Log in

Register



FYP Fanzine

Crystal Palace vs Liverpool - VAR Debacle

Written by Alex Pewter
View Comments

There are no headline takeaways worth writing about following Crystal Palace's Sunday fixture, only frustration. An encouraging attacking performance spearheaded by Jean-Philippe Mateta but denied by the brilliance of Alisson was overshadowed by two VAR decisions that left a bitter taste in the mouth.

var check

 

This season's standard of refereeing in the Premier League has been a bone of contention for fans of most clubs. Still, the video reviews meant to lead us to correct outcomes are unfortunately run by the same inept individuals who often appear on the pitch.

The guilty parties in this match were Kevin Friend on the field with Craig Pawson as the VAR. If a team plays poorly and loses, I think most fans will leave the stadium accepting the outcome, but having a match tarnished by a poor refereeing process tarnishes the sport.

Crystal Palace deserved to be behind in the match. The defending wasn't at the standard needed - but player performances, either successes or failures, are easier to accept than those taken out of the players' hands as it had by full-time.

The PGMOL fails to deliver a consistent interpretation of the rules on a game to game basis and doesn't see the standard of refereeing as an issue. The feeling that a "Big 6" bias exists is nothing new. Still, having a secondary video system that only adds to the confusion, rather than clarifying it, will only fuel the assertion that the game is rigged or corrupt.

 

Exhibit 1 - Roberto Firmino

 

 

The rules surrounding being "inactive" regarding offside decisions are football vaguery at its best. Many years into this rule change, we are conditioned into seeing a player beyond the last defender, but not inferring as "inactive".

But when an attacking player attempts to play the ball, it's challenging to understand how they aren't interfering.

 Take Firmino, standing offside as the Andrew Robertson cross enters the box, shadowed by Tyrick Mitchell, jumps to try and win the header. 

With a split-second to make a decision, Mitchell marks his nearest player. Similarly, Vicente Guaita will have to pay attention to a striker attempting to head at goal and isn't robotically dismissing him as an "inactive" player simply because he failed to make contact. 

The excuse that Firmino didn't disrupt the goalkeeper or that Mitchell ought to have known to move across to Chamberlain on the back post is a flawed argument. Had Firmino connected with a header, would the flag have gone up?

Palace's defending throughout this particular defensive phase was poor. Robertson had no pressure placed on him before crossing the ball. Chamberlain was left wide-open. But should the goal have stood?

 

From a process point of view, this seems inherently flawed. Football isn't a high-scoring sport, yet it seems like a common-sense decision to look at a player in an offside position.

 

Exhibit 2 - Diogo Jota

 

 

VAR hasn't attempted to resolve diving or simulation in football. If anything, the idea that all contact in the area is penalty-worthy has been entrenched into the game.

Not only has that standard been set, the VAR process of slow-motion replays, in this case, of incidental contact, only exaggerates situations that play out and should be judged in real-time.

Diogo Jota wasn't fouled. He chose to make contact with Guaita in goal. That is even the initial interpretation of Kevin Friend on the pitch. The message he then receives from the VAR is that Jota would have got to the ball.

 A maddening aspect of this decision is the inconsistency from game to game. Ryan Fraser, who happened to be playing against a "Big 6" side for the conspiracy theorists out there, was denied a penalty after being taken out by Ederson.

 

As spectators, all we can ask for consistent decision-making and clarity over what VAR is meant to achieve. If it is there only to help correct "clear and obvious" errors, why is the process taking minutes to accomplish this?

 

What Changes?

 

At least in our eyes, the debate isn't about whether or not video review systems ought to exist in the 21st century, but over why football continues to shroud the refereeing decision-making process in mystery. As fans in the stadium or as viewers at home, we get next to no insight into the VAR process. Instead, we are left to accept the wisdom of the referee whilst they escape any accountability at the full-time whistle.

Take international cricket, a game without anywhere near the money on a Premier League game line. The DRS (decision review system) process has become part of the entertainment in the stadium. With the audio feed of the video umpire being played out on TV and live in the stadiums, a successful review from the batting or fielding side has managed to add a level of tension in matches - with the satisfaction of seeing a greater number of "correct" decisions made.

The cynical view, of course, is that expecting genuine changes isn't a realistic outcome for a game that is driven by drama. Football as a spectacle benefits from dodgy decisions to keep people talking about it. The pinnacle moment in English football history ultimately revolves around whether Geoff Hurst's shot ever did cross the line, after all.

VAR is here to stay, and unless there is a turnaround in the authorities suddenly wishing to make the process transparent - possibly the best we can all hope for is that it doesn't impact the enjoyment of too many games.