What did the VAR come for?

"The VAR was for black or white, not grey."

If you continue reading you will know very soon whose phrase this is.

Of course, the VAR did not come to make us all agree or to make our lives easier, no.

We had all reached that conclusion (I think) when they announced their implementation with that mantra of "correcting clear and obvious errors."

Nor did he come to stop talking about the referees.

And if that was the objective, it has come out regular.

Because with time, and the passage of days, it has become clear that even those famous "clear and manifest errors" are now interpretable.

To give an example: The Andorra coach, Eder Sarabia, author of the sentence that opens this article, exploded a few days ago against video refereeing after his central defender was sent off in an action that the referee had initially sanctioned with a yellow card.

Via VAR, and after a 4-minute review, it changed to red.

In the action it was assessed whether Álex Pastor, who made the foul, was the last man or not.

A situation that allows several interpretations because he had a partner, Moha, very close, in parallel.

There we have an interpretation.

So why did VAR go in to correct the referee?

Another example.

After the expulsion in the Copa del Rey of Brais Méndez at the Camp Nou they should not be very flattering in Donosti with the little screen either.

The Galician was sent off, in my opinion, precisely because of a very hard attack on Busquets.

The VAR warned Gil Manzano that this could not be yellow, it was red.

So far so good.

The problem comes when 3 days before, also at the Barça stadium, Dembélé was shown yellow for a tackle very similar to that of Brais (ankle-height studs).

The criterion does not clarify the doubts about when yes and when no.

I insist, why did the VAR come?

That we were not going to agree was sung, but that there would be even more controversy over a screen in which we can all see the same thing that the referee sees, we did not see that coming.

If this new tool was designed to make football fairer and avoid mistakes by referees, it is not succeeding.

On the contrary, one of the problems it presents is the re-arbitration of many plays, leaving the field referee's work, subject to what they are told by the earpiece.

When FIFA presented this project, it did so with the premise of avoiding the hand of Henry against Ireland in 2009 or the hand of God in 1986. Errors that are part of football history.

He came to solve a problem and has created others that did not exist.

That being said, you can stand up for something and, at the same time, want it to change for the better.

It happens to me, I got on the VAR boat as soon as it arrived and sometimes I think that there is nowhere to catch it.

For me, it did come to make football fairer, but it is not achieving it, among other things because there is a lack of transparency with decisions and unifying criteria.

I have the feeling that in basketball, for example, referee decisions have at least one explanation.

Then you will agree or not, because arguing is intrinsic to the sport.

Between Cavani's kick to the video arbitration monitor at the Qatar World Cup and the staunch defense of his promoters, let's find a middle ground.

Perhaps that is the only gray that is worth with the VAR.

You can follow EL PAÍS Deportes on

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I'm already a subscriber