One Night In Paris - VAR Continues to Court Controversy

Despite the best efforts of administrators in various sports, the fact that in-game decisions are made by people, and are frequently subjective, means that no sport can ever be free of controversy. In many ways, sport without controversy would be like Sherlock Holmes without Dr Watson, or Tom without Jerry, and a contentious LBW decision, a dubious try, or a debatable offside all give the pundits on TV or the armchair fan something meaty to chew over. Sports like boxing, especially Olympic boxing, where victories are often awarded thanks to the decision of the judges, are particularly prone to argument. In fact, boxing has got to the point where it is in danger of being taken off the Olympic programme; at the 2016 Rio games, six judges were sent home following a number of decisions some observers said were "incomprehensible." One boxer to suffer was Irish Bantamweight Michael Conlan, who was on the wrong end of a particularly debatable verdict when he lost a split decision against Russia's Vladimir Nikitin.

Irish boxer Michael Conlan's defeat at the 2016 Olympics was viewed by many as a travesty.

Sports like boxing, diving, dressage, and gymnastics all have an element of subjectivity in how the outcomes are decided - within strict guidelines of course - and when there is subjectivity in deciding a result then there will always be debate, there will always be differences of opinion. But in sports where the result is determined by who can score the most goals, tries, runs, or points, then the element of subjectivity is reduced to individual incidents, which may be important, may even go a long way to determining the outcome, but are not in themselves necessarily the only thing that is the difference between victory and defeat. In rugby, cricket, and tennis, technology has played a part in decision making for many years. Hawkeye was introduced by tennis in 2002 and had it been around when John McEnroe was in his pomp, then Wimbledon would have been a lot less eventful. By the by, I always said at the time that I could not understand how tennis tolerated the abuse that McEnroe dished out to umpires, regardless of the validity of his arguments; no other sport would have.

John McEnroe: Great player, but no other sport would have tolerated his behaviour.

But while technology used in rugby, cricket, and tennis has seemingly enhanced and improved decision making, and by and large ensured fairer outcomes, there is one sport in which far from removing controversy, technology has actually created yet more disputes, more arguments, and much more debate, and that sport is association football. For many years I have been of the opinion that technology ought to keep its nose out of football because the Laws of The Game are the same whether it's a World Cup Final being played in front of one hundred thousand, or a Sunday league game on Hackney Marshes being watched by the proverbial one man and his dog. The Laws actually say so, even today the latest version says, in the introduction, "Football is the greatest sport on earth. It is played in every country and at many different levels. The Laws of the Game are the same for all football throughout the world from the FIFA World through to a game between young children in a remote village."  Except, that is no longer true. 

First came goal-line technology, which is now used in top-flight football in England, France, Italy, and Germany, and despite my previous misgivings, its use has proven successful, but this is because, by its very nature, a decision on whether the ball crossed the line is a binary one, objective and not subjective. So far as I am aware, there has never been a goal awarded or not by goal-line technology where that decision was later proved to be incorrect. The same cannot be said for the decisions made in any number of games thanks to the Video Assistant Referee (VAR).

The Laws say that remit of VAR is to assist the match referee, "in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ in relation to:

·         Goal/no goal

·         Penalty/no penalty

·         Direct red card

·         Mistaken identity when the referee cautions or sends off the wrong player"

All too often however, it seems that referees are being invited to review decisions where the 'error' is neither clear nor obvious, where in fact they got it right first time. And it appears, having been invited to review their decision, they feel obliged to reverse it, no matter how absurd the outcome. Take the penalty that Marcus Rashford converted for Manchester United in their Champions League win over Paris St Germain recently. The spot kick was awarded for handball - one of my hobby horses, I'm afraid - and the decision polarised opinion. In one camp were the former footballers -now pundits - on BT Sport, ex-referees like Keith Hackett, and everyone associated with PSG, all adamant that it was no penalty. In the other camp were Peter Walton (acting as a refereeing expert on TV) , Uefa and... well, that's about it. The Manchester United players and supporters, obviously not wanting to look a gift horse in the mouth, literally and metaphorically shrugged their shoulders and thanked Dame Fortune for the luck that had come their way. How many actually thought it was a penalty? Not many, would be my guess.

