When watching the Brazil x Paraguay part of the U17 World Cup, played in Qatar, a few days ago, I came across a new system for reviewing dubious moves.
The VAR (video assistant referee) was not in operation, but a generic alternative, the FVS (Football Video Support, video support for football), called Video Challenge.
No video referee (more video referee assistant, more auxiliary technical team) and several large screens, in a room in the stadium or in a central office, to constantly check the plays.
If there is doubt in a crucial move (goal, penalty, expulsion, identity error when applying for a card), the person requesting the review is the coach of the team that felt harmed. He hands the fourth referee a card.
The field judge then goes to the monitor next to the pitch to review the move and change the decision or not.
If the team that requested the verification is not given a reason, it loses the first of the two chances it has to resort to this method in the game. If the referee changes the original call, the team maintains the benefit.
In other words, it is necessary to be careful when using the Video Challenge, because, if two requests are not answered, it is over, and there may be a need for it later in the match.
To recap for those who don’t remember, in games where there is VAR, he calls the field referee when he deems it necessary – respecting the cases allowed by the rule –, giving him his assessment in advance, which, after checking on the small screen at the edge of the field, is almost always respected.
The Video Challenge, in the under-17 World Cup, harmed the Brazilian team at least twice. Against Paraguay, a goal ended up being disallowed due to offside (which the linesman did not score) and a player (Vitão) had his yellow card turned into a red card after, upon review, the referee concluded that he attacked a rival in a cross in the Brazilian attacking area.
The Paraguayan coach had the merit of acting quickly and, via Video Challenge, reaped dividends. Fortunately for Brazil, momentarily – the team advanced on penalties in this knockout game.
Question: is FVS or VAR better (or less worse)? It is too early to conclude, given that the first is in its infancy and needs to be seen and practiced more around the world. Then, collect opinions from those involved (referees, coaches, players). So, make the comparison.
What is already known about the Video Challenge? Which is much less expensive. There is no need for large paraphernalia or a large team. All you need is a monitor, a video operator and at least one camera showing the game – VAR has at least seven.
This way, there is less difficulty in implementing the FVS, expanding the opportunity to have a fault correction system for less wealthy leagues. And there is the attraction of the strategic component, of the coach’s intervention.
What do I know about the Video Challenge? Which clutters up the game. When going to the monitor, the referee takes his two, two and a half, three minutes to reach the verdict.
The sluggishness of the VAR – which insists on disrespecting the reason for its creation, pointing out clear and obvious errors – persists with the FVS. The problem is the delay in the decision. That’s what bothers me the most. And it’s more annoying because it’s an “it” that no one cares about.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
