This was another weekend in whicArbitration and VAR were shot After controversial decisions affected results at St James’ Park, Stamford Bridge, Old Trafford and elsewhere.
The video assistant referee, mistakenly seen by some as a solution, began to groan. But this was always inevitable.
Here are six reasons why VAR is difficult to implement now, and why it always will be.
He created more anger
VAR was ostensibly introduced as a response to outrage from football managers, supporters and the media, both at matches and increasingly online. It was never likely that it would be a viable platform to implement it as this rage would not be satiated at all.
Managers and fans have always been, and always will be, disagree with decisions and will blame those decisions more than the failures of managers and players for the outcome of the match. Their anger and inability to tolerate or accept refereeing errors also grew exponentially during the rapid commercialization of football. More money in the game means more at stake. More at stake means less acceptance of mistakes. Somewhere along the line, mistakes from officials (but not managers and players, crucially), have become the culture of football.
Can VAR fix this culture? No, instead of causing less outrage – an argument that “will end the pub discussion” – it simply added an extra layer to it. Now we are not all outraged by the decisions of an official in the field. We analyze these decisions in real time via replays of television, double down on our opinions that are usually based on bias (we’re all fans, after all) and then be able to get angry again if the decision doesn’t get our way.
Can’t just correct ‘howls’
VAR was initially introduced – or at least sold that way to the public – as a way to correct howls – if Luis Suarez’s handball was not spotted on the line at the 2010 World Cup, for example. It may be more successful if this goal is maintained.
But then it probably won’t work either. Take, for example, Arsenal’s disallowed goal against Manchester United. Perhaps it was Martin Odegaard’s fault. It is possible that it was practically not given. It’s funny how Manchester United fans will say it’s wrong and Arsenal fans will say it’s not. Invert the difference and counterarguments will inevitably be made.
Had it not been invalidated because, as reasonably, it is not a ‘howl’, would Manchester United supporters have concluded that ‘yes, fair enough, there is no reason for that there is no reason for the VAR to intervene’? not clear. If you introduce technology you are aiming, by implication or otherwise, to restore judgment. The argument would be clear: What’s the point of using technology if you’re not going to make the right calls by law?
This is one of the weaknesses of the VAR problems. By presenting it, you are presenting what a management tool (a way of improving the decisions that occurred, whether you choose to accept it or not) as a solution.
He made the arbitration crisis worse
The arbitration profession, whether at the elite level or at the grassroots level, has never needed more pressure or scrutiny. there Numbers crisis in the popular game It is dwindling due to the pervasive culture of abuse – both verbal and physical. If that hadn’t already caused the knockdown effect at the highest level, it would. There is a necessary bottom-up drip feed to advance the rulers from basic to professional level and this conveyor belt will stop if there are fewer base level rulers. And if the culture of abuse continues at its current pace, we will really run out.
Every decision the referee makes will be somewhat controversial. At least one group of fans watching on the field or at home will disagree with everything. This is supported in part by broadcast media and live football coverage, which places undue importance on analyzing refereeing decisions above incidents within normal play – failures, lapses in concentration, fouls, defensive fouls.
The introduction of VAR technology gave this analysis only a home of nature. Now over-analysis is the norm because elite football has created a natural environment for it. Not only is slow-motion replays used to analyze a fast-paced sport, allowing broadcasters to run through the same replays for participating critics and commentators to offer their opinions, but it also creates additional reason to criticize officials.
I totally understand that no one wants to hear this, but managing football is very difficult. You must train for eight to 10 years to go from folk to professional level. Low financial rewards. The culture of abuse is widespread. Along the way, you have players and managers trying to influence your decisions and effectively cheat their way to making decisions. The VAR could have exposed this cheating. Instead, it has only exposed referees’ faults and created an additional environment to inaccurately denounce them as the greatest threat to modern football.
Still relies on error-prone humans
The introduction to VAR came with an unfortunate misunderstanding on the part of the audience: We were about to make technical decisions. This is categorically incorrect and was absolutely useless. The VAR is not about technology responsibilities. It is about humans using additional evidence to make decisions.
And the thing about humans is that they’re…human. They will make calls based on opinion. They will make mistakes, whether they are on the field or in Stockley Park. They will interpret decisions differently from each other and certainly differently from the proportion of people in a crowd, in a television studio or at home. They are defective.
An official will see Jarrod Bowen’s incident and believe he intentionally left his leg behind to make contact with Edward Mindy. Another might think the same but don’t think it’s wrong. Someone else might not buy Mindy making the most of the connection, rolling around injured. Another might view the incident as just an accidental connection in the normal passing of play.
Every week someone will say: “The problem is not the technology but the people who use it.” yes. But then that has always been the case, and it comes back to the point about presenting this as a solution rather than a tool. Attackers miss opportunities. Defenders play short passes to the goalkeeper; Midfielders above the passes. Officials make wrong decisions. Nobody involved is a robot.
It spoils the flow of football
In 2016, when Ifab initially announced the VAR trial, they issued a promise: “The focus of the initial testing will be deliberately limited to reduce the impact of the flow and emotions that are essential to football.”
But this has always been impossible. Football has much less natural breaks than other sports where technology is used extensively – cricket, American football and rugby. Football also gets the ball back into play faster than those three sports, which means any pause is more visible and inevitably changes the sport as a spectator’s pursuit.
On Sunday, it took four and a half minutes to determine it Alexis McAlister couldn’t stand Brighton’s goal due to infiltration in the building. This equates to approximately 10 percent of the time the ball was in play during a match. Even if VAR tech worked smoothly, eliminating all bugs (which was impossible, but hold the premise), it wouldn’t convince me that changing the game’s texture so much was worth it.
She can’t beat the unique personality of football
Take 12.1 of the Ifab Rules of the Game: “A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offenses against an opponent in a manner that the referee considers careless, reckless or uses excessive force: … charges. If the offense relates to contact, it will be punished with a direct free kick.” .
Counting the Self Appeals Within It: What is Neglect? What is mindless? What is excessive force? What is the charge? Does “contact” include any communication or just intentional? With the word ‘commit’ does that just include an intent to commit’? And when you have work through all those aspects – which the judgment has to do in a second or two – the whole thing depends on what he considers to be the ‘judgment.’ And that’s just one element (charging ) for one subset of one law.
The laws of football are more subjective than any other sport. In cricket you can see if the ball was thrown out of the leg or not (with a margin for referee error). In rugby, you can see if the pass is forward or not. And none of these sports generates anywhere near the perpetual outrage surrounding decisions as football does.
Using technology to make objective decisions: Did the ball cross the line? Was the error inside or outside the box? Was the player in his team’s half when the pass was played (and thus to the side)? Once extended to appeals to subjectivity, consistency becomes impossible because the subject’s primary purpose is that it allows for a spectrum of opinions.