How many layers of refereeing and re-refereeing does English football require before reaching the correct decision?
When Bruno Fernandes stretched to tackle James Maddison at Old Trafford on Sunday, slipped and was caught on his studs, referee Chris Kavanagh immediately gave him a red card for a serious foul.
Video Assistant Referee (VAR) Peter Banks then had the opportunity to review the decision using footage he did not have of Kavanagh, who was obscured by Manuel Ugarte and Cristian Romero. But Banks chose not to intervene, apparently believing the criteria to overturn the on-field decision had not been met. Kavanagh's decision stood and Fernandes was forced to leave.
However, when Manchester United subsequently appealed Fernandes' red card, the FA Disciplinary Committee, made up of three former players, upheld their claim that the red card was a mistake. Fernandes will be available for United's next three games.
Everyone will have their own opinion on whether Fernandes should have been sent off or not. At first glance, it seemed lofty, dangerous, and cynical. When replayed in slow motion, it's clear that Fernandes slipped, not dove. Fernandez reached out to catch Maddison, but only put a little force with his heel into Maddison's shin. The risk to Madison was low. Fernandes later told Sky Sports that Maddison himself told him that it was a foul but “it was by no means a red card.”
Bruno Fernandes' red card was a close call (Michael Regan/Getty Images)
But the important thing is that people can reasonably disagree in good faith about whether it was a red card or not. There are no right or wrong answers here. Therefore, two different review processes (first the VAR on the day and then the disciplinary committee two days later) could look at the same footage and reach different conclusions. Kavanaugh's decision came within a rare narrow margin. It was correct enough not to be overturned by VAR, but not enough to survive the three-man panel. This is before hearing from the Major Match Incidents Committee, which is expected to give its view on the decision this week.
It makes me wonder once again what the point of the VAR system is. The whole intellectual basis of VAR is that given enough time and skill, mistakes made on the field can be corrected. That there is an objectively right decision in every case, and that with enough slow-motion replay, you can replace a wrong decision with a right one. Even if the percentage of mistakes made by on-field officials is small, VAR offers us an attractive opportunity to approach 100% accuracy. Who could disagree with that?
even deeper
VAR explanation: what is it? Why is it controversial? How would the Premier League abandon it?
But events of the past few days have shown how flawed that logic is. The fact that people are divided on whether Fernandes should have been sent off shows that the idea of ​​an objectively correct decision is an illusion. The fact that Banks reviewed the footage and supported Kavanaugh's decision shows that technology alone is not a panacea. And the fact that the committee can overrule not only the referee's decision, but also effectively VAR, shows that the idea that VAR could bring closure or closure to these debates has always been absurd.
For years now, football has pursued the goal of perfectly accurate calls. However, everything we have seen since the introduction of the VAR system shows that it is an impossible dream. So many decisions, especially those regarding serious fouls, are so subjective that no amount of forensic replay testing can get to the truth. The final decision on Fernandez is as controversial as the decisions on Kavanaugh and Banks.
Consider for a moment how much we have lost in chasing this mirage. The fan experience with the game was irreparably damaged. The simple connection between the ball hitting the back of the net and celebratory joy has been severed. Rather, it has been replaced by several minutes of being stuck and lost in the dark, often with no idea what's going on. Once the goal is awarded or not, the moment is lost. The moments you live as a fan, travel for it, and pay increasingly exorbitant prices for it, are now so mediated by Stockley Park that they have lost their emotional edge. The price weighs much more than the prize.
VAR took the joy out of goal celebrations (Mark Atkins/Getty Images)
This is because the ardent defenders of VAR systems say, “No, the problem is not with the technology, but with the people using it, and if we could simply train them better, the dream of perfect objective accuracy could still come true.'' The point is “I won't.” within reach.
This has always been a stupid argument. Everything we know about soccer, and everything we know about humans, tells us that there is no unstated right answer. And no matter how many replays they have access to, no one person or panel can ever reveal them. Until it is known whether a team's stoppage time winner will be allowed or not, a specially prepared VAR training plan will not be able to bridge the emotional gap.
Discussions about tweaking, improving, and fixing the VAR system only serve to accept the premise of the technology, accept the damage it has done to the game, and elevate academic illusions over the actual experience of fans. With VAR, there is no better solution because you want more than you can get. From here, there is only one argument that fans should make: complete abolition immediately.
When Premier League clubs voted on the matter in June, only Wolverhampton Wanderers were visionary enough to take that view. History will kindly evaluate those who had the courage to sacrifice themselves to protect what is right. Perhaps it will take many more layers of review processes, with several new executives trying to find different answers to the same questions, before the remaining clubs find themselves staring everyone else in the face. It's going to happen.
(Top photo: Michael Regan/Getty Images)
