgil Van Dijk in the process. Most observers seemed to agree that it was a tackle worthy of a red card. However, despite foul play suggestions and a lengthy video review by the assistant referee, the Everton goalkeeper avoided red and remained on the field.

So what actually happened to the VAR verification in the Pickford challenge? And besides, why does it matter?

Unpacking the possibilities

One of two things could have happened in the Pickford incident: either VAR official David Coote reviewed the tackle for a direct red card after the VAR ruled “No Penalty – Offside” and decided that the tackle did not constitute a direct red card. or the referee forgot to complete this review and instead did not realize that a red card could be given for serious foul play even when the ball is out of play.

Although both options are human error, they differ in the root cause, if not the outcome. In the first instance, the VAR official would have made a subjective error, which is debatable: he would have decided, with his better judgment, that the foul did not require an ejection (and regardless of the dead ball vs. in play situation, the VAR cannot award yellow cards).

The second, however, constitutes a process error, with the VAR officer failing to complete the necessary review at all (neglecting choose to review instead of making a decision that may be wrong). It is worth noting that these reviews can and should be requested by the match official, so Michael Oliver, who saw the challenge and is familiar with the VAR protocols, is directly involved in these review decisions. This specific element of the controversy could provide support to those who want greater transparency in communications between officials, as is standard in rugby where official discussions are broadcast.

Initially, the reports were contradictory, as ESPN’s Dale Johnson (known for his Twitter-based VAR threads that reveal the complexities of calls that can confuse the average soccer fan, or pundit) reported caused it to be confirmed that the second option had occurred, a non-review (or: processing error). However, The athletic reported three hours after the work I was reviewed and a “no red card” decision made (or: subjective or debatable error).

These conflicting reports could have resulted from the complexity of the wording and the complexity of the situation itself. or due to different reports, as the tackle I was reviewed for a possible penalty and the question is whether he was also reviewed for serious foul play.

It appears that initially there were conflicting reports: Liverpool FC was first told by a senior Premier League official that no verification had taken place, but Mike Riley of Professional Game and Match Officials, Limited (POGMOL) later emailed him. to the club saying the incident had been reviewed. for a red card.

Finally resolving the matter, The times reported Monday in no uncertain terms that it was, in fact, the former, a process error, which occurred after they tried to get to the bottom of the problem:

“The times made his own inquiries on Saturday and was initially told that no red card verification had been done. Further correspondence indicated that the VAR examined the incident for a possible penalty, but once it became clear that Van Dijk was offside, that was when the verification was completed.

“Then it was suggested that while Coote had seen the challenge, he was concerned about the offside decision and did not look at the tackle in detail.”

This conclusion, process error rather than subjective error, makes sense given that the VAR protocols in effect this season tell us that if the tackle had been reviewed for a red card for serious foul play, center official Michael Oliver would likely have consulted the monitor the court, since the VAR protocols establish that “for subjective decisions, for example, the intensity of a foul, interference in offside, handball considerations (position, intention, etc.), a ‘review in the field ‘(OFR) is often appropriate “.

Fans should expect the use of field monitors (OFR) for these decisions in the 2020/21 season because PGMOL issued specific guidance for their use in red card decisions.

This increased use has been widely noted so far in both Premier League and Carabao Cup matches, and the fact that Oliver did not consult the pitch monitor on Saturday suggests that the red card review never took place.

Photo by Justin Setterfield / Getty Images

While the wording here also suggests subjective human error: Coote is said to have been “too concerned”, a description that seems to intentionally focus on the error of one man, rather than solely blaming Coote, we must remember that Oliver, the officer party leader, has the means and the responsibility both to request a red card review and to confirm that such a review has been carried out.

It is unclear how much communication between Oliver and Stockley Park is available to the rest of the umpire team (assistants Stuart Burt and Simon Bennett, and VAR assistant Lee Betts), but if the channels are open to all members of the umpire team , then these It should also be expected that three officials know the VAR protocols and are able to detect and correct process and supervision errors.

Virgil Van Dijk was injured for more than three minutes, and the challenge took place at the end of the fifth minute, at 4:58, and the ball was back in play at the end of the eighth minute, at 7:55. This interruption should have given the referees sufficient time to detect this error. Instead, Oliver spent the final moments talking to Pickford and Van Dijk as the resumption of play waited for the injured player to leave the field of play and not discuss VAR review decisions with off-court officials.

Liverpool will be even more aggrieved when Richarlison was later given a dead ball red card for serious foul play for his dangerous tackle on Thiago, which came moments after the whistle blew for a foul on Sadio Mané. So it was clear to the referee team that the cards could be handed out after the game had stopped.

Photo by Catherine Ivill / Getty Images

So a process error. Because it is important?

For fans, it may not: the result is the same as Pickford avoids a red card, be it a subjective error or a process error. Indeed, avoiding any post-incident mistakes certainly doesn’t make any difference to the seriously injured Virgil Van Dijk, as the tackle that put him in danger will have come regardless of the outcome.

However, it has serious implications for VAR as it exists in England today. Subjective human error, even when it seems obvious, is inevitable; all humans make mistakes, and none of us would enjoy having our worst workplace mistakes featured prominently on sports pages (as referees have in the past and will continue to do). True, the quality of refereeing could be improved, and a continuing pattern of error on the part of a referee is worth addressing, with many pointing out in the wake of Saturday that Coote has been omitted from games in the recent past due to human error. .

However, we shouldn’t waste our time criticizing Coote. It is important to point out the institutional roots of these continuing mistakes: Coote does not choose himself. Referees are chosen and assigned, and can only perform to the best of their abilities.

Continual errors occurring and not being addressed is an issue, and when these errors are in the works rather than being caused by subjective decisions, fans and clubs need to be concerned. When subjective error patterns occur, fans can and should ask for better refereeing quality. What it would look like (training, hiring, etc.) will vary, and should be discussed and acted upon.

However, when process errors do occur, they suggest that there is not enough understanding, communication, and checks to ensure that the VAR protocols are followed. More people than just the VAR official are involved in an error in the process, as it can be assumed that all officials at work on the day did not call for the necessary review to take place. This is worrying.

The VAR protocols tell us that the validity of the match is not at stake when these errors occur: “In principle”, the Game rules indicates, “a match is not invalidated due to …”

• VAR technology malfunction (s) (as for finish line technology (GLT)
• wrong decisions involving the VAR (since the VAR is a party official)
• decision (s) not to review an incident
• review (s) of a non-reviewable situation / decision

Because these “safeguards” are in place, clubs are powerless to challenge clear mistakes that affect game outcomes (as we saw when Hawkeye missed a “one in 9,000 game” technology error that cost Sheffield United a goal Sure). As such, it is important that protocols are followed at a basic level throughout the day.

If nothing can be done to correct mistakes after the fact, it is incredibly important that every effort is made to avoid avoidable error patterns that create new possibilities for officiating injustices that did not exist before VAR.

While opinions will be divided on how handball and offside rules are judged, and how we can improve the quality of referees for subjective fouls, we can certainly all come together to ask for the bare minimum: that officials understand and adhere to. the protocols they must comply with. enact. On Saturday, this certainly did not happen.