Video replay problems at World Cup are something Aussie fans have been fuming about

ANOTHER day, another set of controversies from the World Cup in Russia. But it could have all been easily avoided.

COMMENT

FOR A-League fans, it’s a case of using the term coined by Socceroos legend Johnny Warren: “I told you so.”

Of course Warren said it because he was finally starting to see the change in Australian football that he had fought so hard for.

But it now seems like the perfect thing for Australian football fans to say to fans of the sport around the world.

Because less than a week into the FIFA World Cup in Russia, it is the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) that is dominating headlines more than the action on the pitch.

Take away Cristiano Ronaldo’s hat-trick and Lionel Messi’s limp performance, and it’s VAR that the world is talking about.

Karry Kane and England were crying foul.

But for fans of the A-League, it’s something they’ve been fuming about for a year.

Last season’s A-League was plagued by issues with VAR, including the stuff-up in the grand final that awarded Melbourne Victory a winning goal that should have been called back for offside.

In that match, Kosta Barbarouses’ ninth-minute goal ultimately decided the outcome of the grand final.

Afterwards, the FFA issued a statement that said “a technical failure in the system” meant Craig Zetter, who was in charge of VAR for the game, did not have access to the camera views that would have enabled him to make an offside ruling.

And now, on the world’s biggest stage, we’re seeing the World Cup marred by the VAR.

Did Josh Risdon touch the ball?

The list of incidents is growing after only five match days:

Australia V France: Josh Risdon became the first player in World Cup history to give away a penalty after the intervention of the VAR when the referee in the Socceroos’ 2-1 loss to France initially called “play on” before reviewing his call and awarding a spot-kick, which Antoine Griezmann converted.

Spain V Portugal: Whistleblower Gianluca Rocchi used the VAR and deemed Diego Costa had not fouled Pepe just before receiving the ball for his first goal.

Brazil V Switzerland: Brazil defender Miranda appears to be pushed in the back by Steven Zuber before he scores for Switzerland, but VAR is not used.

Argentina vs Iceland: Christian Pavon went down inside the box but VAR didn’t intervene.

England V Tunisia: England striker Harry Kane is rugby tackled twice from corners, but VAR isn’t used on either occasion.

Asked about the Kane incident at halftime, ex-England striker Alan Shearer told the BBC: “There’s no difference whatsoever (between the two penalty calls), if you give one you’re going to end up getting eight or nine pens per game.”

And that seems to be the problem. There is no consistency on when the VAR is and isn’t used.

Argentina’s Cristian Pavon falls to the ground during the group D match between Argentina and Iceland but VAR didn’t get involved.

Despite the new technology, there is just as much debate (maybe even more) on what is the right or wrong call.

Did Costa foul Pepe before scoring his first goal for Spain?

By the letter of the law, he probably did, but the VAR didn’t intervene.

Did Risdon touch the ball before making contact with Griezmann?

Even after watching hundreds of replays of all of these incidents, the debate remains.

The Brazilian Football Confederation will question FIFA about the procedures used for video review during Brazil’s match against Switzerland at the World Cup.

The confederation says they will ask FIFA to clarify whether the system was in use during two key second-half decisions that went against the five-time world champions in their 1-1 opening draw on Sunday.

The first was a push on defender Miranda that aided Switzerland’s equaliser, and the second was a no-call that Brazil felt should have produced a penalty on a play involving forward Gabriel Jesus.

The confederation said on Monday “these two actions constitute … clear errors by the referee, which thus should form part of the reviewable decisions that are analysed through VAR.”

The confederation says it wants to know whether the plays were reviewed in any way, saying “transparency is of essence”. It also requests “video and audio recordings” that might have been used by the match officials during those plays.

Wrong decisions have always been made in football games.

Football fans could (begrudgingly) handle a referee making a wrong decision.

But now VAR has been introduced — something that interrupts with the flow of the game — and the wrong calls are still being made.

In this situation all VAR has done is change a contentious decision in Australia’s favor to a contentious decision to Australia’s detriment. That is not the point #sbsworldcup

— Craig Foster (@Craig_Foster) June 17, 2018

In sports such as rugby league and cricket, there is a natural break in play for a video replay. And in most cases it is pretty black and white whether a batsman is out or a try is scored.

But making a decision on a penalty isn’t black and white.

For a start, the VAR is only meant to be used when a “clear and obvious” error has been made.

But what defines that? Was not awarding the penalty against Risdon a clear and obvious error? There is too much of a grey area.

In the end, VAR just adds another layer of refereeing that leads to another opportunity for a mistake or contentious decision to be made.

A-League fans could have told FIFA that months ago.