DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 94398--------------------------------------------------
Graham Scott article in The Times
DIR By: magpie1892
Date: August 19, 2025, 12:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A tackle goes in that doesn’t look pretty. As the video
assistant referee, you listen to the referee weighing up his
options to his assistants, who are chipping in with their views,
and eventually you see a yellow card waved in the direction of
the miscreant. Your work begins. An imaginary clock starts
ticking in your head and the sense of foreboding is palpable.
You start reviewing replays in full speed, trying to gain a
sense of what just happened. How much force or intensity was
there? Did the offending player travel from distance? Was he out
of control? Was he off the ground? Was he using one foot or
both? Were his studs showing?
So far, it is inconclusive. Yes, the guilty party has lunged
into the challenge but he got a touch on the ball. One boot was
raised, and there seems to be a glancing blow to the opponent’s
shin. The player has come from close range. A yellow card is
probably enough, just.
A quick glance at the live feed reveals around a dozen players
are in the referee’s ear, jostling with him and each other in a
desperate attempt to get the decision changed or upheld.
Aggressive voices can be heard, albeit faintly through the
referee’s microphone. One lot are protesting that “he got the
ball” – as if that absolves their team-mate of guilt – while the
other side claim that “he’s done him”. Meanwhile, the stricken
victim is still receiving treatment.
With the imaginary clock in your head thumping ever louder, your
pulse quickening and, in the knowledge that everything you say
and do is being filmed by an “integrity camera” in your
peripheral vision, you move to slow motion.
Everything now looks different. The contact is above the ankle,
which is always hard to defend, and suggests a red card would
have been better. The studs appear to be planted in the
opponent’s leg, which looks terrible in super slo-mo or a still
frame.
The assistant VAR (AVAR) sitting alongside you, who has access
to the TV footage, says the broadcaster is focusing on the point
of contact.
In your mind, the tackle deserved a red card. But the VAR’s job
is not to re-referee the game. It is to assess whether the
on-field decision constituted a clear error. At the Premier
League clubs’ behest, the threshold for intervention is high,
and there is a strong desire to avoid sending referees to the
pitchside monitor for “a second look” for fear that would happen
several times in every match.
By now, more than a minute has passed and you can hear the fans’
impatience, cruelly starved as they are of information in the
stadium. A graphic on the big screen saying the VAR is still
considering his options is doing nothing to appease the
frustrated masses, who would much prefer to be watching some
live action.
Everything now looks different. The contact is above the ankle,
which is always hard to defend, and suggests a red card would
have been better. The studs appear to be planted in the
opponent’s leg, which looks terrible in super slo-mo or a still
frame.
The assistant VAR (AVAR) sitting alongside you, who has access
to the TV footage, says the broadcaster is focusing on the point
of contact.
In your mind, the tackle deserved a red card. But the VAR’s job
is not to re-referee the game. It is to assess whether the
on-field decision constituted a clear error. At the Premier
League clubs’ behest, the threshold for intervention is high,
and there is a strong desire to avoid sending referees to the
pitchside monitor for “a second look” for fear that would happen
several times in every match.
By now, more than a minute has passed and you can hear the fans’
impatience, cruelly starved as they are of information in the
stadium. A graphic on the big screen saying the VAR is still
considering his options is doing nothing to appease the
frustrated masses, who would much prefer to be watching some
live action.
The walls and ceiling feel like they are closing in, your mouth
is dry and your brow growing damp. Still inclined to the view
that the referee should review his decision at the pitchside
monitor, you check in with your AVAR. But they are less
convinced and feel that it is an example of “referee’s call” –
in other words, it is in the margins, so better leave it alone.
It is now nearly two minutes since the tackle went in, the same
replays are being recycled endlessly on your screen, and a
decision has to be made. If in doubt, stay out, so you open the
microphone and tell the referee: “Confirming the on-field
decision of caution. Check complete.”
The crowd groans and boos while a chant can be heard revealing
what some fans would like to do to VAR in general, and quite
possibly this VAR in particular. Everyone wonders why the game
had to be delayed for two minutes, only for the original
decision to stand.
After the match, you and your AVAR head to the office, where
referee managers watch all the feeds as they come in. Instantly,
you know how your decision has landed. In the worst-case
scenario, their ashen faces will contain bewildered expressions
betraying their reaction.
You climb into the car and the post-match phone-in is under way.
A platform is only afforded to those who dispute the decision,
for whom it was “stonewall” from the moment they saw the
challenge go in. Callers demand that you be sacked and never
allowed near a football match again. The hosts are always on the
players’ side and join the pile-on.
The following week’s appointments reveal that you have been
“rested” from VAR duties. Maybe you will be fourth official 300
miles from home, packed off to the English Football League or
omitted altogether. Fair enough – referees have got to be held
accountable, right?
