A-League, VAR: Refs chief explains why penalty call was correct

Football Australia’s Head of Referees Jon Moss has confirmed the decision to award Melbourne Victory a contentious penalty in Saturday night’s clash with Adelaide United was correct – and explained the ‘red herring’ that has been misunderstood in some quarters.

The Victory were awarded a penalty in the 71st minute when Daniel Arzani went down under a stretching challenge from Panagiotis Kikianis as the Reds protested that the defender had actually gotten a touch on the ball.

Referee Shaun Evans initially awarded a corner before a VAR review saw a penalty given, which was converted by Arzani in a moment that triggered a momentum swing. Prior to the spot kick, Adelaide led 3-2 and they went on to lose 5-3 as Victory laid on two late goals.

Speaking after the match, Reds coach Carl Veart and senior player Stefan Mauk spoke out against the decision, but Moss maintains his referees got it right, explaining that in this instance it was actually irrelevant whether Kikianis touched the ball or not.

“Yeah, I think it’s a penalty first and foremost,” he explained to aleagues.com.au.

“The referee on the pitch is unsure if there’s a touch or not, he thinks there might be. And then it goes to VAR.

“Basically the VAR then goes through the process, looks at all the camera angles available, and decides that they can’t be sure that there’s any contact whatsoever.

“I know (on) TV, the commentators thought there was a touch, but the camera angles we have, the footage available, it doesn’t appear to be the case.

“The VAR goes through a number of angles, looks at a couple of things, and then decides to call the referee over to have a look. The referee goes through a number of things at the screen, and talks through it, and then decides to overturn it.

“I think the important thing to realise is just because you do get a touch on the ball… nine times out of 10, that would probably be enough to stop it from being a penalty if it was a defender.

“But there’s a continuum of touches, so if we’re having to go to ‘he might have just nicked it with his studs’, which is basically what we’re saying here, and then you still wipe the player out, then there’s not enough of a touch to warrant it not being a penalty kick.

“Similarly, any touch doesn’t negate … so, if I went into a tackle, I topped the ball and I went through the player (with) studs high into the knee that would still be a red card and a penalty, because the touch is a bit of a red herring. It doesn’t make any difference.

He added: “When we ask the referees to think about if a defender gets a touch, it’s more than likely not a penalty, that’s when you clearly see a massive deviation of the ball, and it’s part of the tackle.

“He swipes at the ball, might get a slight touch, but then wipes the player out completely.

“It was interesting in commentary, the commentators thought that’s a nailed on penalty. They looked at (it from) behind, yeah, 100% penalty.

“And I think Shaun (Evans), the referee, had a sense of it.

“As soon as the VAR speaks to him, he turns around and knows that he’s going to the screen, because as a referee, sometimes you make the wrong call, and you can tell by the players’ reaction that it isn’t correct.

“So I think it was the right outcome. I think if there is a touch of any sort, it’s not enough. It’s a clumsy tackle, warranting the guy getting fouled, and for me, it’s a penalty.”

Speaking after the match to AAP, Adelaide head coach Carl Veart vented his frustrations, suggesting ‘officials always seem to back themselves’.

“Have you ever seen them come out and say, ‘yes, that was completely wrong’? They will always find an excuse,” he said.

Moss has labelled those comments ‘disappointing’, while pointing out two clear lessons that have been passed onto his refereeing team as a result of this incident.

“When you ask people their opinion straight after a game, and one team’s won and got the benefit of a decision and one team’s lost, obviously, there’s a bias towards that,” he said.

“I think anyone watching the game live, your first impression is that’s a penalty kick.

“Obviously, Melbourne Victory thought it was a nailed on penalty, and we got the correct outcome. Adelaide thought differently.

“The most disappointing thing for me was the comments from the manager to say that we always back our referees, and we’ve demonstrated a number of times this season when we’ve come out and explained things, that isn’t always the case.

“If we think we’ve made an error, we own it, and we try to put out an explanation of why that might have occurred and say so, and we’ve spoken to the clubs through the course of the season, so I don’t think that was quite true.

“We spoke to Adelaide throughout the match. We had contact with them and gave them an explanation. They didn’t necessarily agree with that explanation, but I understand that, because we’re having the conversation when the decision is really raw.

“I thought the commentators were fair. That’s what makes football fantastic, you’ve got a subjective decision that splits opinion. I think most people that I’ve spoken to thought that the right outcome was reached.

“I think it’s a couple of learning points for the referee. Our feedback to the refereeing team was that if a player runs at you asking for a penalty, we expect that player to be cautioned.

“And also, could the language we use coming from the screen be a little bit better?

“So if we just said there was a foul by the Adelaide player and then awarding a penalty, then that stops the discussion around, is there a touch or not a touch.

“It’s very difficult for us in the moment to explain the rationale behind whether the touch is important or not.”