At first glance Clip 5 looks the closest to how it played out except there is no touch by another attacker before the defender plays it, there was time to see it coming so it is a deliberate play at the ball, and the pass in was not on goal (so no question of a save involved).

Watching the replays again after seeing the IFAB clips I cannot imagine the feeble touch Buhagiar made on the ball would count as a shot on goal which makes Nigro's contact less likely to be considered a save.

Maybe they considered Nigro's action an 'instinctive reaction' in sticking out a foot or even an 'unexpected ball' given it came from an obvious mishandle by Buhagiar. I am going with a bit each way - Nigro could not have expected anyone to stuff up as much as Buhagiar did and instinctively struck out at the unexpected ball. In the game context there was no time to think after Buhagiar's mishandle so it is not too far off in principle - just a reflex foot stuck out.

I just saw your post about body shape and non-instinctive. All I can say is that VAR may have considered it 'instinctive' in the end and that is what took them so long to decide.

Happy to understand it more and leave it at that - unless we get lucky and an explanation is offered.

Yeah that's fair.

I'd like an explanation myself from the VAR blokes even if it was 'we were wrong'. And if not then I'd learn something.

These discussions are good though because you can download the IFAB laws of the game and none of this 'guidance' stuff is in there unless you know where to look. 

Cheers.

Had a late thought (not deliberate - just came to me I am afraid).

VAR can only overturn clear and obvious errors.

I think the assistant simply missed the Victory contact and flagged offside, which was accepted and called by the onfield ref.

VAR looked at it and decided that it could be argued on some level that it was a combination of reflexive and instinctive reaction to the bumbling of Buhagiar by Nigro, could possibly have been called 'not deliberate' and therefore not a clear and obvious error. Ref and assistant got it wrong on one set of facts, VAR upheld it on a loose interpretation of other facts. Best result would have been show the ref the video with Nigro's contact and he probably would have overturned it himself.

Nothing new to learn for refs. Something new to learn in the VAR box about giving the ref the info to review their own decision. If the ref had called it a goal VAR would have upheld that decision too.

I can sleep with that.

Thanks for the explanation. During the game I could not help thinking that the decision was so poor, and after so many looks at it, that I must be missing something. The commentators simply said it should have been a goal and seem to ignore it from then on. It would be nice to have better coverage to get some sort of explanation. 

And as a side point, the quality of the commentators really hurts the A-League in my opinion. That was an exciting game at 5-3, yet the commentators were quite dull and boring. There were some big calls and controversial moments, which just seemed to pass by with little drama or excitement. The commentators are there to held build the drama of the event. These things actually matter and present an image to the less committed viewer.  

This is what I said initially.

This is also why they tell the AR's to delay their calls for offside. If he flagged before the ball was crossed then yes I agree that could have played out like you said.

If he raised it after then it should have been allowed.

It'd be interesting to see when old mate the lino lifted his flag.

It is where the VAR role goes so wrong in my opinion.

I am running with the ref thinking only Jets touched the ball. If VAR ruled on what the ref used for his decision they must have said onside after Nigro's touch.

If the ref had called it a goal they wouldn't have overturned it (I am sure of that), so the error cannot have been clear and obvious. The only clear and obvious error to me was that the ref missed the Victory touch.

I thought offside was considered to be a matter of fact rather than an interpretation, and so not covered by the clear and obvious error scenario that is considered (although sometimes it appears to be only when it suits!) for things like fouls and handballs. For example, if someone is offside by 1 cm then they are still offside, even though a decision that close could be considered not to be a clear and obvious error.

The line is black and white for where offside is drawn I agree. But the parts where a player in a clear offside position may or may not actually be considered offside based on their impact, involvement and advantage on the play before they may be played onside by an opponent is far too subjective.

For a ref on the run to adjudicate on multiple points about the 'deliberate' playing of a ball, on top of every other moving part in the melee, is clearly going to result in decisions based on their experience, their refs (brain) muscle memory, their feel for what is happening in that moment - and they are going to make a judgement. That to me is a valid judgement whatever decision is made as it represents what they see in that moment. For VAR to try to introduce fact into that is impossible - there will always be two sides to every involvement when the question is about reflex, reaction, expectation and the like. VAR must always support the refs initial decision in that because it cannot find a clear and obvious error in a subjective decision. The only thing VAR can adjudge clearly is information like we saw in Victory v Jets - who touched it last and who was in a potential offside position physically at that moment.

I don't know all the limitations on VAR involvement and powers, but to me VAR should have looked at the footage, noticed that Nigro touched the ball last and not Buhagiar, then advised the onfield ref to review the footage and see if that changes what he thought he saw. VAR is right to identify the Jets player up front as potentially offside - that is the end of its black and white role and as such really the end of its decision making role. Drawing attention to the Nigro touch would allow the ref to make an informed decision as it may have been a clear and obvious error that the ref missed it. Ref can stick or change depending on whether that was a key factor in his decision. The end result is still the refs call and therefore the right one with all the relevant information. The subjective side cannot be ruled on by VAR - they are not the one making all the other onfield calls in that game so their 'opinion' is irrelevant. That to me is why VAR upheld the refs call when their decision should have been to call him over to look - instead of actually deciding it.

As a side point, I do acknowledge the validity of the opinion I have read in here many times - if they are not gaining any advantage by being offside then why are they standing there...?

Clisby was battling for quite a bit of his early career to  maintain a starting berth. He played a bit as a CB for a while. Haven't sen him play much over the last few years, but earlier in his career never thought he was anywhere near Socceroo selection.

Players can have a purple patch in form late in their  career though - like Ogger did.

It is reported in the Newcastle Herald today that the referee's boss told the Jets on Tuesday that the decision was wrong.

There you go.

Nothing new to learn here then :)