“The more transparent, the better”: will the publication of negotiations between referees benefit Russian football

The topic of refereeing continues to be one of the most discussed not only in Russian but also in world football.

Many expected that the number of scandals would noticeably decrease with the introduction of the video assistant referee (VAR) system, but so far no progress has been made in this regard.

Even though the referees got the opportunity to verify the correctness of the decisions they made in this or that episode, many of them still cause controversy and misunderstanding on the part of both club leaders and fans.

In this regard, in England, they thought about innovations that could make the work of judges more transparent and significantly reduce the degree of tension in the sports community.

As the head of the Premier League, Richard Masters, told The Times, local fans will soon be able to listen to recordings of negotiations between the chief referee and video assistants.

According to him, the league intends to show exactly how decisions are made and become more open to ordinary football fans.

At the same time, we are talking about the publication of conversations at the end of the meetings, because it is not yet allowed to make them available to the public on the air.

It is noteworthy that in Russia a similar experiment was carried out at the beginning of this season.

So, a week ago, a video appeared on the official YouTube channel of the RFU, which showed a discussion of controversial issues between the judges during the battle for the Russian Super Cup between Zenit and Spartak.

So, it was possible to watch how the chief arbiter Vladimir Moskalev and Sergey Karasev, who was in charge of VAR, contact each other and collectively pass verdicts.

For example, the goals scored against the red-whites, a hand hit in the face of Alexander Sobolev, a hard joint between Matsey Rybus and Daler Kuzyaev, and the controversial fall of Anton Zinkovsky in the penalty area of ​​St. Petersburg were analyzed in detail.

Then many felt that the rules were violated on the midfielder of Muscovites, and the appointment of a penalty would be the only step.

In general, the initiative of the Russian Football Union was extremely positively assessed by the fans, which can be judged at least by the number of likes and approving comments under the video.

Fans were enthusiastic about the desire of the organization to clearly show why the judge did this and not otherwise.

The only problem is that this was done with a considerable delay - 17 days after the match.

By this point, everyone had already discussed the unassigned 11-meter on Zinkovsky, and the former referee Igor Fedotov and the general director of Spartak Evgeny Melezhikov expressed the opinion that Moskalev mistakenly did not point to the point.

Scandals do not subside even at the start of the RPL season, and most of all, Spartak is again in the spotlight.

Moreover, at first the ten-time champion of Russia was listed as the injured party, and then his opponent already had a reason for indignation.

Thus, the leadership of the red and white showed dissatisfaction with the work of Vladislav Bezborodov in the match with Akhmat and sent complaints on five different episodes, including the removal of Rybus and the actions of Giorgi Shelia in the confrontation with Sobolev.

And a week later, Krasnodar also had a reason to apply to the Expert Referee Commission.

According to the bosses of the bulls, Kirill Levnikov mistakenly did not show the second yellow card to Alexander Sobolev, did not fix the game with the hand of midfielder Christopher Martins in the moment with the goal of Roman Zobnin, and also illegally removed Alexander Chernikov.

As a result, the ESC RFU sorted out the controversial points and sided with Krasnodar in the episode with Sobolev's non-removal, but not only did the answer come four days later, it was also given by completely different persons who made the relevant decisions.

And in this case, the very essence is lost, because fans, football players and representatives of clubs would certainly like not to hear an explanation from third-party experts, but to understand what a particular referee was guided by.

The president of Ural, Grigory Ivanov, who was not completely satisfied with the work of the referee team at the third round match with Krasnodar, also thinks so.

According to the head of Yekaterinburg residents, Vladimir Moskalev made two gross oversights during the meeting: he did not appoint a penalty kick at the guests' goal after the ball hit Sergei Borodin's hand, and then pointed to the "point" in the hosts' penalty area.

And then one of the participants in the episode again turned out to be the central defender of the "bulls", who fell on the lawn after contact with Alexei Gerasimov.

“If it does not contradict the charter of judges, then it is correct.

I'm not sure that the fans should hear the negotiations, but it will be very useful for specialists and teams to understand why they make this or that decision.

On the other hand, look at hockey.

Both chief referees have headsets, they voice their every decision.

Everyone understands why this or that player was sent off, why the puck was counted or not.

Therefore, in football it would be interesting to hear why one referee interprets a particular episode in this way, and the other differently, ”Ivanov said in a conversation with RT.

At the same time, he separately dwelled on the confrontation with Krasnodar.

