Anyone who has followed what I write since the implementation of VAR (video assistant referee), almost ten years ago, knows my enormous reluctance to accept it.
Such was my disgust, I even thought about stopping watching football due to the irritating presence of the “lord of reason”, but my passion for the sport spoke louder.
Why the resistance? There are a few factors. The worst of them is the break in the rhythm of the match. One of the great attractions of football was the dynamism, the non-interruptions due to timeouts.
Currently, games are stopped when the temperature is high, to hydrate players. Come on, it’s a matter of health, but it’s already two or three minutes of waiting.
With VAR, stoppages often last four, five or more minutes. Multiple times in a game. It’s boring to wait for a definition about the penalty scored that wouldn’t have been or the penalty that wouldn’t have been scored.
Videos of the move are played over and over again and, depending on the angle, the conclusion could be different! And, depending on the opinion of the field referee, which may be different from that of the VAR (usually it is not), the conclusion may be different! There’s no point in that.
In relation to the offside, then… I don’t know why they don’t eliminate the figure of the linesman, the referee’s assistant who runs along the side of the pitch with the primary function of signaling this irregularity.
So cursed in the stands in the past, he lived in discomfort. Today, the most comfortable profession in the world is that of a linesman.
He (or she) is there to do this, but does not raise the flag even in that move where it is clear that the attacker is meters ahead of the penultimate defender. The play continues until it is completed. Only then is it cancelled.
If you have doubts, in really difficult moves, what should you do? Nothing. The VAR, from the checking booth, will give the verdict. Which – and this is another factor that condemns the assistant referee who whistles sitting down – is not always correct.
There are championships (the Brazilian one included) in which the offside check is manual, with the drawing of lines, to know whether “the tip of the boot” was suitable for play or not. It is impossible to believe the decision, whatever it may be.
“Semi-automatic” verification has already been implemented in many places. Evolution? In theory, yes. In practice, Pilate: the responsibility is transferred (to the machine).
But the question is different. The purpose of creating VAR, to correct “clear and obvious errors”, disappeared a long time ago. He would be good, yes, if his interference were minimal, pointing out that unseen scandalous impediment. Fast and effective.
In fact, the opposite also happens. When he must intervene, so that the field referee points out the obvious, the VAR remains silent. It happened in São Paulo x Palmeiras, on Sunday (5), with a clear penalty from Allan on Tapia, who went unharmed. Was it unintentional? No. But the rule (which I disagree with) doesn’t talk about intention.
All this explanation means that there is an intention, discussed internally by Ifab (the body that controls football rules), to expand the power of VAR. So that it can interfere with yellow card plays… and even corner kicks!
It’s quite capable of lasting, and I’m upset, because the football I learned to love, even if imperfect, is over. Chapter. The infamous VAR won.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
