Of the several things that I reproach the VAR, the one that bothers me the most is how it misplaces our attention to details, deforming the classic vision of the game. Since their arrival, the instructions to the referees are loaded with minutiae, and because of these twists and turns they lose the natural concept of football, which is very simple in essence. It is spun very finely in depending on what things, and coarse salt is swallowed in others.
Grabbing in the area is now openly allowed, except in cases of extreme immobilization. Or the goalkeepers are left to waste time at their free will, the six-second rule and the subsequent indirect punishment are never applied. To this, the indirect in the area, the referees have a union fear that has led to its almost extinction. Meanwhile, offside is measured by the hair of a shrimp, or we are distracted by trifles that the new perspective turns into major grievances. Quite a mistake of the system, clearly visible in the Mestalla match.
Tárrega’s penalty on Mbappé was a penalty for the referee, but it was a penalty when compared to so many things that are allowed to happen. There was no room for review “because there is contact” and in that case the VAR protocol determines that the judgment of whether or not it is sufficient is exclusive to the referee. Bellingham throws it to the post and it bounces off. First detail: Dimitrievski went three fingers forward, which in the opinion of the Madridistas should have caused the repetition; but the last instruction is that if the overtaking is minimal and has no influence, you can let it pass (?). Second detail: the defender who cleared, Tárrega, did he enter the area before the shot was taken or not? When Bellingham hits he has his feet outside and his head inside; He is out, according to the old testament rule, this has not changed, but addicted to the happy offside lines, many interpret that he is in, which would be a second reason to repeat the penalty.
I’m going to the Dimitrievski-Vinicius scuffle, for which the Brazilian was sent off. The Madrid player falls in the area, the goalkeeper hits him on the back, as if contemptuously, and Vinicius gets up and pushes him away with both hands… In the face? First crux of the matter. For whatever reason, they have decided that touching the face is intolerable. The VAR warns, the referee comes and decides the expulsion. But was it the face? The Real Madrid fan rather appreciates that it was the neck and the ear, but could any finger reach anything on the face?
And more: was the game stopped? If the ball is in play, the aggression is less serious, even when it is far from the aggressor and the victim. It was a fix that was made when in the 2021 Seville Super Cup, Messi attacked Villalibre from behind with the ball very far away. That’s where this doctrine was born, to leave the star suspended for two games. Now we have the next reference of Óscar Rodríguez, from Leganés, who lost four games for a play like Vinicius’s. In his case, the game was stopped. In the Mestalla match, Soto Grado asks the VOR room if at the time of the attack the game was stopped and Muñiz Ruiz answers yes, but then in the minutes it does not say that, but rather something more benevolent, that “it was not in quarrel”. If it is considered a serious infraction worthy of four games, its effect will extend outside of LaLiga and you will not be able to play in the Super Cup. Quite a space for a good theological discussion. Face or no face? Stopped play or ball in dispute or not? In old Byzantium these topics were enthusiastic.
A great French referee, Michel Vautrot, who used to give orientation talks to the new international batches, repeated a concept: “Refereeing should be aimed at hunting elephants, not ants.” Just the opposite of what is done now. It is worth grabbing in the area and rushing to the claim of the theater man who is playing dead. And the general debate deviates there, turning football into a memo of gibberish.
