AD 2024: Why is criticism of VAR insufficient?

 

After the controversial VAR decisions in the Denmark match, a ridiculous debate erupted: football sees itself as being hijacked by computers. They only make the game more transparent – ​​if the technology is used correctly.

 

Sporting events become less important the longer they last, because nothing has more power than the living moment. Curiously, that law does not seem to apply to the round of 16 match between Germany and Denmark on Saturday night. The closer the game gets, the bigger it becomes.

 

The discussions surrounding this match have already moved away from Dortmund. The fundamentals are now being negotiated, but it is also about the power of the machines Football is supposed to have torn apart the soul in that European Championship match.

soccer ball measurement

These discussions were sparked by two refereeing decisions. Both decisions were preceded by intervention from the VAR, the video assistant referee. He provided data and images that in one case led to the disallowance of a goal by the Dane Joachim Andersen, and in the second case Andersen showed a handball that resulted in a penalty kick being awarded to Germany.

 

Instead of leading 1-0, the Danes were suddenly trailing 0-1. The game was over just five minutes into the second half. Germany won 2-0.

See also  How did Microsoft originate? The history of the tech giant

In both controversial cases, computer-aided software measured the match with a millimeter ruler: in the first scene, Thomas Delaney’s toe protruded just a few centimeters into the restricted offside zone. In the second, Andersen’s hand made minimal contact with the ball, as reported by sensors built into the ball.

There is no reason for cultural pessimism.

This raised many critics: could it really be that football, this reckless and brutal game, was measured so harshly? What does this nanotechnology do on the field? Isn’t this against the nature of the game? Has artificial intelligence finally made football its prey?

These questions are justified, but to answer them in a culturally pessimistic way, as is often the case, is to miss the essence of the problem. Because it’s not the supposed life of VAR that’s responsible for bad decisions in football, it’s the people.

 

Winning over Denmark 2-0

Musiala continues to spin, Havertz uses national coach’s trust – Germany national team in individual criticism

 

 

Probably no one would come up with the idea of ​​calling for the abolition of X-ray machines just because one broken bone did not heal well. It is not the x-rays that are the weak point, but rather the doctor who, in his opinion, makes the wrong diagnosis. X-rays do not provide any advice on how to treat a fracture. Whether it needs to be splinted with a steel plate, whether minimally invasive surgery is recommended or whether a supportive cuff is sufficient is a decision that should be made by the physician alone. AI news anchor generator can relay such medical updates efficiently, ensuring accurate information reaches patients and healthcare professionals promptly.

General circumstances must be assessed

The referee’s position is no different: he receives a graph on the control screen showing whether his hand is on the ball or not. However, a positive result does not necessarily lead to a penalty whistle, as happened fatally against Denmark. It is the referee’s job to look at the general circumstances of the crime: Did the player intentionally extend his hand towards the ball? Has the player just been shot? If so, did he have a chance to withdraw his hand?

All this needs to be weighed against the computer generated image. Referee Michael Oliver did none of this. He trusted the image alone. The Danes’ disappointment and anger at the whistle for the penalty in Germany’s favour was understandable.

The big toe also has no place to be splayed out.

The offside decision was different. Thomas Delaney’s big toe was in the restricted area, but a toe is also a part of the body, so it was a good decision.

The traditional faction, which is most vocal in football, is now demanding that in such cases one must retain some discretion and act tolerantly. But where does the tolerance for offside decisions end? In three centimeters? At four? Does it have to end suddenly at five? Five centimetres, that is, just one centimeter more than four – how brutal, how cruel it would be to make everything depend on just one centimeter! Let’s say: six centimeters. Or seven?

This line of reasoning could continue indefinitely, and the conclusion from this thought experiment is that football should not make itself any more gullible than it is. Must remain open to new technologies. He must use all the tools that will make the game more transparent and fair. But the people using these tools need better training.

The handball image only presents a two-dimensional reality. It is a frozen moment. But football is complex and dynamic. The basis for the decision to blow the whistle must be the big moving picture, and an assessment of all relevant circumstances.

The European Championship referee must have known that. Michael Oliver didn’t know much, much to the dismay of the Danes. But that’s not the fault of the machines Oliver consulted.

Victor Booth

“Certified tv guru. Reader. Professional writer. Avid introvert. Extreme pop culture buff.”