The VAR audio of the Jota incident is quite enlightening regardless of how you interpret the situation. Just in terms of how the so-called "AVAR" as it were had already made up his mind about what happened by the time the ref had been brought to the monitor and the referee like a very little boy offered zero resistance to the AVAR's interpretation of what happened.
Even if you think that it shouldn't have been a penalty and the VAR was right to reverse it, this clip should at the very least give you pause and put to rest the idea that the ref is the one making decisions at the monitor. Lets be very clear, the referee did not make that decision. He was told what happened and offered no resistance. He barely even had time to look at the images himself before he immediately sided with the VAR who was instructing him to reverse the decision. Or did he? I'm still trying to comprehend how the ref's statements at the monitor were in any way in support of what the AVAR was saying or in any way consistent with the eventual decision.
What I find quite curious there is what the referee actually said as he was "agreeing" with the AVAR who, in his mind, was describing what happened.
Lets just go through the whole sequence there from the on-pitch decision to the exchange at the monitor just to illustrate how bizarre the communication and rationale seems to be from the VARs behind the scenes as they make a decision.
First the ref says on the pitch "Just a penalty, just a careless foul."
Whether it was a foul or not is certainly up for debate, but it was certainly a "careless" slide tackle from Agbadou, no doubt about that. I mean he completely misses the ball, not anticipating the rightward move from Jota, and Agbadou was also "making himself bigger" with his left arm completely outstretched which could have easily taken Jota's eye out, narrowly missing his head/neck by mere millimetres.
As the VARs are discussing the incident, they say :
"AVAR" "He's not complaining about it."
VAR "There's no complaint on-field from the player."
So apparently, as it would seem, the amount of complaining would seem to be part of the VARs decision-making process. But as it were, it's unclear which player they would be referring to here. Presumably Agbadou, who wouldn't be complaining about the pen notwithstanding the fact that he was, according to the VARs, "kicked" by Jota, and was writhing in pain from it, but more on that later. That would at the very least suggest that surely there was in fact contact, and hard contact, to produce that much pain. But yet, we heard the VARs countless times initially claim that they saw no contact.
Then the so-called AVAR all of a sudden claims "I think he kicks him."
Ahh, the player who had been ran into on the through pass, who narrowly avoided a slide-tackling Agbadou, turning on a dime, is now not only not deserving of a penalty due to this unknown bloke coming to this conclusion, nor is he merely trying to draw contact by keeping the left foot out to catch the defender, in what would be a somewhat instinctive and split second movement even if it were true, but no, now Jota's said to have gone even farther and so-called "kicked" Agbadou. The guy who the ref saw recklessly challenge for the ball, at the very least, now he's the victim of a "kicking" incident.
"He actually dangles the left leg out."
Now he's dangling the left foot. The VARs could really use a thesaurus to think of all the ways they are trying to describe what that left foot is doing. Unbeknownst to them the fact that Agbadou's on the ground following a slide tackle in which he completely missed the ball, while making himself bigger with the outstretched left arm, etc. Notwithstanding the fact that Jota did incredibly well to avoid the man who was clearly out of position. But on we go.
Lets be clear about one thing here. The characterization of what Jota's left leg is doing there and why it is doing what it's doing is completely subjective and open to interpretation. And I get what it can look like in super slow motion and the fact that these VARs are tasked at trying to make sense of it and coming to a conclusion. But their conclusions particularly here are in no way scientific or provable as to what they are alleging occurred here.
They're just trying to piece it together and describe it in any way they can. But that's just this bloke's interpretation. Ya see, he's paid to find fault in the referee, he's paid to offer a different view of what happened, and to communicate that to the referee at the monitor, and for the referee to accept that straight away with no questions asked, with no input from his end.
Another interpretation of what cause Jota's left leg to do what it did and collide with the defender is that (perhaps) the momentum of the turning motion of Jota and the fact that he was trying so hard to plant that left foot before he was ready to plant it (to avoid stepping on Agbadou) would have caused the left leg to move out wider in the way that it did which ended up catching the backside of the defender that surely would have been enough to bring him down. Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't my official interpretation of what happened. I'm just speculating on another way in which this could be interpreted, to support the ref and his on-field decision, and guess what? The VARs are speculating here too as to what caused that left foot to move in that way, so that works both ways. I could see how they came to that conclusion, how they speculated that perhaps Jota dangled that left foot out a bit trying to gain contact. Fine, but that's unprovable from their perspective, and more importantly, that doesn't make the contact that did clearly occur any less significant.
But, to accuse Jota of "diving" that would suggest that there was no contact whatsoever which clearly wasn't the case. He was in the process of turning and trying to avoid a slide tackler. That much is clear. Whether he instigated that left foot hitting the body of Agbadou or whether it was his own turning momentum and the way he planted that left foot
prematurely to avoid Agbadou that caused the left foot to move wider, we'll never know. That can't be proven. That's 100% subjective and open to interpretation. But what's not subjective, what's factual is the fact that that was a "clear and obvious" reckless and missed slide tackle that produced contact with the left foot of the attacker.
Any contact however slight while turning at that angle could well cause you to go down, given the high rate of speed and the sharp turning movement that was occurring there OK. The defender recklessly missed his slide tackle, he put his body in between Jota and the goal, Jota does well to avoid him and turned at a very sharp angle only to have his left foot caught on the backside of Agbadou as he's turning and he quite reasonably goes down.
BUT "HE DOVE" "THAT CHEATING DIVER" NO NO "HE KICKED AGBADOU" "THE POOR INNOCENT AGBADOU MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS" "AND HE PLAYS FOR LIVARPOOL TOO MAKING IT WORSE".
