• Euro 2020

Italy - England: Euro final on Sunday at 22:00

Between absolute truth and a sense of justice: a summary of England's victory in the semi-finals

The whistle after Sterling's dive highlighted the problematic nature of VAR regulations and the need for change that would allow judges to examine critical decisions.

England may have risen by right, but the sense of injustice will not go away.

Will be prepared for the fate that has befallen cruelty to Denmark twice, and for the wrong message that England's victory will broadcast to the industry

Tags

• England team

• Denmark national team

Michael Yochin

Thursday, July 08, 2021, 12:30 p.m.

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments

• Summary of the Euro quarterfinals: Denmark - Czech Republic 1: 2

• Summary: England - Ukraine 0: 4 in the quarterfinals of Euro 2020

• Euro semi-final summary: Italy - Spain 2: 4 on penalties ...

• Goal summary: Italy - Spain 0: 1

• Euro quarter-final summary: Spain - Switzerland 1: 3 (on penalties)

• Summary: 2: 4 to Spain over Italy in the Euro 2012 Young Women final ...

• Summary of the Euro quarterfinals: Belgium - Italy 2: 1

• Summary: Italy - Austria 1: 2

Summary of England's 1: 2 victory over Denmark in extra time in the Euro 2020 semi-finals (Sport 1)

Is there absolute truth?

Sometimes yes, but in many cases the answer will be no.

Even in the absence of absolute justice, is it possible to feel that the world is relatively fair?

This is an even more complex question, but most of us would probably prefer to answer in the affirmative.

What are the purposes of the VAR, which was introduced to football despite its many and obvious shortcomings? By and large, he has two roles. The first is to assist in determining absolute truth when there is such an option. Help defining the differences, for example, falls unequivocally into this category - because if we draw enough lines on the screen and measure all the tenths of a millimeter properly, we will reach an absolute mathematical conclusion about each and every event. This precision is completely contrary to the spirit of the game and can sometimes ruin the enjoyment of it. Feel free to read about it in detail here. Because, if I may say so gently and with the required caution, we do not always like absolute truth. We prefer a sense of justice, and paradoxically these terms do not always overlap, both in football and in life in general.

And here we come to the second role of the VAR, which is much more important, but receives insufficient attention from the authorities - it is supposed to produce this sense of justice.

Because in football, like life itself, there is not always black and white.

Regarding quite a few flaws you will get different opinions from different judges, and the commentators will make statements such as "you can whistle" or "borderline decision".

And that really will be the case, because not for everything there must be a consensus.

In such cases, in order for us to have a deep inner sense of justice, only one thing is needed - we need to know that the judge has made the right decision as he sees it, and that he has no unprofessional considerations.

More on Walla!

"That's how you ruin a big game": the other reasons for canceling the penalty besides "diving"

To the full article

Where is the justice?

Sterling falls in the open (Photo: AP, Catherine Ivill)

More on Walla!

• Euro 2020: England reached the final after 1: 2 in extra time over Denmark

• "That's how you ruin a big game": the other reasons for canceling the penalty besides "diving"

• Huge celebrations in England: "55 years of nightmare erased in an instant"

• Denmark demands answers after scandal: "This is a mystery."

  Kier cried on the broadcast

• Changing approach: What furniture did the Israelis buy in the closure and what are they buying now?

The judge should be whole with himself

On this issue, the VAR fails in a resounding and disgraceful way in its current format.

The regulations include a clause, according to which an examination will be made only in cases of "clear error", or in the source language clear and obvious error.

This is done in order to avoid playing stops too often, because otherwise it would seem theoretically possible to examine every decision in a video, but it entails a gross mistake in understanding the human psyche.

Because the absolute truth is important to us, but the sense of justice is more important.

We do not want three-minute delays for the purpose of drawing different lines on the screen, but prefer to divide those three minutes into three one-minute exams of the borderline cases, because there the sense of justice can be particularly severely impaired.

The fall of Raheem Sterling in the open yesterday is the most classic and pure case, on which can be based the demand to immediately change the regulations for the use of VAR. Before the introduction of technological aids, the whistle for Pendel is acceptable. The English striker entered the field in a swing, two Danish players - Joakim Maila and Matthias Jensen - tried to prevent him from approaching the goal, and he stumbled while moving very fast. Even a perfectly positioned referee will have a hard time distinguishing within a split second if he had contact with one of the opponent's players. This is an almost impossible task, and as commentators would say "you can whistle" because it is a "borderline decision".

But viewers in the house have repetitive gears, and in those gears they see that there was no contact, or at most there was a very negligible contact that could not have caused Sterling to collapse on the grass, and therefore cannot be defined as an offense.

If we as viewers see this, but the referee does not bother to see it even though the option is accessible to him, a difficult and unbearable sense of injustice is created, which automatically leads to conspiracy theories about corruption and game bias dictated from above.

