Refs must have the final say on VAR
Pierluigi Collina said it. Massimo
Busacca said it. Roberto Rossetti
said it. The buck must stop with
the referee on the pitch. He or she
is the single individual among the
ever-expanding cast of match officials
who should award a goal or disallow
one, decree a penalty or deny it,
flash a red card or a yellow.
But not according to Premier
League and Professional Game
Match Officials Limited (PGMOL).
The botched introduction of video
assistance refereeing into the Premier
League has been the story of the
season. All English football had to
do was follow the pattern laid down
at the World Cup in Russia and then
in the Champions League. But no. The
English knew better.
VAR’s mangled arrival has
reawakened all the memories of
the “we know best” arrogance which
sparked so much mistrust within the
outside world – right back to 1904
when the French and Belgians asked
the Football Association to lead the
creation of a world governing body.
Famously, FA secretary Frederick
Wall said it would go on the agenda
for the next executive meeting – in
six months’ time.
Greg Clarke, the current chairman
of the FA, has run up an ecologically-
defying catalogue of air miles renewingold friendships and developing new
ones in the cause of presenting a
more sensitive face to the world.
Hence he was duly voted onto
the UEFA executive committee,
and from thence to the FIFA Council.
Yet still that old self-righteousness
lurks in the shadows as the VAR fiasco
has illustrated.
The law-making International
Football Association Board (IFAB)Keir
RADNEDGE
THE INSIDERapproved worldwide use of VAR in the
spring of 2018 after 18 months of trials
around the world and in time for FIFA
president Gianni Infantino to order its
use in Russia. Even he entertained
doubts over its rationality, but he was
trapped by his election campaign
promises and, in the end, the novelty
proved worthwhile. Concern that FIFA
had been over-hasty proved groundless.
UEFA duly brought VAR on board forthe Champions League, with one or two
minor refinements of interpretation, and
refereeing bosses Collina and Busacca
at FIFA, and Rosetti at UEFA, could all
be satisfied with an initial job well done.
This had been a challenge not only
of technology but of persuasion. Any
man or woman who dare enter the
refereeing arena needs a powerful ego.
That is essential to maintain self-belief,
week-in, week-out, in the face ofplayers who push the laws to the limit,
the temper tantrums of those obsessed
only with their own objectives and a
media in permanent pursuit of mischief.
As Busacca says: “It was not easy to
explain to the referees that someone
else was looking at the incidents and
maybe having a better view. It offended
their pride. I understand. I would have
felt the same.
“Remember when we introduced
the spray to press the wall back at free-
kicks? Many of our referees did not like
that, which is a comparatively small
development compared with VAR. For
one thing, they objected to carrying the
spray can in addition to everything else.
Many referees objected that they
should be allowed to impose their
own personality on the players.
“But then they tried it...and changed
their minds.”
If so many referees felt undermined
by using the spray, imagine how they
would feel taking orders from another
referee not necessarily there in the
stadium but hundreds of miles away,
insulated from the dramatic pressure in
front of a bank of television screens.
The reason it worked at the WorldIn charge...VAR is
taking decision-
making away
from refereesAll English football had to do was follow the pattern
laid down at the World Cup and Champions
League. But no. The English knew better
THE WORLD THIS MONTH