High-tech + ruthless work, almost ruined the World Cup

by admin

With the end of the last two 1/8 finals, Morocco defeated Spain in a penalty shootout, Portugal beat Switzerland 6-1, plus the Netherlands, Argentina, France, England, Croatia, Brazil, the World Cup’s top eight have all been born.

However, 48 group games and 8 knockout games to see down, fans seem to have formed a consensus: the World Cup game, is more and more difficult to watch. Such a result, in the end, who should be blamed?

It’s no exaggeration to say that this year’s Qatar World Cup is probably the most unwatchable one in years.

It’s not just a matter of opinion, there’s data to prove it –

This year’s group stage has six 0:0 games, 48 games played down to a total of 120 goals (including 15 in two games), an average of 2.5 per game; in comparison, the 2018 World Cup in Russia, a total of 122 goals during the group stage, an average of 2.54 per game; Brazil 2014 World Cup group stage scored 136 goals, an average of 2.83 per game 2.83.

In other words, the total number of goals scored in the group stage of the World Cup has been declining for three consecutive years, while the two sides are “exchanging white papers” more and more games.

Not only that, this year’s group stage 0-0 in the first half has 24 games, the proportion of 50%, the previous five World Cups in the first half of the probability of zero goals only 37%.

So why is it so difficult to score goals in this World Cup, the game has no sense of fluency, and the final victory relies more on the calculation off the pitch than on the pitch of the pass?

Soccer has entered the second decade of the 21st century and has become like a machine, a system, full of high technology and hard work. The game is becoming more and more difficult to watch, and the “three thieves” should be responsible for this –

The VAR system has made the referee a tool.

Fouls at every turn limit the opponent’s offense.

The assembly line operation of soccer youth training has produced a large number of players with similar characteristics.

These three thieves are killing the charm of modern soccer.

The sin and punishment of VAR system

The biggest feeling of this World Cup is that the players seem to be trapped in the system to play, and the game is ruled by VAR.

All goals, penalties, offsides, balls out of bounds or not, are under the watchful eye of VAR. After the players scored, they didn’t dare to celebrate wildly, the referee had to press the headset first, and the fans had to stare at the big screen, all waiting for the verdict of the “big brother”.

The Matrix, which should belong to the future human beings, has officially come to the world.

The original intention of introducing VAR was to avoid unjust penalties. For example, in the 2010 “England-Germany”, England player Lampard long shot, the ball has been completely into the German team’s door, but the referee ruled that the goal is invalid.

The history of the World Cup does not stop there, in addition to Maradona’s famous “Hand of God” in the 1986 World Cup, there is also the 1966 World Cup, Hearst for England to win the goal.

In the 1986 World Cup in Mexico, in the quarter-final match between Argentina and England, Maradona hit the ball into England’s goal with his left hand, undetected by the referee.

FIFA believes that VAR can help fairness on the pitch, eliminate “dirty thievery” and protect the normal goals and key penalties. The initial intention is of course good, think if you are a “Three Meow Army” die-hard fans, look at the 1986, 2010 game England eat those defeated, even if not be alive, gas a few hundred million personal body cells are also there.

If there was VAR, the above-mentioned wrongdoings will not happen, and soccer will indeed become “fairer”.

So, in the 2018 World Cup, FIFA introduced VAR technology to break the fallacy that “miscarriage of justice is also a kind of soccer charm”.

However, at the Qatar World Cup, VAR has become an obvious overkill, and VAR has become the “big brother” behind soccer by incorporating almost every move on the field into the scope of surveillance. The question arises, is it really necessary to monitor soccer matches in such detail?
In the third round of Group H of the World Cup in Qatar, Uruguay beat Ghana 2-0 but failed to get out of the group due to a goal disadvantage, and after the match, the Uruguayan players who were dissatisfied with the penalty mobbed the referee.

Compared to other sports, like tennis, volleyball and the like, the eagle eye is focused on the ball going out of bounds or not. The analogy to soccer is Lampard’s long-range shot in 2010 and whether Kaoru Mitomaki’s downward pass in the current match between Japan and Spain was out of bounds.

Whether the ball is out of bounds or not is a physical issue, and it is normal for the human eye to be unable to keep an eye on it, so there is no problem with VAR assistance. The VAR can’t be faulted for intervening in a handball in the penalty area, because of the angle, the referee may not see it. After all, the ball has not hit the hand, is also a physical problem, hit or not hit, is something that can be determined.

But now VAR corrects a wide range, such as foul play in the penalty area, offside or not, which involves human behavior and generates many variables. With FIFA’s initial intention, it seems to pursue “absolute fairness” on the pitch, and since the start of the tournament, there have been a large number of invalidated goals and many penalty kicks against.

Once the human behavior is judged, there are uncontrollable factors, such as Uruguay vs Portugal, the handball of Jimenez in the 88th minute, is a typical miscarriage of justice. As seen through the slow-motion camera, his hand touched the ball while supporting his body behind him, which is a very natural action when a person falls to the ground, and definitely not applicable to the principle of handball penalty (players use their hands to expand the defensive area and thus gain advantage).

In this World Cup, Uruguay is the chief ingrate in the VAR victimization league, being fouled twice in the match with Ghana, yet neither of them got a penalty kick opportunity.

This goal even with VAR, but the referee still gave a penalty, this is the problem of understanding the rules, and has nothing to do with VAR. Some people may say that it is not a bit harsh to ask the referee to do so, but since you have introduced VAR, and pursue “absolute fairness” as much as possible, harshness is naturally the meaning of the topic.

Another problem is the offside. I believe that seeing the performance of VAR in the game, we already know very well that even if there is a finger or toe offside, it will be blown off by VAR. In the past, the referee’s eyes were prone to misjudge and miss the offside, which was blown out to the “body hair level”.

Historically, the offside rule has been modified to favor the attacking side, but after the 1995 revision, the offside started to favor the defending side after the limb offside was emphasized. Under the eagle eye of VAR, the offside ruling in this World Cup has come to a direction that is completely contrary to the principle of encouraging offense.

Moreover, this time, the high-tech offside decision is not cut by real images, but made into an animation character simulation. Please, once you change the face, it will cause more questions.

The last point is that VAR, the “Matrix”, has gradually turned the role of the referee into a subordinate. Especially the side judge, encounter offside, foul simply dare not raise the flag, and even some out-of-bounds balls, corner kicks, should be the side judge’s share of the work, the side judge either look at the referee, or think half a day to do nothing.

The referee’s performance is no better, anytime and anywhere by the backstage VAR team called to the screen, interrupting the pace of the game and other minor problems are not a matter.

You may also like

Leave a Comment