In a powerful statement, Liverpool Football Club has issued a battle cry for justice amidst the controversy surrounding VAR’s decision to disallow Luis Diaz’s goal. Expressing their intent to explore every possible avenue, the club emphasized the urgency of upgrading the system and finding effective solutions to prevent such egregious errors in the future.
Looking back at the events of that fateful day, doubts have arisen regarding VAR’s handling of the situation. Led by Darren England, VAR failed to overturn the decision despite clear replays showing Diaz was not offside. The Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL), the agency responsible for referees throughout English football, has acknowledged the magnitude of the error, describing it as a “significant human error” or a “very serious human error.” As a consequence, England has been relieved of his responsibilities as the fourth official for the Nottingham Forest versus Brentford match on Sunday.
However, Liverpool believes that these actions are insufficient. It has come to light that England was part of a team of referees, including Michael Oliver, who participated in the United Arab Emirates league. Calling for full transparency, the club demands the release of audio communications between the referees and the VAR team in order to uncover the truth.
But where does Liverpool stand from a legal standpoint? Can they pursue legal action in light of this injustice? According to Dan Chapman, partner and head of sport and employment at Leathes Prior, taking legal action appears to be a challenging path for the club. Chapman suggests that Liverpool, with the backing of the majority of clubs, should instead focus on demanding an urgent overhaul of the system and sending a strong message that such errors are no longer acceptable.
Hannah Kent, Senior Liaison in Onside Law’s Dispute Resolution Team, agrees that legal action is highly unlikely to succeed unless there is evidence of corruption or other exceptional circumstances. She explains that initiating legal proceedings would primarily aim to seek formal punishment or the cancellation of the competition. However, should Liverpool attempt to have the match replayed, their chances of success would be slim, and it could set a precedent for other clubs to follow suit.
Sports lawyer Dev Kumar Parmars views Liverpool’s statement as part of a strategic communication plan aimed at influencing others and demonstrating their refusal to be silent victims. He cautions against excessive reliance on legal battles, questioning the motive behind pursuing monetary compensation and suggesting that disciplinary measures be taken by the Football Association against those involved, ensuring they are barred from refereeing future matches.
Stephen Taylor Heath, co-director of sports law firm JWM Solicitors, concurs with the challenges Liverpool would face in taking legal action. As the outcome of the match cannot definitively be proven to have been altered by the disallowed goal, Taylor Heath references the case of Sheffield United in 2008, highlighting the importance of substantial evidence for any legal argument. He concludes that, realistically, acceptance of the error seems to be the only viable option.
Past incidents involving the use of technology in football have raised similar questions regarding process failures. One notable example occurred last season when Crystal Palace was denied a goal due to an erroneous VAR decision. Another incident involved Hawk-Eye technology in Sheffield United’s match against Aston Villa. Although these incidents sparked controversy, no formal legal action was pursued by the affected clubs.
In standing firm and demanding justice, Liverpool’s goal is not to change the past but to pave the way for a brighter future. The club seeks to ensure a better and fairer system that will prevent such errors from recurring. By voicing their concerns and pushing for reforms, Liverpool hopes to set a new standard for accountability in English football.
(HOSSALONSO)
Liverpool have released a statement as a battle cry for justice.
“We will try to explore as many options as possible. Consider the need to upgrade and find solutions to these problems”
Thinking back to the events of that day, the moment when Liverpool had a goal confiscated from Luis Diaz.
There are doubts that VAR, led by Darren England, made a mistake in not overturning the decision after replays showed that Diaz was not offside in any way.
PGMOL The agency responsible for referees throughout the Kingdom of English football. Honestly admit that mistakes have been made. along with marking it as “significant human error” or “very serious human error”
England was later removed from his duties as the 4th referee for Sunday night’s match between Nottingham Forest and Brentford.
