[ad_1]
For all the tactical changes injected into modern football, there remains purity in this world game probably the most popular. The 90-minute match in two halves was not hit despite the commercial bonanza that would come if divided into four quarters like the NBA or the field hockey.
That is why a suggestion by Sepp Blatter when he was FIFA's general secretary for throwing -ins in kicks was rejected.
But times change. The Referee Assistant Video (VAR) at the World Cup, despite the interpretations and decisions of experts and fans, has been widely accepted.
Few people were sure of the impact this would have on World Cup games. After all, until Russia 2018, it was at worst an incompetent referee or assistant, disregarding the odd conspiracy.
READ | How Belgium benefited from the recession and UEFA regulations
Having reached the home straight of the best World Cup in the past three decades, VAR has not spoiled the show. Most of the 335 VAR incidents studied in the group phases left us a "I told you so". "That VAR is killing me," just as Roger Federer reacted when HawkEye was introduced to tennis.
VAR also showed the work of the TV camera lived up to the word used to highlight the art in sports – the imagination. Where it fails, it is the subjectivity in the decisions, underlined ironically by the clarity of the televised images.
Take one of the greatest VAR moments. In the 1-1 draw between Portugal and a hard Iran, Cristiano Ronaldo was provoked while a defender was leaning over him. As the star spread, the marker fell into a pile on his face.
Once the referee Enrique Caceres claimed VAR, Ronaldo was in trouble. The elbow meant a straight red, but here the arm brushed Morteza Pouraliganji's face, but there was no intention.
Finally, the yellow card was neither there nor there. It seemed like a subjective appeal, going against the rule of thumb imposed by technology. Either you ignore the challenge or you punish as the merit the attack.
Although the VAR helped the game, it is there that it falters. Referees who look into a distant room and decide which incident should be examined can interrogate the system.
The VAR received the vote of confidence from Pierluigi Collina, chairman of the Referees Committee, but the episode of Ronaldo leaves something to be desired. . However, the Italian conceded that it was a work in progress.
But the Spain-Russia clash that fired the 2010 champions did nothing to appease his fears. In the last moments, the Russian defenders faced Sergio Ramos and Gerard Pique ashore in the penalty area when the ball came from a free kick.
Yerry Mina, of Colombia, reacts while referee Milorad Mazic's decision is overturned as a result of a VAR exam.
(Reuters)
This seemed like a clear penalty, but the referee, after using VAR, excluded him. Spain lost on penalties. German defender Jerome Boateng was fortunate not to be penalized for a foul in the box against Sweden while he was the last man. It was a bitter pill to swallow for Sweden, who lost after a last-ditch strike from Toni Kroos.
VAR, however, prevented players from simulating injuries and allowed referees and assistants to let play continue
rugby and field hockey to fine-tune VAR.
India, during the Captaincy of MS Dhoni, opposed the Decision Review System (DRS), claiming that it was not "100%". The key problem was the bullet tracking system, which, according to India, was not entirely reliable. They had a point. They are now ready for DRS in the bilateral series, but the debate on the referees' call for marginal forefoot decisions is continuing.
Cricket's first attempt to use the third referee did not work. This was during the ICC Champions Trophy 2002 in Sri Lanka that ICC introduced a contribution from the short-lived TV referee on lbw references.
There was a bidirectional communication with the referee on the field, but the referee of the telly could only tell whether ball aligned or not. This meant that Dion Ebrahim of Zimbabwe was given although it was clear that the ball would have missed the stumps.
READ | Kylian Mbappe a star for the next 15 years – Kevin de Bruyne
Was a seasoned international referee asked the next day how he would have reacted as head of television? "I would have said" the ball has queued, but ", he smiled.
Football can borrow from rugby and hockey. Conversation between the referee and the head of the review is heard on TV and the experts then develop the decision.Collina said that this would happen at some point in the future.
The interactive aspect of the sport – the audio of Formula 1 is a typical example – will influence these decisions, however, expenses can prevent VAR from being widely used.
Field hockey is very fast and requires technical assistance to review decisions. drama and have only improved the game.
Collina has agreed that VAR evolves.Until it becomes an exact science, players could be surprised by changing the interpretation of a game to the other.
Source link
