By Robbie Butler
Maybe one of the reasons I enjoy football and economics is because both are fundamentally about making decisions. Maybe this is why I have written so much about VAR, my dislike of the technology and how it has changed how the sport is consumed. In my opinion, things reached a new low on Sunday with the awarding of Erling Haaland's goal against Manchester United.
And a new low is reaching some depths. I didn't think Luis Diaz's disallowed goal against Spurs in 2023 could be surpassed but we may have a candidate now.
As Roy Keane alluded to in post-match commentary, anyone who has played the game knows Enzo Fernandez (below) is interfering with play, and as a result, offside. The match officials concluded the same in real-time. The assistant referee raised his flag immediately after Haaland scored and the goal was deemed offside.
Maybe one of the reasons I enjoy football and economics is because both are fundamentally about making decisions. Maybe this is why I have written so much about VAR, my dislike of the technology and how it has changed how the sport is consumed. In my opinion, things reached a new low on Sunday with the awarding of Erling Haaland's goal against Manchester United.
And a new low is reaching some depths. I didn't think Luis Diaz's disallowed goal against Spurs in 2023 could be surpassed but we may have a candidate now.
As Roy Keane alluded to in post-match commentary, anyone who has played the game knows Enzo Fernandez (below) is interfering with play, and as a result, offside. The match officials concluded the same in real-time. The assistant referee raised his flag immediately after Haaland scored and the goal was deemed offside.
I don't believe a single football fan would have objected to this decision had the game restarted with a free-kick, as has been the case for about a hundred years when such a scenario occurs. Enter VAR. The team in Stockley Park interpreted the rules to mean Fernandez was not offside and the goal stands. It is not how offside is meant to work, nor, in my opinion, the correct interpretation of the wording.
But to compound this mistake, Pro Ref, formerly known as the PGMOL or Professional Game Match Officials Limited, issued an apologetic statement, saying: "the VAR did not recognise the likely impact of his position and should have recommended an on-field review." This statement fails to state that there was an "on-field review". It was done in real time. By the match officials. Who made the right decision.
The VAR then got involved in something where it was not "clear" or "obvious" that a mistake had been made and ended up overturning the correct decision. Today's statement confirms that, and also confirms what a growing number of people believe: VAR makes the game worse, not better, and introduces mistakes that would not be there had the technology not been adopted. It effectively does the exact opposite of what it was intended to do.
But to compound this mistake, Pro Ref, formerly known as the PGMOL or Professional Game Match Officials Limited, issued an apologetic statement, saying: "the VAR did not recognise the likely impact of his position and should have recommended an on-field review." This statement fails to state that there was an "on-field review". It was done in real time. By the match officials. Who made the right decision.
The VAR then got involved in something where it was not "clear" or "obvious" that a mistake had been made and ended up overturning the correct decision. Today's statement confirms that, and also confirms what a growing number of people believe: VAR makes the game worse, not better, and introduces mistakes that would not be there had the technology not been adopted. It effectively does the exact opposite of what it was intended to do.
RSS Feed
