In the 1986
Football World Cup Quarter-Final between England and Argentina, Diego Maradona,
one of the smaller players on the pitch, out-jumped England’s six-foot-plus
goalkeeper, Peter Shilton, to score a goal that put Argentina 1-0 ahead. But
what was seen by many in the crowd and millions watching worldwide on television
was that the reason Maradona was able to out-jump Shilton was that he used his
hand to knock the ball past the England goalkeeper. Unfortunately, two key people
failed to see that: the referee and the linesman closest to the incident. The
goal stood and there were cries of outrage (especially in England) asking why
the referee couldn’t have access to a video replay, so that he could have seen
what millions of others already knew.
England fans
were to feel aggrieved again over an error by a referee in the World Cup of 2010,
when a long-range shot by Frank Lampard beat the German goalkeeper, Manuel
Neuer (who, ironically, was born in 1986), hit the underside of the crossbar
and bounced down well into the goal, before the spin on the ball brought it back
into the arms of Neuer who played on. Again, the referee and linesmen missed
what had happened and instead of the score being 2-2 Germany continued to lead 2-1
and went on to win 4-1.
On this
occasion, the Germans permitted themselves a wry smile, saying that fate had
intervened as they still maintained that England’s third goal in the World Cup
Final of 1966 against West Germany had not crossed the goal line but a
goal was given on the word of the linesman. England went on to win 4-2, the
fourth goal being scored when, in the famous words of the legendary commentator,
Kenneth Wolsthenhome, ‘some people are on the pitch’, which should have meant
that the game was stopped.
And so the
clamour increased for football to follow the lead already given by other sports
and introduce video technology. Various experiments were tried, such as the
ludicrous idea that the Football Association came up with in 2018-19 that if an
FA Cup tie were played at a Premier League ground there would be the Video
Assistant Referee (VAR); but if it were at the ground of an English League team
it would not be used. This led to the eventual winners of the trophy,
Manchester City, scoring two goals which VAR would have ruled out against
Swansea City in a 3-2 win in the Quarter-Final.
Despite
misgivings about the VAR system, the English Premier League announced that it
would be introduced in all Premier League games in the 2019-20 season. In the
first round of matches what would have proved the winning goal for Wolves at
Leicester was ruled out after a VAR check established that the ball had struck
the arm of a Wolves player before the ball was put into the net. The game ended
0-0.
Since then
there has been much controversy over the VAR system, much comment being
critical. Matters reached something of a head on the weekend of the tenth round
of matches, 25-27 October. On the 26th, Brighton were awarded a
penalty against Everton because the VAR official reckoned that Michael Keane
had fouled Brighton’s Aaron Connolly in the penalty area. The official report
on the Premier League website reads: the VAR spotted a foul by Michael Keane
on Aaron Connolly. Football fans are not renowned for always being objective,
of course. But if you take a look at the incident on TV, in normal time and in
slow motion, you see that both Keane and Connolly are watching the flight of
the ball coming towards them in the air and in moving to make a header, Keane
accidentally treads on Connolly’s foot. It is clearly an accident. Keane is
looking at the ball, not his or Connolly’s feet. Football is a contact sport.
That was not a penalty.
The
following day in the Arsenal V Crystal Palace match at the Emirates Stadium the
referee, Martin Atkinson, initially booked Wilfried Zaha of Crystal Palace for
diving to try to win a penalty, before VAR ruled – correctly – that it was
a penalty. This was one of four penalties to be awarded in this round of
matches because of VAR – but the only one where the referee on the pitch had
made a clear mistake.
And this is the
crux of the matter: VAR is supposed to be there to correct clear mistakes by
the referee. And certainly not for what happened later in the same match. With
just minutes left, Arsenal scored what would have been a third and probably
decisive goal (the score at the time was 2-2). One minute and twenty seconds
after the ‘goal’ was scored, Mr Atkinson was alerted that the VAR official was reviewing
the goal. Almost two minutes after the ball entered the net he was instructed
to disallow the goal for a foul by an Arsenal player in the build-up to the
goal. As Peter Crouch later said on ‘Match of the Day2’ on the BBC, ‘I’ve seen
it 406 times and I can’t see anything clear and obvious about that!’
The
situation was reminiscent of an incident in the Rugby World Cup Semi-Final
between England and New Zealand a little over 24 hours previously in Japan.
England thought that they had scored a second try after the ball emerged from a
maul and Ben Youngs went over. The Television Match Official (TMO as they call
it in rugby) ruled that there had been a knock-on in the maul; but it certainly
wasn’t clear and obvious.
What these
incidents have shown is that the VAR/TMO officials are behaving like little tin
gods, deciding that they know better than the referee on the pitch, the players
and the spectators in the stands who – in football especially – are kept in
total ignorance of what is going on.
As someone
who was a qualified tennis umpire and football referee I know that the worst
thing you can accuse a sporting official of being is ‘a cheat’. And I would not
wish to question their objectivity (although the official report on the disallowed
Arsenal goal stated that it was the VAR official’s ‘subjective view’ that there
had been a foul, which is a curious phrase, given that he is supposed to pick
up only clear and obvious errors). But it does seem that the power the TV
monitor gives them has gone to their heads. These decisions may not be
cheating. But they are becoming ever more stupid.
ENDS
No comments:
Post a Comment