You’ve actually listed many of the sports I would have used for example, only you’ve either misinterpreted my post or their rules: rugby, NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, Tennis, and others have a threshold of “was an error made”, not “was the error clear and obvious”.
Of course the official on the field makes the initial decision, but only in a few leagues (in this case PL) does the video replay team have discretion to decide not to review or overturn based on a determination of *how* clear and obvious the incorrect decision by the on-field officials was.
The PL has intentionally allowed a secondary value judgement (I.e. additional layer of subjectivity) that lowers the utility of video replay.
In fact, with American sport leagues, the video replay team can override on-field officials for certain subjective decisions without having them review the video.
And “conclusive proof” is a completely different (and lower) threshold to “clear and obvious”. The former merely needs to have evidence an error was made; the latter requires a qualitative assessment as to whether the error made is worthy of being corrected.
Hence why it is different to most other major sports, including the originators of video replay (American sport leagues), which have had it for literally decades longer than the PL, as football in general resisted implementing it.
So we are either arguing different points or you misunderstand the difference between “conclusive proof” (was an error made) and “clear and obvious” (is the error of a sufficient level to be corrected) thresholds for intervention.
Sorry, I knew this would be a lengthy reply which is why I delayed making it.
And yes, having re-read your original post I probably did slightly misinterpret it.
There’s no doubt football ( not sure if it’s specifically the Premier League ) has a much looser interpretation of when a video official will intervene than most other sports. But I think the main reason for this is that football is unlike any other sport in the way that virtually all the laws of the game are so subjective and open to an individual interpretation.
Tennis is the polar opposite. Every line call is a matter of fact. It’s in or it’s out. A small child with minimal IT skills and zero knowledge of tennis could be on their VAR equivalent and you would never know.
Rugby League isn’t quite as black and white but the vast majority of calls involve the video referee deciding if the ball was fairly grounded or not. You get the odd controversy where the camera angles available aren’t conclusive. But then he just sticks with the on field decision.
I’m not a big basketball fan but from what I understand if you touch an opponent it’s pretty much always a foul.
I could on but the common theme in all other sports is that they are ruling on black and white decisions most of the time. Did something happen or didn’t it?
And then you get to football. What even is a foul in football? Try describing it in a few words. The law says:
———-
1. Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
charges
jumps at
kicks or attempts to kick
pushes
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
tackles or challenges
trips or attempts to trip
Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off.
——
The most common reason for a run of the mill foul is the first one.
“When a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution.”
We’re all constantly crying out for consistency but how the fuck are two people supposed to work with that and consistently come to the same conclusions?
Which I why I think football has adopted the attitude that a VAR must be sure the referee has made a clear error. To avoid the often quoted “ re- referring of the game” when a VAR is simply deciding what decision he would have given, rather than if the original decision was incorrect by law.
