VAR has corrected many errors, it has not prevented injustice and has generated other forms of frustration, validated by science.
The goal or the goal is the most intense moment, on an emotional level, of a football match. Its intensity varies according to the timing, its impact on the stakes of the match, of the one who scored it, we like to see the stars conclude, it contributes to their legend, or of the artistic beauty of the gesture. If we consider that a goal is beautiful, whoever scores it, all the others have their sentimental value and mark the spirits. The avalanche of emotions that they provoke is enough to understand their impact.
The goal is also an objective to be achieved by all teams, it is a rare and highly sought-after commodity, which distinguishes football from all other sports. The only one that accepts 0-0 as a penalty for a match and 1-0 as a great victory. The responsibility, to grant it or not, therefore becomes very heavy for the one who takes it. For many years, the referees were the only ones to decide and their decisions were irreversible. You cannot replay a match, or reverse a result, for a refereeing error, even if the fault is proven. The history of football is full of examples of fantasized goals, offside goals awarded and vice versa. The injustice of the result is not only in luck, but also in decisions that can be biased.
The accumulation of refereeing errors, which football fans discovered with the live broadcast of matches, and especially the repetition of actions via cameras that multiply the angles, has generated debates and accusations. Suspicions of collusion, corruption and arrangements have been raised to the highest level of the institutions in charge of organizing the competitions. They have ended up reacting and proposing decision-making support processes based on the available means.
The debates were not easy, and the oppositions were multiple. Some proposed adding two referees, making five in total, a solution tested but quickly abandoned. In the end, it was the scientific solution that was retained. VAR, Video Assistance to Referees, was deployed, at least in the main national or international competitions. The referee and his two assistants are always masters of the game. They are the ones who decide, in the last instance, and their decisions are final and cannot be challenged in any way. It is a constant of football that has been maintained.
This technological innovation, approved in 2016, despite its successes, raises questions. It has not extinguished the controversies, nor prevented the injustices and this for several reasons. First, its scope of intervention is limited. It only concerns three situations, the validity of a goal, potential penalties and direct red cards, in the event of characterized aggression. All other situations are the exclusive responsibility of the referee and his assistants. The latter have also changed status, from touch referee they have become assistant referees. This means that there are still errors that escape the VAR, free kicks, throw-ins, corners, fantasy goals too. The latter require technology, introduced a little earlier but, which has not yet been generalized. This is the Goal-line Technology, a system that makes it possible to determine, with precision, whether the ball has completely crossed the goal line or not. A recent controversy concerned a problematic goal, during the last clasico between Real Madrid and FC Barcelona, which was ultimately disallowed.
Beyond these technological shortcomings or absences, the introduction of VAR has not solved everything. For the Euro alone, currently underway in Germany, we can see a similar, or at least comparable, game situation with different refereeing decisions, despite the intervention of VAR. The goal disallowed in the Netherlands, against France, for a positional offside and the one awarded to Spain, against Georgia, despite an offside position of a Spanish player, raises questions. For a neutral observer, the question remains to be decided.
She is not the only one, the coach of the Danish team, a very measured personality, could not help but criticize the refereeing of his team’s match against Germany. They were denied a goal for an offside of one centimeter, contested by amateur videos and in the process conceded a penalty for a handball in the area. These two actions were felt by the coach as flagrant injustices. He said at the end of the match: “We cannot ask our defenders to run without using their arms anyway and for our goal it is played by one centimeter, that is not how we should use the VAR”. Strong words that put injustice, at least felt, back at the center of football-related controversies.
Institutions are not backing down and are pushing towards even more technology. They have experimented with the connected ball. Designed by a famous equipment manufacturer, this ball has sensors that can transmit hundreds of data in real time, used by VAR teams. Nothing will be resolved, however, all these developments have a direct impact on the emotions of football. They delay the decision and generate frustrations. The disappointment of those who exploded with joy for a goal, finally disallowed 3 minutes later, is not part of the emotions that we want to experience when watching a match. The ritual and festivities linked to the joy of a goal cannot suffer from delays or frustrations after the decision has been corrected. VAR has corrected many errors, it has not prevented injustice and has generated other forms of frustration, validated by science.