According to him, initially Moskalev received a recommendation not to assign a penalty to the Ural goal, but after watching the video replay, he did not agree with his colleague.

And the reason for this remains unclear to the president of the club.

“If the records of the negotiations between the referees are published, it will be clear to everyone why the referee issued this or that verdict – to the same players.

Remember our match with Krasnodar.

Vladimir Moskalev is called by a video assistant and says that there was no penalty in the episode.

The chief arbiter goes to watch himself and points to the point.

Why did he make such a decision?

It would be interesting to hear what they discussed.

Why did Moskalev not believe his friend and confidently appointed an 11-meter penalty?

Negotiations would be available, we would understand his logic, ”concluded Ivanov.

The president of Dynamo Makhachkala, Gadzhi Gadzhiev, also reacted positively to this possible innovation, according to which openness to the fans will benefit football.

At the same time, he admitted that these publications can occasionally provoke tension in the community.

“What could be additional reasons for scandals in this case?

Only if the referees swear at each other

.

In fact, they are much more likely to agree with each other, only 5% of the time they do not find a consensus.

The episode is viewed many times, on this basis a decision is made.

I always believed that the more transparent the discussion of problems, the better.

There are fewer all kinds of dirty deals,” Gadzhiev said.

In his opinion, this initiative can have a positive impact on the level of interest in sports, because there will be an additional newsbreak.

“It is not for nothing that they say that the match is watched for an hour and a half, and discussed for a week.

In this case, there will be another reason to talk about him, additional intrigues.

But I doubt that this will affect the accuracy of decision making.

The choice is still influenced by several other things.

Yes, there may be a little more objectivity, but in ambiguous situations, preference will still be given to strong teams.

The support of the giants is inevitable.

But it is one thing when in a controversial moment they take the side of one of the teams, another thing is when one of them is destroyed.

Remember "Shinnik".

In one season, they filed nine protests for the work of judges, which were accepted, but Yaroslavl still flew out, ”concluded the ex-coach of Amkar and Anji.

In turn, the former FIFA referee Igor Yegorov negatively assessed the idea of ​​providing access to the negotiations.

According to him, this could create an unpleasant precedent and only increase pressure on officials.

“I think that the negotiations of the referees during the match are something intimate.

I wouldn't make it public.

Unfortunately, the presence of VAR does not reduce the number of errors.

It remains about the same level or even increases.

People hope for help from the TV, but it’s not so easy to use it correctly, ”said the RT interlocutor.

In his opinion, the referee has the right to review some controversial episodes, such as handball in the penalty area, but the rest should be evaluated in dynamics.

“The guys, approaching the monitor, look for a long time, communicate with each other.

Often everything turns into an argument.

Therefore, I believe that the negotiations of the arbitrators are an intimate thing, and the decision should remain collective.

If the records are available, then the fans will draw conclusions: who is right, who is wrong.

I think this should remain inside the brigade, ”added Yegorov.

His colleague Sergey Khusainov went even further and spoke negatively about the use of VAR in general.

According to him, it is more suitable for tennis than for football.

“Personally, I am against VAR.

This is a different football.

As for the negotiations, the judges must undergo special training - like the same pilots.

The discussion should be short, clear and to the point.

Otherwise, you can remember the match between Spartak and Sochi, when Vasily Kazartsev made several mistakes, and Alexey Yeskov, who was in charge of video replays, ended his career, ”said Khusainov.

At the same time, the former head coach of the Russian national team Boris Ignatiev admitted that he was absolutely not interested in what exactly the referees were talking about during the meeting.

“A husband and wife are talking in bed, and I will delve into it?

There are purely football things, but there are kitchen ones.

We are constantly trying to divert attention from sports.

Why should I listen to Karasev's conversation with Moskalev?

It doesn't interest me at all.

We must think of something else.

Why we have lagged behind in development, cannot compete with the same England, although we used to be on a par.

This is what matters to me.

For example, I am also not interested in listening to Volodya Bystrov rinse someone on television.

Take the team and lead, and we will support you.

Say: “Volodya, well done,” admitted Ignatiev.

He believes that it would be much more useful to launch an analytical program with the participation of judges who would explain this or that decision of colleagues.

“There are no conversations that can clarify the situation.

Karasev says to Moskalev: “Look, here you misjudged the situation.”

And he answers him: "No, everything is correct."

Or one asks the other to watch a replay.

That's all.

What will it give me?

If two or three judges came on the air and explained to us why in one case they put a penalty for handplay, and not in the other, it would be useful, ”summed up Ignatiev.