ROME – Var or non-Var, to make the difference between a penalty kick and not, is the whistle of the referee. 'Penalty is when referee whistles' explained with a synthesis never reached the legendary Vujadin Boskov. Since the Virtual Assistant Referee has made its debut on the playgrounds, the question has become another: 'What is football?'. It's what you see on TV, or what you can see on TV with the 'permission' of the referees.
A provocation, of course. But up to a certain point. It is a fresh decision this weekend to introduce the Var in the Champions League already from the eighth of this edition. A decision that anticipates a landing set, with guilty delay, for the 2019/20 season of the most important continental tournament and a decision that follows the many, too many referee errors seen in the Champions League. If the technology, however, is there, and it is a good thing, what is missing is evidently the ability of the referees to exploit it fully. We are talking, and it is not a mystery, of Roma-Inter, of the penalty not given to the Giallorossi Zaniolo and of the "inconceivable" error but conceived by the duo Rocchi (referee of the race) – Fabbri (assigned to the Var).
An error about which much has been said, perhaps even too much, as in the case of malignancy for which a person assigned to the Var could, for questionable logic, make a mistake erroneously a colleague and an error that seems child of the reconstruction that appeared at first as a joke. The joke designed by many (almost all those who followed Sunday night) and that Francesco Totti has verbalized wondering if the Var "were watching another game". The most likely reconstruction says that Var men were not watching another game, but maybe the wrong replay did. Closed in a closet that does not communicate with the outside and having the honor and burden to decide in absolute autonomy if and what replay check, in the case of Zaniolo, the Var employees could in fact have focused their attention on a room from which the phallus it did not seem obvious.
This while the world looked at the replay chosen instead by the director, who apparently understands television cameras and framing more, seeing the trip against the young talented Romanist. Hence the doubt: football is the one seen on TV by millions of viewers where, at the 36th of the first half, Rome suffers a penalty kick, or is instead that of the referee or referees who choose a different view, do not they see the penalty and let the game go on a different track? The question is rhetorical but the question is not peregrina because, in fact, the two games are different matches.
Nothing precludes that with a penalty of 0-0 he can still finish with a draw and maybe even with a 2-2, but in a race Rome would have had a penalty, while in the other he did not. If the technology is there, and also because the replay had arrived before her and there have been many years, in which millions of TV viewers and fans, including those lucky enough to have a monitor at the stadium, saw the game and the faults better than the referees called to direct it, it would then be appropriate to standardize what we all see with what they see the whistles.
But leaving the choice of rooms and shots to be used by directors or training workers who have the idea of Var perspective concepts, wide field, long enough to make him choose the right replay. If you are not able to do this, then direct the directors to directing the TV, at least millions of fans will avoid rackets of bile watching invisible fouls to the race directors.
The article Var, football is what you see on TV or what you go to see on TV? seems to be the first on Blitz daily .
Source: Blitz Quotidiano