VAR Controversy Strikes Premier League Again
 |
Video assistant referee set for Champions League this season
|
Apparently, the replay showed that Calvert-Lewin's shot deflected off United defender Harry Maguire and according to Video Assistant Referee also deflected of Everton striker Richarlison, who appeared to be in an offside position. This incident left the 60-year old Italian furious with Kavanagh and he approached the experienced 35-year old, to confront him about the disallowed goal.
However as a result of his protest against Kavanagh, the Italian was charged by the FA for misconduct, meaning that he will miss the Toffee's trip to Stamford Bridge on Sunday.
It seams that there is a VAR talking point in each weekend of the Premier League season thus far and seeing incidents like this sparks the question: is VAR improving the outcome of football matches in terms of controversial moments?
During Chelsea's home game against Spurs, there was another incident involving VAR, where Giovani Lo Celso escaped a red card when he appeared to have stamped on César Azpilicueta.
Seeing incidents like these makes you wonder if VAR is fulfilling its potential or not? Moreover, the other issue involving VAR is the amount of time it takes for the VAR officials to speak to the on field referee's is affecting the flow of the game.
Perhaps it may be more simple if the VAR referee could just make a straightforward decision to the on field referee by choosing the best angle of the incident, and then take things from there. If that doesn't work, perhaps they should go back to the traditional mode where the on-field referee is in charge of everything. Let's take DRS as an example, if the umpire has made a decision and the DRS sees it as a 50/50 call, then the original decision made by the on-field umpire stands. Perhaps If the same could happen in football and VAR, it could influence more decisions being made correctly.
There is no doubt that everyone who is associated with football wants the correct decision to be made, but for that to happen, VAR needs to be well looked after and not be misused.
If you look at cricket for instance, the umpire Decision Review System (DRS) was first introduced during Sri Lanka's home Test series against India in 2008 and then became official in November 2009 during Pakistan's Test Series in New Zealand. India were initially against it at the beginning, but since it was updated in 2012 including the alteration of the LBW rule where more than half the ball needs to me hitting the stumps and batsman can now be given out on the front foot. These small alterations to the rules have meant that all teams have now started using it and we get now get very few wrong decisions by the umpires and everyone seems to be happy with it. If the same could happen with VAR, maybe the players and managers will perhaps have more faith in it.
Let's also not forget that VAR is still relatively new as it was introduced in 2017. Its main objective is to look for clear and obvious decisions that are missed by the referee. This is probably one of the main reasons as to why there is a mixed feeling in the Premier League as to why some clubs like it and why others are still questioning about it, becuase it is difficult to fully understand how the rules work in terms of the referees reviewing their initial decisions. Also, VAR can only use limited angles to view the incident, whereas DRS has a much wider range of angles and other sources of technology i'e Snickometer to help them make a decision as to whether the batsman is out or not.
Briefly speaking about DRS, when the third umpire is watching the replay of the incident, everybody can see what he or she is looking at as it is being shown on the big screen, which includes every single angle of the incident, so therefore it makes decision making straightforward for the umpires and the players have more faith in it unlike football and VAR. You can also hear their voice in the background so it is easier for the players and the crowd to understand what's going on in the minds of both the on-field umpire and the third umpire. If the same could happen in football, it may help reduce some of the controversy in the game as well as the media as the public will begin to stop questioning about it. That is the biggest concern with VAR, it's the lack of communication between the referees, players and managers about the use of VAR in matches and in particular its rules.
It would also save time for the referees to walk up to the small monitor and constantly look at the incident again and again. If VAR could shown on the big screen, everyone can see it and they can then understand what is going on in the minds of the on-field and VAR referee when they look at these incidents and then make decisions based on the evidence in which is given to them.
According to statzone.com, the IFAB(International Football Association Board) devised a case study to investigate about VAR disrupting the flow of the game. Across matches covered in the study, the system was only called into action in just third of the games. Approximately two-thirds of games did not revert to VAR at all, even though the facility was ready and waiting to be used. The breakdown is as follows:
This adds up to 34:19min, which is just over one third of a match.
So now the question is VAR actually doing its job properly?
One of the key areas that everyone associated with football wants to see is consistency of decision making from both the on-field referee and the Video Assistant Referee. This could be one of the reasons as to why the majority of managers are against VAR and are questioning its reliability. the other reason is the time it takes for VAR to make their decision, which can ultimately disrupt the flow of the game. Let's not forget that VAR was brought in to correct 'clear and obvious' decisions, but then question is how do you know what is clear and obvious? i'e Are you saying that each time the ball strikes a player's arm it's a foul regardless of it being intentional or not? If so, how can you justify that?