This is what VAR does to football. It assigns motives and intent in situations that are happening too fast for anyone to reasonably make such conclusions. But my friends, these are the the kinds of conclusions that the VAR numpties come to, out of nowhere but their own mind.
And then he calls the ref over to the monitor as if they're gonna have a discussion about this. But there was no discussion. The ref was told what happened before he even had a chance to confirm it on the monitor he's already agreeing with the so-called AVAR it would seem. Or was he??
The statements that the referee makes at the monitor are quite curious. After he's told what the AVAR said happened, the ref says in response :
"Defender goes in, just looks like a stonewall decision and takes him out, from where I am."
^^ Now really think long and hard about that statement. It's as if he's disagreeing with the AVAR and wanting to unhold his decision. But you would never know by the tone of the exchange and the subsequent decision. What does a "stonewall" decision mean? We know what a stonewall "penalty" means. Now we have stonewall decisions it would seem, as if this was anything close to a "stonewall" anything which it clearly wasn't.
But this is part of the ref's statement as he's agreeing with the AVAR to reverse his decision. As the ref is (seemingly) describing (in direct conflict with that agreement) what he actually saw on the pitch, which is would be "Defender goes in, takes him out, from where I am".
As in, Agbadou went in, and took Jota out, which is precisely what he saw on the pitch. He said that as he's about to walk away from the monitor and reverse his decision.
Think about this for a moment. What he said there was in support of his on field decision. The ref even said before that he "didn't see that" (as in what the AVAR saw) yet that's all she wrote and we go to a drop ball to the keeper.
I don't want to ever hear again that the referee at the monitor is the one making the decision. If you didn't know any better, you would have thought that the referee right there at the monitor decided to stick with his on field decision and reject what the AVAR was saying. I mean that's what the ref's statement there at the monitor would have suggested. Yet the complete opposite happened, with no relevant response from the ref other than "I didn't see that", i.e. what the AVAR saw. This is a complete insanity from a communication and logic standpoint.
Now look guys, I'm not here to defend LIVARPOOL VAR decisions OK. I know full well how many times they've benefitted from VAR. And I'm not even really arguing that Jota deserved a penalty here. I'm admittedly a little conflicted over this one. But the idea that he "dove" "blatantly" is utter bollocks OK.
Now, did he "dangle" that left foot out a bit to get that contact and go down? ARGUABLY OK. ARGUABLY. But we can't know that, that's an entirely subjective idea, that that AVAR came up with entirely on his own, and the referee at the monitor didn't push back on that even one iota nor did he say anything that supported the reversal. In fact, everything the ref said at the monitor was in contrast to what the AVAR was saying. Yet the decision gets reversed anyway. But we're told the referee is who makes the decisions at the monitor? The referee there by his own statements had absolutely no clue what the AVAR was arguing, he didn't confirm it, even sort of denied it by what he said, but then he ends up going along with the AVAR anyway. This is dysfunctional. That exchange at the monitor between the AVAR and the referee and the decision that followed makes no logical sense whatsoever.
The referee went along with it while saying that he didn't see that. I mean, wow. If that isn't half-bent I don't know what is. And to be clear, I'm not even really referring to the decision itself, which I would say is certainly arguable as a no-pen, from what would seem to be only slight contact, and perhaps the idea that Jota put his foot out a little trying to draw contact.
That's arguable! I get that.
And then at the end of the video we hear from Howard Webb and he proceeds to go a step further to suggest that not only was the decision to reverse the penalty correct, which actually came from the guy standing next to him, but that according to Webb, Jota deserved to be yellow carded there!
A yellow card for Jota there? Really? Are you kidding me? We've gone from a stonewall penalty (from the referee's own mouth) and undoubtedly a reckless challenge by the defender, then to a no-pen decided by the AVAR despite contradictory statements from the referee at the monitor despite seemingly tacid acceptance of the AVAR's interpretation, to Howard Webb then claiming that, in his mind, that Jota should have been yellow carded for that?
As if he threw himself down on his own. As if he wasn't running at full speed after being shoved in the buildup by another defender, as if he didn't just turn on a dime to avoid a reckless slide tackling defender. Even if he dangled the foot about trying to catch some contact on the way through, so what? Does that make him a cheat? Does that make him worthy of a yellow card? Putting aside his so-called reputation of being a so-called diver, or embellishing as it were, or playing for LIVARPOOL even. Just looking at the situation objectively, there is no human being in their right mind that could argue that Jota left foot alleged dangle would be deserving of a yellow card, even if he did do that intentionally which is unprovable. He's been accused by the AVAR of "kicking" Agbadou simply for trying to create an opportunity on goal and skillfully avoiding the slide tackle.
As if the out of control slide tackling defender had nothing to do with it, as if Jota was the one who committed a foul there himself. I could publish a book on all the problems in that whole bollocks and endlessly subjective decision-making process that somehow led to that reversal, but this essay is enough. Even if you agree that it shouldn't have been a penalty, seeing that VAR audio clip exposes VAR as the dysfunctional system that it is. Everyone with a different opinion, everyone trying to jump to conclusions, assigning motives to players going down, being accused of allegedly dangling a left foot whilst turning at full speed while trying to create an opportunity in the box while moving and turning at high speed to avoid a slide tackle, after being shoved in the buildup, which according to Webb was not only not a penalty, but deserving of Jota receiving a yellow card (a wild statement). When it comes to VAR and how they arrived at this decision, as if the proverbial right hand had no idea as to what the left hand was doing, yet a decision ends up being reached somehow with a seemingly confused, conflicted and unsure referee as to what is even going on or how the decision was reached.
Stonewall "decision" my arse. Stonewall "anything" there my arse.
