If we have not been told that ‘sport reflects life,’ we would have read it somewhere. The reason that this is uttered, or similar words, so often is because it is true.
There will be days when you play superbly as an individual, or as a team and yet you lose, even though you don’t deserve to. Days when you are given out when you weren’t out, pick up a booking due to mistaken identity. Days when it simply isn’t fair. That is life.
A great deal has been made of “a technical failure in the VAR system” during the A-League Grand Final that resulted in Melbourne Victory scoring what proved to be the match-winning goal of the game against Newcastle Jets. Some may say understandably so, while others are saying ‘get over it,’ that is life.
Replays of the goal indicated that James Donachie was offside when he headed back Leroy George’s cross for Kosta Barbarouses to shoot past the Newcastle Jets goalkeeper Glen Moss.
The Football Federation of Australia in their statement claim that the “technical failure” occurred “due to a malfunction of software.” The malfunction in the software meant that “the broadcast feed into the VAR system was partially lost 30 seconds before Victory’s goal.” As a result the VAR official “did not have access to the camera views which would have enabled him to make an offside ruling.”
The question that has not been answered is whether the VAR official conveyed that information to the match referee. If he did, and the referee was unsure he could easily have gone to the pitch side monitor to make sure it was a legitimate goal. However he would only do that if there was in any doubt.
Had this happened in a match where there was not a Video Assistant Referee everyone would have been saying ‘that is sport.’ Some days you get those decisions, some days you don’t. However because there is a Video Assistant Referee everyone expects the decisions made to be right.
The trouble is the reason that video-technology was brought in was purely and simply to prevent absolute howlers being made. To prevent goals being allowed that should have been disallowed. So when the technology fails or the Video Official gets it wrong there is hell to pay. Questions are understandably asked as to how they made the wrong decision.
It is interesting to note that way back in the 1890’s when The Jubilee Book of Cricket was published with photographs of players in action, which was a first, one sage warned of the impact cameras would have on the game. The reviewer from the Daily Mail wrote: “When the machine has been perfected so as to reproduce the picture instantaneously, it may supersede the umpire altogether.”
Technology has seen those who officiate come under even greater scrutiny. We have not done away with the Umpire, but in cricket we as near as dammit have. As almost every meaningful decision is now made by the Video Umpire.
What is wrong with Cricket and some other sports with referral systems is that players now use them as a roll of the dice, a game of chance. Late in a game they use a referral in the hope that the technology may find fault with a goal or a dismissal.
Football has been one of the last sports to bring in technology to help its officials. Cynics believed that this was simply because it would make it much harder for officials to influence results. Based on some VAR decisions, these cynics should not be concerned as it would appear that ability to affect a result is still alive and well.
However The real argument was that it would affect the flow of the game. A referral by a player or an official after a goal is scored takes something away from the whole spectacle of the contest. Celebrations and moments of euphoria are hosed down immediately both in the stands and on the pitch while the officials check whether the goal or try should stand. There is no doubt it takes something away from the game.
Football especially is supposed to be fast and free flowing. The VAR takes away that spontaneity. It is like a security guard telling you to sit back down in your seat and be quiet after your team has scored and you rise to salute them. It has changed the whole viewing experience both at live games and when watching at home.
There is a place for goal-line technology. The ability to determine whether or not the ball has crossed the line in its entirety and a goal should be awarded. But one has to question the way VAR has been introduced and its impact.
Let’s be honest match officials in the main across all sports make fewer mistakes in a game than the players they are officiating. In fact in football a high percentage of goals are the result of mistakes made by players.
Sport is about human beings pitting themselves against each other both physically and mentally. For that reason mistakes are made. Fatigue often contributing to those mistakes. Match officials in the past three decades have been put under more and more pressure, with first action replays and slow motion replays. Then more recently a myriad of camera-angles that are completely different from the view they have when the incident occurred. One cannot help but feel that the VAR and other similar systems are undermining the role of the official even more.
In field hockey we have witnessed more and more umpires using their own referrals when a Penalty Corner has been converted into a goal, checking that the ball left the striking circle. Has this trend come about simply because these officials are worried that the television may show that a goal should not have been awarded? Yet this is why the team has a referral. Sadly some umpires and referees are now beginning to doubt their own ability.
As the statistics produced by Sky TV in the UK in March this year show, the referees in the Premier League, like most at the top of their sport, do a great job.
Sky revealed that a Premier League referee “makes around 245 decisions per game, three times more than an average player touches the ball over 90 minutes. That’s one decision every 22 seconds.
Approximately 45 of these decisions are technical – whether goal-kicks, corners or throw-ins – leaving around 200 decisions to judging physical contact and disciplinary actions.
Of those 200, around 35 are visible decisions where an action is taken (fouls, restarts), and 165 are non-visible, where play is allowed to continue. In total, refs make around five errors per game, meaning they are right 98 per cent of the time.”
In addition to these statistics as we wrote in “Time for a Review” in January in cricket analysis was done of more than 2,100 Player Reviews between September 2009 and March 2017 by Cricket historian and statistician Charles Davis. This review of the Decision Review System found that there were on average about 1.4 batting overturns and 1.2 bowling overturns per match. This would once again indicate that once again in the main the Umpires are getting the decision right.
Our book reviewer from the 1890’s predicted that the day would come when the referee or umpire would be superfluous. That may have been taking things to an extreme, but certainly he was right when he stated that the influence of the camera would have an impact on their role.
What should be taken into consideration is whether fans, coaches and players would like to see the match officials given back more power and the technological side reduced and limited in its use.
In December 2017 the PFA the Australian Players Union conducted a survey of its members on the VAR. Approximately a third of their members responded. At that time only one player thought the VAR was a good thing. Two thirds of the respondents were not confident that correct decisions were being made. While 44% said that they would rather see correct decisions being made 56% stated that they would rather the game was allowed to continue to flow than being constantly stopped to review decisions to make sure they were absolutely correct.
It would be interesting to see how they respond now.
Let’s not forget if sport truly is a reflection of life, how many reviews do you get in life to right wrong decisions made?
F Thank you for your comment as always.
I have to say having worked on a number of live sport events I am baffled by the explanation, so I am afraid I cannot explain. In my experience Hawkeye has a bank of monitors showing events from a myriad of different angles. They can isolate and zoom in etc, but they also have real time footage and as you say should have been close enough to be able to view a replay.
Another reason why I am against these replays, as unless you can get all 100% right we are better off simply trusting the referee on the pitch.
Help me and several thousands of others understand this Ashley.
The FFA jobsworth claimed the vision feedback was unable to be provided to the VAR official because of a “glitch” therefore the official was in no position to make a determination. All the while hundreds of thousands of viewers across the world were watching Fox repeat the incident over and over and over again.
Are we supposed to believe there was no other television monitor present in the VAR ‘bunker’ ??????
What an absolute mind blowing farce and embarrassment to an already embarrassing league.
Oh and before I forget that assistant on that side should be stood down indefinitely because if you cannot see not 1 but 3 players in an offside position than seriously, you’re not fit to officiate a game.