 

Marcus Rashford converts the spot-kick

My problem with the decision, and I'm not alone in this, is that to penalise a handball, the Law currently says the act must be deliberate. Peter Walton's take on it was that it was deliberate because the player made insufficient effort to avoid accidental contact between ball and hand, a totally specious argument in my view. I have always been of the opinion that penalising a player for an unintentional handball is wrong under Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct), even if the player gains an advantage, because an accidental event does not, retrospectively,  become deliberate as a result of the outcome. I've also said (to anyone who will listen, and to the point of such boredom where even I'm finding it tedious) that the Law should change so that an advantage accrued from an accidental handball is penalised. And it seems that the Law makers might be moving in that direction. Former Premier League referee, David Elleray has said that for handball,  the International Football Association Board (IFAB) - who are responsible for the Laws of The Game -  are moving away from determining an offense based on intent and towards outcome. From next season, while deliberate handball will remain an offense (naturally), any contact between ball and hand - deliberate or accidental - will be penalised if a player scores a goal with their hand, or if a player creates a goal-scoring opportunity after having gained possession or control of the ball with their hand or arm. In my view this can only be a good thing, especially since another former Premier League referee, Dermot Gallagher says, "80 per cent of the handballs that referees give are not deliberate, but because a player gains a material advantage."  In other words, they have not been applying the letter of the Law, but rather what in their view is its spirit.

Referees are under more scrutiny than ever these days, their every decision reviewed, analysed, and criticised by TV pundits. They need all the help they can get, and in principle, VAR is there to offer that help, so it is ironic that in so many high profile decisions - and Manchester United's winning penalty in Paris is just one such - the verdicts when VAR has been invoked have provoked as much, if not more controversy, than the decisions they were reviewing. Just a week after United's VAR incident, the Champions League game between their Manchester rivals, City, and German side Schalke 04, saw VAR used four times, to the consternation of many observers.[1] And a major criticism of the use of VAR in that game, and in others, is the apparently interminable amount of time taken to reach a decision that is then even more controversial than the one the review was called for.

Other sports have got their equivalents of VAR right, and so too - hopefully - will football. How long that takes and how many perverse decisions teams have to suffer along the way is anyone's guess.

---

[1] See https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11657641/top-10-var-controversies-from-moscow-to-wembley for the Top Ten VAR Controversies as selected by Sky Sports.

Hacked Off!

'Hack' is a wonderfully versatile word. It can be applied in a derogatory way to a journalist, it can be used to describe riding a horse for light exercise, and it can describe someone who gains unauthorised access to a computer system. Since 2004, it has increasingly become known as a synonym for 'tip,' or 'hint,' after a journalist at a technology conference used the word to describe the shortcuts IT professionals use in their day jobs. 'Hack' in this sense has now become so all-pervasive that it is used to describe almost any tip, piece of advice, suggestion or shortcut, and frankly, it grates with me more than somewhat. You might say I've become a bit hacked off by it.[1]

Whereas once upon a time, magazines or websites would print articles with headlines like, 'Ten Tips To Top Topiary', they now scream '10 Awesome Life Hacks You Must Try!' If your timelines on social media are anything like mine, you will frequently see links to sites containing all sorts of advice.  And those incredible pieces of advice include things that most people can think of for themselves like, 'Put old newspaper at the bottom of your bin to absorb juices.' Then there is the 'hack' that suggests placing a wooden spoon across the top of a saucepan, which apparently is supposed to stop it boiling over by bursting the bubbles. I tried it; it doesn't. I now read through some of these 'hacks' with an increasing sense of incredulity at the banality of most of them, many of which merely prompt me to ask why would I even want to do some of these things, even if they did work?

