Australia, on wrong side of World Cup history, feels wrath of VAR again
Related Story: Socceroos give France a massive scare in gutsy 2-1 World Cup loss Related Story: As it happened: France edge brave Socceroos 2-1 in Kazan
Given the consternation felt throughout the A-League season on the topic of video assistant referees, it felt almost fitting that the first team to feel the wrath of VAR at a World Cup would indeed be Australia.
The Socceroos put on an extremely encouraging performance against mighty France, one of the favourites to take out this year's FIFA World Cup, but ultimately fell short at the death in a 2-1 defeat.
It was France's opening goal in the second half that generated enormous controversy among Australian viewers, however, with Josh Risdon sliding in on Antoine Griezmann to dispossess the star forward in the box.
At first viewing, Risdon's tackle appeared to make contact with the ball before following through on Griezmann. Tellingly, one angle from behind goal, with both players heading towards the camera, appeared to show Risdon making slight contact on the ball, before felling the Frenchman.
But the VAR settled on two angles which did not make that contact with the ball obvious. Presented to the on-field referee, those two angles made it a slam-dunk case for France's penalty claims, with Risdon appearing to foul Griezmann.
Griezmann promptly dispatched the penalty with aplomb, putting France 1-0 up.
"The body language was that he didn't know," Socceroos coach Bert van Marwijk said of referee Andres Cunha while the official was watching review on screen.
"Let's say from 10, seven people say penalty and three say no penalty. So I don't know.
"He was standing very close in the moment of the penalty [incident] and he directly said 'no penalty', he directly said 'go on'.
"It's also a human being so everybody makes mistakes.
"But when you are 100 per cent sure it's no penalty and you go and you doubt; you have to ask him."
VAR technology is not some objective robot
The decision compounds one of the key issues with any video technology, and that is the making decisions in a three-dimensional world based off two-dimensional images.
From one angle, Risdon gets a touch on the ball. From another, he doesn't. And then to add to Australia's collective grief, VAR presents two angles where that contact isn't obvious, and the referee — who originally waved away France's calls for a penalty — had no choice but to overturn his decision.
What VAR also failed to do was bring clarity to contentious moments that occur in a football match. Any belief that video replays would provide some kind of objective, cold-light-of-day clarification to decisions made on the spot swerves the notion that football is largely a game of opinions.
- One opinion: Risdon made slight contact with the ball before bringing Griezmann down, therefore it was a legitimate tackle and play should continue.
- A second opinion: Risdon may or may not have won the ball initially, but in a second action, brought Griezmann down off the ball, therefore it's a penalty every day of the week.
It ultimately still relies on the opinions of human beings, both those in the VAR office and the man with the whistle, to call the decisions as they see it.
In the case in Kazan, VAR would have informed the referee there was vision which may change his mind, though the images are not clear-cut. From there, the referee would review the footage, and make his call.
Was it a penalty? It depends who you ask. And that's the way it's always been. So is VAR adding anything to the game if we're still arguing about an official's decision?
There may be obvious errors at the World Cup that VAR successfully overturns, which would be an upgrade from relying solely on referees and linesmen in the heat of the moment.
But for now, consternation and debate remains.
"I don't feel like we were beaten by a better team, almost by technology," Australia goalkeeper Mat Ryan said after the match.
[contf]
[contfnew]
ABC .net
[contfnewc]
[contfnewc]
