Quote:
Originally Posted by MIJB#19
Yeah. That's the thing I don't understand: why would you instruct a person to call "check complete"? I'd suspect it would be so much better to grasp to call as you see it: "onside, goal". Because then, when the referee made a mistake, he'd call the VAR back and say: wait, it was onside, not offside? etc.
|
I suspect the answer to that lies in how VAR is structered. This
2019 article with VAR Lead Neil Swarbick mentions how the process would work
The bolded part is my emphasis
Quote:
A Video Assistant Referee can only advise the on-field referee and not overrule them directly. They may only get involved if the referee has made a clear and obvious error.
Below, a ‘check’ refers to any decision assessed by VAR and ‘review’ means a decision the referee is consulted on which may be overturned when play is stopped
|
My guess is that they don't give a clear terminology ruling (like "goal" or "no goal") because they really don't have the authority to make that call, they only have the authority to "check" what was ruled on the pitch. They are "reviewing" or "checking", they aren't deciding anything themselves.
That was probably done to keep referee egos from being even more bruised by VAR.