Some say former players would be better VARs than those who have
refereed hundreds of matches, but I cannot see it happening.
Players may have an unfair reputation for being a bit thick, but
surely none of them would be daft enough to put themselves
through this ordeal for a few quid.
Graham Scott was a Premier League referee from 2014-25, and a
VAR in more than 100 matches
#Post#: 94399--------------------------------------------------
Re: Graham Scott article in The Times
DIR By: Arbitre anglais
Date: August 19, 2025, 1:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sounds authentic and a great insight. VAR is a tough, specialist
job. A couple of replays should be enough, and they have to be
cool-headed enough to make a decision and stick with it. Tough
gig!
#Post#: 94400--------------------------------------------------
Re: Graham Scott article in The Times
DIR By: bmb
Date: August 19, 2025, 1:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
One of the Hungarian refs I'm good friends with initially stayed
on as VAR after he retired from refereeing and hated it. He said
in his 25+ years of officiating he had never felt such intense
pressure as when acting as VAR and unlike out on the pitch there
is no excuse for error so 100% accuracy is expected. "If you
miss something on the pitch in the heat of the game then
so-be-it but miss something when you have watched all available
angles, real time speed and slo-mo, and with zoom in
capabilities, several times over, you have no excuses."
I miss the lovely Mr Solymosi brightening up the NBI for me
every week...
#Post#: 94402--------------------------------------------------
Re: Graham Scott article in The Times
DIR By: Failed Ref
Date: August 19, 2025, 2:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If there is one thing to come out of Coote's unfortunate
actions, it is that PGMOL are taking official's welfare more
seriously. Here, one is reminded of the pressures of the job and
how it must affect them, some more than others.
#Post#: 94429--------------------------------------------------
Re: Graham Scott article in The Times
DIR By: Leggy
Date: August 20, 2025, 11:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Given the insights from the above article, the PGMOL should
refrain from giving a referee a VAR appointment when they have a
"live" match over the same weekend. It would not be good for
their long term wellbeing.
#Post#: 94431--------------------------------------------------
Re: Graham Scott article in The Times
DIR By: bruntyboy
Date: August 20, 2025, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
2 points from that article:
1. I thought that the VAR team were supposed to watch the game
without any crowd noise so that they couldn't be influenced by
the crowd.
2. It is interesting that in this instance the AVAR seemed to
take quite a lot of interest in the "continuous TV replays" of
the incident so are the Sky (and other broadcasters) editorial
teams in effect able to influence their decision making?
#Post#: 94437--------------------------------------------------
Re: Graham Scott article in The Times
DIR By: ryan80
Date: August 21, 2025, 1:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Leggy link ---
>
> Given the insights from the above article, the PGMOL should
refrain from giving a referee a VAR appointment when they have a
"live" match over the same weekend. It would not be good for
their long term wellbeing.
>
--- End Quote ---
They are paid around £180,000 and there is not capacity for
referees not to double up these appointments
#Post#: 94439--------------------------------------------------
Re: Graham Scott article in The Times
DIR By: DublinRef
Date: August 21, 2025, 2:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: bruntyboy link ---
>
>
> 2. It is interesting that in this instance the AVAR seemed to
take quite a lot of interest in the "continuous TV replays" of
the incident so are the Sky (and other broadcasters) editorial
teams in effect able to influence their decision making?
>
--- End Quote ---
I found that quite troubling. Along with the references during
the Darren England offside error to the VAR manager ‘Oli’ giving
instructions to the VAR to stop the game - it seems the VAR is
not operating in the isolation it should be in my opinion.
Some elements of the article surprised me, and that was
certainly one, I would be a bit concerned that an official would
care a jot what the broadcasters are saying/doing.
#Post#: 94442--------------------------------------------------
Re: Graham Scott article in The Times
DIR By: Failed Ref
Date: August 21, 2025, 4:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Didn't TNT have a problem with their rugby coverage and TMOz
were acting on comments made by the commentators some time after
the offence occurred?
Incidentally, £180,000 may seem a lot but after tax is almost
half of that and, it is a short career.
#Post#: 94443--------------------------------------------------
Re: Graham Scott article in The Times
DIR By: bmb
Date: August 21, 2025, 4:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: bruntyboy link ---
>
> 2 points from that article:
>
> 1. I thought that the VAR team were supposed to watch the game
without any crowd noise so that they couldn't be influenced by
the crowd.
>
--- End Quote ---
I read it as when the referee is speaking to the VAR over the
headset crowd noise can be heard & I believe they keep an open
mic when a VAR check is happening so it would be heard
constantly during that time.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page