In practice, the reality is simpler.

The judge was not instructed to approach the monitor because VAR judges could not define the whistle as a "clear mistake" - precisely because it is borderline.

The absurdity here cries to heaven.

More on Walla!

Huge celebrations in England: "55 years of nightmare erased in an instant"

To the full article

"Clear mistake" or not - the absurdity screams to heaven.

Denmark players complain (Photo: AP, Catherine Ivill)

To deprive Denmark instead?

There is a limit

Eliminating the whistle for Pendel is not the only solution to this issue. It was only necessary that the esteemed Dutch judge Danny McLee, a police detective by profession, be able to examine the correctness of his decision. Had he not changed it after watching the video, he goes on to state that Sterling really failed in his opinion, and also explains to the media after the game the reason for this, one could have come to terms with the situation. Sterling himself declared: "I was touched in the leg, so it's a penalty" - and his right to think so and dive into the grass. The thing is that most of us are convinced that a reasonable judge would have overturned his decision to order Pendel if he had quietly examined the incident from all angles. Since this is a decision that decided the fate of two teams in the European Championship semi-finals, he had to take this test. For the sense of justice of the players and the fans, it is a million times more important than the tenths of a millimeter of any different.

A relatively similar incident occurred in the quarter-finals, when Swiss Remo Froiler suffered a direct red card for injuring Spanish Gerard Moreno. The referee's decision would have been acceptable in a world without VAR, but replays clearly show that the contact reached the ball long before the collision with the opponent, nor did he have any malicious intent. In principle, a judge can determine that this type of surfing is dangerous by definition, and it requires exclusion. That would be his right, but in order to maintain the sense of justice of all involved he must see the event from all angles in order to make an informed decision.

Yesterday, the fact that Denmark was the injured side only intensifies the sense of injustice, because fate and the UEFA were already cruel to it at the beginning of the tournament. The unusual script created an emotional identification with the protagonists, and football fans expected that no new blows would be inflicted on the Danes. They should not be treated with silk gloves, of course, but at least it is important to avoid gross misjudgments against it and not deprive it. By many when it was a mistake and an understanding that Denmark was deprived, it was not so that it deserved to end its part in the dramatic tournament that almost began with tragedy.

More on Walla!

Denmark demands answers after scandal: "This is a mystery."

Kier cried on the broadcast

To the full article

Fate has been cruel to them once.

Denmark around Eriksen (Photo: Reuters)

England is worthy, but problematic

Is the English victory justified in ignoring the controversial ruling? Based on the dry statistics and the balance of power on the grass since the polished performance of Mikel Damsgor (believe it or not - it was the first goal in a free kick in the entire tournament), it can be argued that it is. The host had 19 threats on goal, nine of them for the frame - and Danish goalkeeper Caspar Schmeichel provided a number of saves at the highest world level. Sterling demonstrated, as usual, a fine move without breaking the ball. Harry Kane was excellent, especially when moving to a retreating position and serving as a kind of playmaker like at Tottenham. He was the one who built the equalizer with a deep delivery to Bukayo Saka, which he scored for the wrong net Simon Kier who preceded Sterling. In the first half, Denmark enjoyed minutes of control in midfield, but they got tired - and England took complete control.

So in terms of absolute truth, it's hard to argue with the English's first qualifying for any final since 1966, and Gareth Southgate is already mentioned in one breath with Alf Ramsey.

But that is exactly the problem, because the sense of justice is different.

There is great difficulty with a coach who benches most of his creative players, and even decides to replace Jack Grillish who came in as a substitute, in order to move to a lineup with five defensive players immediately after the English went up to 1-2 in extra time.

Will leave a stain on Southgate?

Sterling Celebrates (Photo: AP, Catherine Ivill)

According to the testimonies of many British journalists, Southgate is an exceptionally positive personality. He is fair, open, direct and opinionated. He managed to create a cohesive bond and a great atmosphere in the staff. Thanks to his skills, the players believe in their power to overcome obstacles, and have passed quite a few psychological barriers in order to climb to the first final in 55 years. In addition, his state conduct is prominent in the problematic political circumstances into which Britain found itself in the Brexit era. All this is true, but tactically this is a boring team that does not reach its full potential, conservatism and extreme caution hurt it, and there is a point to a flaw in the fact that it will be remembered as one of the best in the history of England.

Her win may convey the right political messages within the kingdom, but will not convey the right messages to the world of football. Therefore, especially after the unfortunate penalty that was squeezed by Sterling, it can be assumed that most neutral fans will prefer to cheer on Italy in the final on Sunday. Not for the sake of absolute truth because it does not exist here at all, but because of the inner sense of justice.

Follow Yochin on Facebook

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments