Almost a week ago, Croatia were eliminated from the World Cup in the round of 32 after a 2-1 defeat to Portugal. The Croatians had a goal dissalowed in the last minute that would've otherwise taken the game to OT.
The decision has caused a lot of uproar and been a point ofr dicussion. I believe the Croatian goal should've stood and that it also examplifies the biggest problem with VAR.

Let me set the scene. In the 103rd minute (90+13) Perisic delivers a cross into the box. Igor Matanovic tries to head the ball, but he seemingly misses it and the ball bounces of Renato Veiga's back (who seemingly misstimed his jump) and continues deeper in to the box where Mario Pasalic nudges it to Gvardiol who scores. The Croatian players celebrate passionately with their fans thinking they have just saved their World Cup.

Until the ref does that dreaded screen motion, indicating a VAR check.

It turns out a sensor in the ball that detects every touch and sends that live information to the VAR-team, had detected a touch by Igor Matanovic. If Matanovic touched ball it would mean that Mario Pasalic was in an offside position, thus the goal should be disallowed.
Matanovic admitted after the game that he felt the ball touch his hair. This is what zoomed in camera angles tells us as well, the ball touches Igor Matanovic's hair.

The referee, Espen Eskås from Norway, decides after the VAR review that it should count as offside and therefore disallows the goal, breaking the hearts of over 3 million Croats.

I think this is one of the mosty damning calls I've ever seen, and the stakes were so high.

The first question is, can hair even be offside? Yes, if it affects the trajectory of the ball. By the laws of physics, every touch "affects" the trajectory of the ball, so the rule means that it has to meaningly affect the trajectory. This is the key part.

If it was a clear touch on Matanovic's head, then there is no question that Pasalic was offside. So why was Espen Eskås even called out to look at it? I think it was because the ball then bounced on Renato Veiga's back before ending up infront of Pasalic.
In the IFAB rules of the game, it's stated that if a defender makes a "deliberate play" the attacker can no longer be in a offside position. This means:

If a shots ricochets of a defender and then ends up with an attacker in an offside position = offside because it WASN'T a deliberate play.

If a defender plays a misplaced pass to an attacker in an offside postion = onside because it was a DELIBERATE play.

Espen Eskås and the VAR team got this call wrong on two fronts. Even if the ball hadn't bounced on Veiga's back, it still shouldn't have been offside. Everyone who has watched the play have seen that the ball didn't visibly change trajectory, and hair can only count as offside if it does.

But now the ball did bounce on Veiga's back, and this is for me where it becomes scandalous. By all means of the term, Veiga made a "deliberate play". Matanovic didn't alter the trajectory of the ball, so Veiga's mistimed jump was made deliberately, it's just that he messed up his timing. The only way this can be offside is if Matanovic visibly affected the trajectory of the ball, and I haven't seen ANYONE argue for that.

It's clear to me that VAR and the ref got this one wrong, but it also illustrates the wider problem with VAR.
VAR kills emotions, it detrives from spontaneus joy and instead makes fans wary and careful before letting their happiness show. In this case, it robbed Croatia of its glorious moment. That for me alone is a hard pill to swallow, but I would accept it if VAR always got the call right. But it doesn't.

The thing with VAR is that you often don't get an objective decision. It would be disingenuous of me to say that VAR hasn't helped refs in the past and probably overall reduces mistakes. But they still get calls like this wrong, and that's becuase VAR is still only run by humans. The VAR teams is also under a lot of pressure and they are prone to mistakes. There are 3 people in the VAR-team every game, and trhey get access to more camera angles and better replays, but when it comes to interpreting the rules, they can still make mistakes because that is not something that more camera angles can teach you, that is simply game knowledge and understanding. The on-pitch referee is also very likely to change his initial call when he's called over by VAR, it's clear that they feel an immense pressure of complying.

When decisions like these can happen, I don't think VAR ruining the emotions of the sport is worth it.

Blogs 31 bloggers