That is not enough. It also emerged that England was part of the team of referees from England, including Michael Oliver, who went to work in the United Arab Emirates league. Thursday’s episode
In a statement, Liverpool called for -Full transparency – and no offers to re-compete. PGMOL just wants to release audio communications between the referee and the VAR team.
So how will they find the truth? and a legal perspective What can I do?
The Athletic has tackled the issue and analyzed the possible outcomes.
Asked: Can Liverpool take legal action?
Dan Chapman, partner and head of sport and employment at Leathes Prior, said it was difficult for Liverpool to pursue legal action.
He revealed: “What Liverpool could do, and probably has the support of the majority of clubs, would be to say: -This kind of thing is no longer acceptable – and -it needs to be overhauled urgently-“
“If we look at it realistically, I don’t see any way to take legal action.”
“But sometimes you don’t have to make a strong case. You want a negotiable point.”
“And then use it as a turning point.”
“I don’t see any way it would change the outcome of the game because you can’t prove that the game would have been different if the goal had been counted as a goal.”
Hannah Kent, Senior Liaison in Onside Law’s Dispute Resolution Team, agreed that it was highly unlikely. Where legal action may be successful
He said: “Decisions on the pitch are often not interrupted after the game is over. Only a few exceptions allow intervention. For example, there is evidence of obvious corruption, etc.”
“The aim of the legal proceedings will be to seek formal punishment. or request that the competition be cancelled.”
“If Liverpool are trying to get them to play again, there was very little chance they would succeed. And they weren’t asking for anything like that. Otherwise other clubs will try to do the same.”
Dev Kumar Parmars, sports lawyer and Parmars director, said Liverpool’s statement was part of a communication strategy to help them influence others. and show that they will not be silent victims.
He also says that legal battles have little chance of success.
“What can you make of the lawsuit? Do you want money as compensation from a lawsuit? How much money will you demand? Are you going to do that at the end of the season? Or will you do it to ensure that the people involved in this matter will never have the opportunity to referee football matches again?”
“If the latter is the case then it should be subject to disciplinary measures taken by the FA.”
Finally, Stephen Taylor Heath, co-director of sports law firm JWM Solicitors, agreed that Liverpool will have a difficult time taking legal action.
This is because it cannot be clearly proven that the result of the match would have been different if the goal had been decided.
He referred to the example of Sheffield United in 2008 as a case of comparison.
At that time, the FA’s Judicial Committee ruled that the reason why “The Blade” was dismissed from the Premier League was because of Carlos Tevez, who was wrongly recruited by West Ham United to join the rule.
Taylor Heath further revealed: “Sheffield United were able to convince the committee based on the figures.”
“Tevez is the one who decides between survival and relegation. If you can get to that point, you may have a legal argument. But what if it was human error caused by the referee’s decision? The general situation would be -We can only accept it-“
.
.
.
And have there been any lawsuits related to technology and process failures related to the use of technology before?
There are many examples of VARs making mistakes in their work processes.
Last season, it happened in a match between Crystal Palace and Brighton.
When the visiting team were denied a goal by VAR, with John Brooks marking the wrong Palace defender, causing Pervis Estupilan to be offside.
The most serious incident involving Hawk-Eye technology was Sheffield United’s match against Aston Villa in June 2020.
Only Sheffield United did not proceed with the complaint.
Bournemouth have never done that either, as they were relegated in 2019-20, with Villa benefiting from the Hawk-Eye system. Misjudgment
Speaking to The Athletic after the wasteful incident
Chris Wilder, the manager of the “Double Swords” at the time, believed that the club should push this matter more.
“We withdraw easily.”
“Perhaps if we were then in a group that had to avoid relegation, we might have fought a little harder given the numbers involved in being relegated from the Premier League”
“At the time, we simply accepted it and said, ‘That’s fair.’ Although looking back, we have to say it wasn’t fair at all.”
.
.
.
insist, stand up, fight Not to go back and change the past.
I just want things to be better from now on and forever.
HOSSALONSO
#VAR #scandal.. #Liverpool #fight #legal #battle #PGMOL
