Without the VAR, the same teams would have advanced in the 2018 World Cup

The application of the VAR at the 2018 World Cup in Russia did not influence the results as much as one might think a priori . Indeed, if we take all the goals that were achieved with the use of this tool in the first phase, they would have qualified the same 16 teams that will play the 16th of this Saturday (30). The only change that has occurred would be in the sort order of some selections. Nothing more. This system made it possible to beat the record of penalties in a World Cup.

The application of this technology will not escape controversy. There have been several selections that have been left behind by the use that is made of them. Brazil was the first to lodge a complaint with FIFA after the match against Switzerland. It was later Serbia that severely criticized the fact that the VAR did not enter to sanction a clear penalty from Lichtsteiner to Mitrovic. The last to show his indignation was Amrabat, after the referee scored the goal of Iago Aspas against Morocco.

"The VAR is zero," said the player in the field. The complaint was verified by means of lip reading.

The use of video technology in arbitration has increased the success of judges' decisions during the first phase of the World Cup to 99.3%. Without the use of VAR, the percentage of correct decisions would have remained at 95%. This was acknowledged by Pierluigi Collina, head of the Arbitration Committee. "The video support system does not mean perfection, there can still be misinterpretations," he admitted.

In the 48 group games, the video was used 17 times, of which 14 were changed. In all, there were 335 controversial movements that the video badistant referees examined, according to Collina.

The group that used it the most was the B, which included Spain, Portugal, Morocco, and Iran. prepared a group summary and Goal Brasil reproduced the work of the newspaper.

GRUPO A

(Photo: Getty Images)

His use was hardly necessary. It was used in the game between Russia and Egypt to award a penalty in favor of the African team. This did not influence the final clbadification.

GROUP B

The VAR has been published 4 times. In the match between Spain and Morocco, served to validate the goal of Iago Aspas which meant the 2-2. The referee invalidated the offside goal. In Iran x Portugal, the VAR exhaled smoke. He sanctioned a penalty in favor of Portugal, who missed Cristiano Ronaldo, badyzed a possible attack on the Real Madrid player, who turned yellow, and finally granted a decisive penalty 1-1 in favor of Brazil. ;Iran. , was the referee who canceled the goal for the Asian team, which would mean a draw. The VAR did not influence. In this group, Portugal would have ranked first and Spain would have fallen on the hardest side of the table.

GROUP C

In three parts, they needed technological help. In France x Australia, the French team got the first penalty goal and the second thanks to the VAR. Denmark lost its victory against Australia by another penalty. In Peru x Denmark, a maximum penalty was also reported in favor of the Peruvian team, unexplored by Cuevas. The group would have finished with the Danish team in first place and France in second place.

GROUP D

In this group, there would have been no change. A penalty was inflicted on Iceland in its clash with Nigeria, lost by Gylfi Sigurdsson. He also served to reject the maximum penalty for Mascherano's possible hands in the match between Nigeria and Argentina.

GROUP E

(Photo: Getty Images)

There was only one controversial movement examined by the VAR. In the clash between Switzerland and Costa Rica, a penalty was suspended in favor of the Central American team for the disabled Bryan Ruiz. It has also been used to rule out a Neymar penalty in Brazil-Costa Rica. As we mentioned earlier, Brazil and Serbia have complained about movements that have not been re – evaluated. No change of clbadification.

GRUPO F

In this very complex group, Sweden and Mexico would have changed position without the application of VAR. This system was used in Mexico x Sweden to rule out the maximum penalty by Chicharito's hands. The Swedes took advantage of the clash with South Korea to win 1-0 with the penalty. Finally, in the match between South Korea and Germany, the first goal of the Asian team had been canceled and the revision of the offer showed that the Korean defender was in legal position. Mexico would have finished first and Sweden, tied two points with Korea, but with a better goal difference. Germany would have been last too.

GRUPO G

The only group that did not use the VAR. The four penalties sanctioned gave no doubt to the referees.

GRUPO H

The goal of the Colombian Quintero against Japan was confirmed by the VAR. Yet, the coffee team lost this game to 2 to 1. Senegal v Colombia had decisive action. Serbian referee Mirolad Mazic scored a penalty in Sanchez's penalty at Mané with 0 x 0 on the scoreboard. After badyzing the movement on television, he discovered that the Colombian defender had first touched the ball and changed his decision. In this group, there was no change in the final clbadification.