I thought he went over to the screen just to confirm he had blown the 2nd whistle before the ball entered the net...which he did.
He did... but not when he should have done, after the original decision was given...
...he ignored it, reversing that decision without any reference to it...!
Edit: Having realised that I am applying basic common sense about the operational scope of VAR, which is flawed logic in any matter where the football authorities are involved...
...leads me to ask a genuine question: In this instance, did the Ref first have to award the goal, in order to be able to subsequently review it via VAR...?
Hey-ho, in answer to my own question (above) I appear to have stumbled on an explanation for the entire bizarre series of events:
Essentially, I - wrongly - believed the Ref had discretionary authority to review a disallowed goal incident.
However, as it was not a clear & obvious error involving a goal, VAR did not apply to the original 'disallowed' scenario.
He had to therefore overturn his decision and award a goal, simply in order to have access to VAR review facility... and finally confirm his original decision.
Unfortunately, he ends up appearing weak, incompetent & confused only because VAR is present... at our level he could have stuck by his original decision all along, without the associated farce.
I thought he went over to the screen just to confirm he had blown the 2nd whistle before the ball entered the net...which he did.
He did... but not when he should have done, after the original decision was given...
...he ignored it, reversing that decision without any reference to it...!
Edit: Having realised that I am applying basic common sense about the operational scope of VAR, which is flawed logic in any matter where the football authorities are involved...
...leads me to ask a genuine question: In this instance, did the Ref first have to award the goal, in order to be able to subsequently review it via VAR...?
Good point....it gives them a second chance to get it...err right.