The Master

No, because his on-field determination was that there was a foul on the defender. He let the play run not because of a lack of certainty, but because that’s what is now supposed to happen under the VAR protocol. Once a potential game-changing event happened, he stopped the play and awarded the free kick that, without VAR, he would have awarded straight away.

He can’t. https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#principles

You and @RandomGuy. seem to have opposing perceptions of time. He thought the referee played on for almost a minute (it was seven seconds), and you think everything was done and dusted in "a split second". There was a full VAR check, announced in the stadium. That check will have included reviewing the incident that the referee deemed to be a foul that led to the award of the free kick. A potential game-changing event did arise, which is what led him to award the free-kick for the original foul. There is no obligation for the referee to give the penalty for VAR to intervene. He makes whatever decision he thinks is correct, and if VAR disagrees they can call him to the monitor. It's fundamentally no different to a player putting the ball in the net, then the linesman flags and the referee gives a free kick for offside. The referee doesn't need to award the goal for the offside to be checked (the only difference is there's no subsequent call to the monitor if the on-field decision is incorrect).

No, the whole reason for delaying was so VAR could review the free-kick should a game-changing event (penalty or goal) occur. At the moment the whistle went to award the free kick, it was still possible for a VAR intervention to lead to a penalty for Aberdeen. The delay was so that if a game-changing event subsequently occurred, VAR could review the award of the free-kick.

As I've said, the fact people are debating whether or not it was even a foul indicates the referee was right to delay. What do you mean "allowed VAR to check for a foul in the build up"? VAR absolutely will have checked for a foul in the build-up - the foul that the referee originally gave. As for the timing of the whistle, I'd have thought that was obvious. The referee believed it could be a penalty, and so awarded the original free-kick (in the same way it would have been awarded if a goal had been scored).

Yes it is. The VAR protocol make specific reference to assistants delaying flags and referees delaying their decisions. The very fact there was a potential penalty demonstrates precisely why the delay was correct.

Of course VAR could - that was the whole point of delaying. Seven seconds elapsed between the foul on the defender and the referee giving the free kick. What do you mean "a foul he wasn't sure about"? He believed it was a foul, otherwise he wouldn't have given it. However, he delayed the decision long enough to ensure that, if necessary depending on the subsequent play, VAR could intervene to ensure he was correct. This is exactly what happened. Because that's not how this works. The referee has to give the decision he believes is the correct one. He believed there was a foul on the defender, but (per VAR protocol) let play unfold to ensure that if he were wrong, any subsequent game-changing incidents would be allowed to stand.

Who said anything about stopping the play at the start of a move while including a delay? Those things are contradictory - either play is stopped at the start of a move, or there is a delay. It can't be both. I also never said referees referee in the "same way" as before VAR. I said they make their decisions as they would have done. No, because it happened after the incident that the referee believed was a foul on the defender. You're the one who introduces the notion of a referee being "certain" or not. As has been said repeatedly, it's exactly the same principle as assistants delaying their flags.

No it's not. The "correct way" is for the referee to make the decision he would have done had VAR not been involved - possibly with a delay. The role of VAR is then to determine if the referee has made an error. By the same argument, had he not given the free kick then VAR couldn't have overruled that either and so the chances of the penalty being awarded were significantly higher. The referee has to make a decision on the field. The referee's decision was that there was a foul on the defender, and the delay was absolutely the right thing to do to ensure that a "clear and obvious error" wasn't made in coming to that decision if something potentially "game changing" went on to develop. I never said he wasn't certain it was a foul. I said it wasn't clear-cut enough to stop play when the ball was in an attacking area. Those two things are not the same. It's not bad refereeing. It was, in terms of process, very good refereeing because it's exactly what the VAR protocol sets out. Whether the outcome was ultimately correct is a separate debate.

No, he believed there was a foul but it wasn't clear-cut enough to stop the game while the ball was in an attacking area. In the same way that an assistant can believe a player is offside, but it isn't clear-cut enough to flag immediately. If he had given the penalty then VAR absolutely could intervene to recommend an on-field review for a foul in the build-up. If, after visiting the monitor, the referee agreed there was a foul, the penalty would be overturned and play restarted with the same free-kick we saw.

You're unlikely to find examples, because you not only need a delayed decision but also something of note actually happening after it. Only then will it make it into highlights packages, and/or be remembered by people at the game.

If the referee believes it to be a clear-cut decision, they'll still blow for a foul immediately, in the same way that assistants still flag immediately for blatant offsides. The very fact people are arguing about whether it was or wasn't a foul tells you that it wasn't a clear-cut decision.

Just because you've never seen it happen, it doesn't mean it can't.

I'm not sure why you think it being in the box makes a difference. If anything, there's more reason to delay the decision in a "crowded box" because more can happen - and indeed, something did happen that led to a VAR review.

The introduction of VAR must have passed you by. Referees can and do allow play to continue before blowing the whistle so that if a goal is scored or a penalty is conceded, VAR can review the foul to determine if it should have been given. If it’s given too early and turns out not to be a foul, the goal or penalty can’t be given.

I’m going to set a new record for self-quoting the same post at this rate.

That’s more of a slight on those referees than Don Robertson. It’s very much what referees should be doing, lest a perfectly legitimate goal/penalty is ruled-out because a decision to give a free kick to the defending team was wrong.

Here, when his arm is pointing to the centre circle:

The free kick was awarded by the referee. But even if a free kick hadn’t been given by the referee, it could still have been given as a result of a VAR review of the subsequently “penalty” foul. That’s how VAR has always worked.

This one was tremendous, albeit stressful. We don’t then talk about what happened in the semi-final.

For the same reason that assistants flag late. Play is allowed to develop so that if the ball ends up in the net or an attacker is fouled in the box, the goal/penalty can subsequently be awarded if a VAR review determines that the original free kick should not have been given.

I think he blew after the second "incident", so it could have been a penalty. But I suspect VAR agreed it was a free kick.