Another factor of VAR which irritates everyone is the fact that referees are afraid to give tough decisions and are therefore relying too much on the technology to help them out. After Spurs's 3-2 defeat to Sheffield United on Thursday, Jose Mourinho was quick to point this one out.
Feature Image: ift.tt/2FWYKMx flickr.com
If you look at cricket for instance, the umpire Decision Review System (DRS) was first introduced during Sri Lanka's home Test series against India in 2008 and then became official in November 2009 during Pakistan's Test Series in New Zealand. India were initially against it at the beginning, but since it was updated in 2012 including the alteration of the LBW rule where more than half the ball needs to me hitting the stumps and batsman can now be given out on the front foot. These small alterations to the rules have meant that all teams have now started using it and we get now get very few wrong decisions by the umpires and everyone seems to be happy with it. If the same could happen with VAR, maybe the players and managers will perhaps have more faith in it.
Let's also not forget that VAR is still relatively new as it was introduced in 2017. Its main objective is to look for clear and obvious decisions that are missed by the referee. This is probably one of the main reasons as to why there is a mixed feeling in the Premier League as to why some clubs like it and why others are still questioning about it, becuase it is difficult to fully understand how the rules work in terms of the referees reviewing their initial decisions. Also, VAR can only use limited angles to view the incident, whereas DRS has a much wider range of angles and other sources of technology i'e Snickometer to help them make a decision as to whether the batsman is out or not.
Briefly speaking about DRS, when the third umpire is watching the replay of the incident, everybody can see what he or she is looking at as it is being shown on the big screen, which includes every single angle of the incident, so therefore it makes decision making straightforward for the umpires and the players have more faith in it unlike football and VAR. You can also hear their voice in the background so it is easier for the players and the crowd to understand what's going on in the minds of both the on-field umpire and the third umpire. If the same could happen in football, it may help reduce some of the controversy in the game as well as the media as the public will begin to stop questioning about it. That is the biggest concern with VAR, it's the lack of communication between the referees, players and managers about the use of VAR in matches and in particular its rules.
It would also save time for the referees to walk up to the small monitor and constantly look at the incident again and again. If VAR could shown on the big screen, everyone can see it and they can then understand what is going on in the minds of the on-field and VAR referee when they look at these incidents and then make decisions based on the evidence in which is given to them.
According to statzone.com, the IFAB(International Football Association Board) devised a case study to investigate about VAR disrupting the flow of the game. Across matches covered in the study, the system was only called into action in just third of the games. Approximately two-thirds of games did not revert to VAR at all, even though the facility was ready and waiting to be used. The breakdown is as follows:
- 69.1% of matches covered did not need VAR replays
- Only 5.5% of games where VAR was brought into play needed more than one review
- 57.4% of VAR incidents related to penalty decisions and goals scored
- 42.1% were in connection with red card situations
- Mistaken identity calls were negligible
- Corner kicks - 3 mins 57 secs
- Free kicks - 8 mins 51 secs
- Goal kicks - 5 mins 46 secs
- Making substitutions - 2 mins 57 secs
- Throw-ins - 7 mins 2 secs
This adds up to 34:19min, which is just over one third of a match.So now the question is VAR actually doing its job properly?
One of the key areas that everyone associated with football wants to see is consistency of decision making from both the on-field referee and the Video Assistant Referee. This could be one of the reasons as to why the majority of managers are against VAR and are questioning its reliability. the other reason is the time it takes for VAR to make their decision, which can ultimately disrupt the flow of the game. Let's not forget that VAR was brought in to correct 'clear and obvious' decisions, but then question is how do you know what is clear and obvious? i'e Are you saying that each time the ball strikes a player's arm it's a foul regardless of it being intentional or not? If so, how can you justify that?
Another factor of VAR which irritates everyone is the fact that referees are afraid to give tough decisions and are therefore relying too much on the technology to help them out. After Spurs's 3-2 defeat to Sheffield United on Thursday, Jose Mourinho was quick to point this one out.
The referee is in the office," said Mourinho.It would be interesting to see whether or not the IFAB think about the impact of using VAR in football and what changes they could make in order to make it a more reliable source for referees to use and make the get the correct decision, which is what everybody wants.
"I never complain at the guy with the whistle because it's not the referee any more. "I think the referee should always be the man on the pitch and the people in the office should just support and assist.
"That's not the way it is. The referee who is not very good on the pitch, we cannot expect that he's good in the office.
"We're going in a direction that's really bad for the beautiful game, the game that everybody fell in love with."
Feature Image: ift.tt/2FWYKMx flickr.com
No comments:
Post a Comment