The missed penalty for Eintracht Frankfurt in the game against Borussia Dortmund on Saturday evening has fueled the discussion about the video evidence – not for the first time this season. Is there a way out of the VAR dilemma? Maybe – with even more VAR. A comment.
First of all: We can’t get rid of crass, hair-raising, outrageous mistakes in football. Not with the best referees, not with the smartest set of rules, not with the keenest eyes on the video monitor in Cologne or anywhere else. Foul? emergency brake? penalty? sending off? We will still be discussing this in 100 years – and calling the responsible referee a completely blind person. At least internally.
The VAR has not changed that and the VAR will not change that in the future. The scene in Frankfurt, when a helpless Karim Adeyemi pushed opponent Jesper Lindstrom from behind to prevent a probably safe goal, is the best example of this. No penalty, despite video evidence.
Memories were awakened of the 2018 cup final: Eintracht was also involved back then. In the end, she won 3-1 – because a crystal-clear penalty was not awarded to Bayern in the closing stages. With VAR. That was almost four and a half years ago, and video evidence was still in its infancy at the time. Since then, people have been tinkering and tinkering, processes have been adapted, and the technology has been fine-tuned. We don’t feel like we’re a step further.
Aha! An argument for the abolition of VAR? On the contrary: A situation like that in Deutsche Bank Park in Frankfurt, which ended in a scolding SGE sports director Markus Krösche, a timidly cheering BVB trainer Edin Terzic and a crippled referee Sascha Stegemann, can be prevented. With more VAR.
Video evidence trouble: Stegemann decided against himself
One after the other: The big problem on Saturday evening was not Stegemann’s wrong decision. The problem wasn’t the fact that the wrong decision endured despite the VAR being available. This is not new either, see: Berlin, May 19, 2018.
The sticking point was that Stegemann after the end of the game sky-had to set up cameras and admit that if he had seen the footage from the VAR basement, he would have awarded a penalty without hesitation. Means: His assessment of the Adeyemi push coincided with the more than 40,000 Eintracht fans in the stadium. Stegemann literally ruled against himself.
Why? Because he didn’t know any better.
In the coming days, they will be able to explain internally why the responsible referees in Cologne finally gave Stegemann the feedback that it was not a “clearly wrong decision”. Communication between the referee and VAR-Keller may also be a potential stumbling block in the heat of the moment, but the main problem is likely to be precisely this much-cited phrase: “clear wrong decision”.
The rules speak of “clear and obvious wrong decisions or serious overlooked incidents”. “Only” in these cases may the VAR intervene. Only: Where these clear, beyond any doubt, mistakes by the referee on the lawn begin, there are apparently such differences of opinion that Adeyemi’s fisticuffs were not one of them. This cannot have been what the inventor intended.
VAR solution: New set of rules – for the responsible referee
Therefore the rules have to be adjusted. Controversial, potentially game-changing situations and events must also be reflected in the stadium by the VAR. How this is finally recorded in the set of rules is open to discussion. But if VAR is to contribute to a fairer game and result on the pitch, there is no way around it.
Because: Before the incapacitation of the referee was warned when the video evidence was introduced, the final decision must still be made on site. However, that is exactly what did not happen in Frankfurt: If the information was the same, Stegemann and the video assistant referee would have decided differently – but because the former did not get the necessary information, he was powerless. And the final judgment rested with the VAR.
So the VAR led to exactly the situation that you actually wanted to avoid. This can only be prevented if the referee takes action again and checks the “unclear” wrong decisions again.
Yes, that means more VAR, more breaks. And if so: Better potentially three short breaks more than “Now that I see the pictures, you have to say that there should have been a penalty”.
And if that’s too much video evidence for the DFL and DFB gentlemen: that’s fine too. But then it would be best for us to get rid of the whole thing right away.
