One of the most remarkable events of the spring part of the Russian football championship was the full implementation of the video assistance system for referees (VAR). Starting from the 20th round of the RPL, video assistants of the head referee work in all matches of the tournament, but even this did not help to avoid a number of scandals.
It’s enough to recall the unassigned penalty for a game with Igor Diveyev’s hand and the removal of Esekiel Ponce in the match between Spartak and CSKA in the Russian Cup, the canceled red card of Akhmat’s defender Maxim Nenakhov in the meeting with Rostov and the expulsion of Lokomotiv defense player Solomon from the field Querquelia. Moreover, the main problem is not that these verdicts were ambiguous, but that the mass audience did not understand what the officials were guided by.
Of course, the VAR system gave arbitrators the opportunity to make the right decisions in difficult situations. But if sometimes their motivation is clear to any football fan, then in others it remains a mystery. Such understatement often causes bewilderment and indignation on the part of the public and makes some especially ardent fans reproach the judge for the incorrect interpretation of the episode. Moreover, this problem could be easily solved by adopting the experience of colleagues from other sports.
The video replay system has long been used in hockey, basketball and American football, where it is often very difficult for judges to immediately understand the episodes. At the same time, all these sports are united by the fact that after a decision is made, the fans are explained to the audience gathered on the arena and on television screens why the judges stopped at this interpretation. So, in the NHL and NFL, the hands-free referees announce the verdict, and in the NBA, they announce it to broadcasters and commentators.
As a result, the fans have almost no questions regarding controversial issues, which significantly reduces the degree of tension. In addition, this helps viewers to delve deeper into the game and henceforth not be surprised at first glance by the arbitrators' controversial interpretation of the episode.
As for the NBA, they went even further and achieved almost complete transparency. For most matches of the association in a special studio there is a former referee who explains why the referees on the court took one side or another in a particular case. It is worth noting that in the RPL a similar approach was also used, but the experiment failed to the end. For a long time Igor Fedotov worked in the studio of the Match TV channel, but he was disconnected from the air after a resonant statement during a meeting between Zenit and CSKA.
The reason for the experiment's failure was that Fedotov, as an independent expert, expressed his opinion on the actions of the arbitrators, while relying on a set of rules. But due to the fact that many episodes are interpreted differently in football, he could not explain exactly why the judge did this and not otherwise, instead noticing the mistakes of his former colleagues. All this only misled the fans and made us think about the qualifications of the representatives of the domestic judiciary.
In fact, the VAR expert should not share his point of view on a specific gaming situation, but should communicate the decision of the referee to the fans. To do this, he needs to be in constant contact with the video assistant and the chief judge, and then explain to the audience what exactly they were guided in analyzing this moment. Of course, this will not solve the problem of double standards, but the fans will have no questions on what basis the same Sergey Lapochkin returned Nenakhov to the field after showing him the red card.
At the moment, football fans have to think for themselves why, for example, Cyril Levnikov removed Kverkvelia from the field, and did not show him the “mustard plaster” for playing with his hand in the penalty area. Although the repetition may give the impression that Guilherme was in close proximity to the angle at which the ball was sent and could well arrange a save. Indeed, in this case, the violation can no longer be interpreted as “a clear deprivation of the opportunity to score”, and therefore, the defender of Lokomotiv should have been punished with only a yellow card.
Perhaps the referee considered that the goalkeeper of the Russian national team did not have time, or was sure that the blow was delivered from a slaughter position. However, the fans did not know the answer to this question and began to build their own guesses. With a VAR expert, this could have been avoided.
Among other things, the presence of such a specialist and his regular airing would contribute to the education of fans, many of whom are fairly mediocre in football rules. It is worth noting that, taking into account constant adjustments and innovations, there is nothing wrong with this. Regular reviews would help fill these gaps.
At the same time, you should not think that in other European countries the video assistance system for referees works like a clock. It is enough to recall the recent meeting in the playoffs of the Europa League between Manchester United and Brugge, when Serdar Gezebyuyuk removed Simon Delhi. Then many fans and experts disagreed on whether the defender of the red card was worthy. At the same time, during the match, no explanation was given on the episode.
Thus, having introduced the position of an expert on VAR, the RPL would not only be able to take a serious step towards the fans and gain their trust, but also become an example for many European championships. With the introduction of this method of working in matches, there would be much less questions for the judiciary, which would lead to a decrease in pressure on its representatives. In turn, this would allow the arbitrators to work in a more relaxed atmosphere.