Occasionally, however, I come across something that, while I am initially sceptical, does actually offer some useful advice. I saw one recently that reinforced some of my own thoughts, and while it is human nature to look approvingly on something that endorses our own beliefs, what struck me was that the article, entitled '10 ways to get healthier after 60' (it's on CNN's website at https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/11/health/seniors-healthy-habits-partner/index.html), was generally much more sensible and measured than some of the other, similar offerings I have seen. I also probably looked at it more favourably because it did not include the word 'hack.' I don't intend going through each and every piece of advice given on the website, but there were some that I think worth repeating, albeit with a caveat or two.

"Buy great sneakers," is the first tip, and while sneakers is a word that would rarely if ever pass my lips, the general principle of investing in a good, solid pair of shoes for walking is sound. My favourite shoes for walking are rubber soled and suede, but I also have a pair of brogues made by Hush Puppy that I used to wear for work and which must be at least a decade old now, and in which I have walked many a mile; they are beginning to look a little tatty now, but I will be sad when they finally give up the ghost. That said, I once walked a good ten miles while on holiday in Majorca wearing a pair of canvas shoes that cost a fiver from Matalan, and suffered no ill effects, so spending a lot of money on walking shoes may not be necessary. As I mentioned last week, walking is now my principal form of exercise, so a pair of shoes that I can walk five or ten miles in comfortably is an absolute must, and why some of my pairs are now quite ancient since once I've found shoes that I can do that in, I am reluctant to part with them.

The second tip relates to balance, and here I found that a gap exists between theory and practice. I like to think my balance is quite good, however trying to stand on one leg with my eyes closed proved more difficult than I had imagined; frankly I couldn't do it without shuffling sideways until I had to give in. My advice here is that if you are going to try this, don't do it within four or five feet of any objects with sharp corners, and under no circumstances try it at the top of the stairs. This exercise is aimed at avoiding falls, which I guess is something that is much more likely to be a concern for those of us of a certain age, and which brings us nicely to tip number six, 'Hit the floor.' Occasionally we all end up on the floor by accident rather than design, and getting up again can be challenging, so the advice is to get down on the floor regularly to practice getting up again. From experience, getting down to floor level, whether it is to clean skirting boards, or fiddling with leads and cables, becomes increasingly tricky with age, and getting up again afterwards even more so, generally achieved only with some much groaning and wincing, and sometimes only by levering myself up on a piece of furniture, so a bit of practice does not go amiss. If you think it unlikely that you will able to get up again, it is probably wise not to attempt this unless there is someone else at home to help get up, unless you want to experience how a tortoise feels when flipped on its back. This activity can be combined with the standing on one leg business if, like me, you cannot actually stand on one leg.

When I was in the last few months of working prior to retirement, my employers laid on some seminars run by a company called Working Transitions. Some of them were a waste of time, but some provided useful advice, which mirrors some ideas on the CNN site. Tackle a project was one, and my blog has been just that. I've mentioned before that work creates a routine and a structure to our lives and whether we like the work or not, it gives us a sense of purpose (see https://rulesfoolsandwisemen.blogspot.com/2013/01/its-life-jim-but-not-as-we-know-it.html) and I found that my blog, and the things that I do for the football club I support helped immensely in not only creating a structure and routine but kept me sharp mentally. One lesson that I took from the seminars was that it is good to try new things, and if they are useful, persist with them, but if not then discard them.

Finally, there is the idea of embracing self-improvement. As the site suggests, local authorities run courses in a whole host of activities, which are either free or cost little, and there are plenty of online courses too. The Open University has a subsidiary called Future Learn (see https://www.futurelearn.com/) that offers a wide range of courses in subjects as diverse as writing fiction, people management, and cybersecurity. Most are free (some charge for a certificate of completion, although it is not compulsory). I have tried a couple and they are very good, thought provoking and educational.

I would be really interested to hear any hints or useful pieces of advice or wisdom that readers have come across - especially if they actually work - so long as no one refers to them as 'hacks!'

---

[1] Throughout this blog I have used inverted commas when referring to 'hacks' as I refuse to embrace using the word as though it were a legitimate expression.