When the discussion began about whether VAR or VAR was not, some maintained that the rejection came from those who feared that the controversies would disappear, on which there would be a morbid dependence. With the VAR everything would be crystal clear. A naive thesis, from people who are ignorant of football. Another sector was the one that had been supporting the Simeone doctrine, according to which the referees have favored Madrid as a union for a century. With the VAR the end of Madrid’s tyranny would come.
Well, neither one thing nor the other. Madrid’s winning pace in the Champions League has experienced a sudden acceleration and as for the extinction of controversies, why are we going to talk about it? I admit a background of good intention in the idea of VAR, beyond murky factors such as technolatry, novolatry, the interest in moving money in case something falls nearby and, in the case of referees, a comfortable network plus new positions. job. Before they went three by three, in a taxi. Now there are eight of them, in a Van. But it presents an insoluble problem: when does it come in? Originally it was propagated that only in cases of “clear and manifest” error, but what is clear and manifest? And the worst thing: when through VAR, a club feels deprived, the irritation is greater.
Let’s go to Madrid-Celta. In another time, any Celtic fan could do an exercise in resignation on the basis that Munuera Montero had not seen the penalty because he was covered at that moment, or it had not seemed like one to him, or that the Bernabéu overwhelmed him. Bad luck, you might think. But no one will be able to give him convincing reasons that would make him admit that Hernández Hernández did not call him for review.
The VAR network accommodates the referee, it molds him. It is easy to imagine that Munuera Montero thought to himself: “The VAR will tell me.” But here the immediate play ended in a goal and Hernández Hernández, badly beaten by RMTV, found that his intervention could have turned a 1-0 into a 0-1. Total, one for the other, the house without sweeping, a feeling of unbearable grievance for Celticism and a new line for the black legend of Madrid. We are talking about a Cup match, a kill-kill, that ended 2-2 before extra time. And with Madrid in the middle. Take controversy.
I now go to Jeddah, where the VAR corrected two errors of omission by Gil Manzano: Camavinga’s penalty and Szczesny’s expulsion. Good. But the non-expulsion of Camavinga, the non-second yellow card for the sustained grab? The fact is that the protocol only urges the VAR to intervene in the case of a direct red, not a second yellow. A loose fringe, which allowed a player to remain unfairly for many minutes in the game. A frequent case, on the other hand. They are holes in the protocol, like the fact that a goal can be reviewed for a foul that occurred twelve touches of the ball earlier, and not because it comes from a poorly awarded corner, or from an out of bounds of that same bad condition, or from a wrong foul. granted…
Now there are, in practice, two referees, the on-field one and the off-field one. Like it or not, each referee is an irritant and now we have two instead of one. Two forces that intend to collaborate, but perceive themselves as opposite, since when the VAR intervenes it is to recommend rectification to the on-field team. So, whatever the final ruling, one of the two will snub one of the parties in each case.
With the VAR there are more controversies. And even dirtier, because a “clear and manifest” error that circumvents the controls destroys the credibility of the system. And now I find someone pointing out to me that the referee in the VAR room is in an extremely vulnerable position, just a WhatsApp away from any influence.
