Opinion – The World is a Ball: VAR in the fridge reinforces the need for VAR to interfere less in the game

In an extreme move, the Premier League decided to put Lee Mason, a former field referee who acts as a VAR (video assistant referee) on the fridge.

For the reader unaccustomed to football vocabulary, “going to the fridge” does not mean getting into the appliance and staying there until you freeze to death.

It means being temporarily removed from a function, due to failure(s) in the execution of the same or for some inappropriate behavior.

The origin of the expression can perhaps be explained someday by Marcelo Duarte, who signs the column O Curioso in this Sheet.

The fact is that Mason, 50, will not play in the next round of the Premier League because his appointment, in Newcastle v Crystal Palace, on Saturday (3), was considered erroneous by his superiors.

Before talking about the move, it is necessary to inform that every goal that could generate any kind of doubt is subject to VAR scrutiny, which has the function of correcting clear and obvious errors made by the field referee.

This definition (clear and obvious error) is very important, because it is in it that the “cheese” of the question lies.

With the score at 0-0, which would become the final result of the match, Newcastle opened the scoring through an own goal from side Tyrick Mitchell.

In the move, after a cross in the area, there was a head shot and midfielder Joe Willock, who was in the race to finish, being chased by Mitchell, bumped into goalkeeper Vicente Guaita, knocking him down. The ball hit the Palace athlete and landed on the net.

Referee Michael Salisbury saw no irregularity and confirmed the goal, which later came under VAR analysis. Mason, upon reviewing the video, concluded that Willock had fouled Guaita and indicated this to his fieldmate.

That was the first mistake. Looking at the play a few times, you can see that Willock rammed the opposing goalie with that intensity because Mitchell pushed him.

It wasn’t a scandalous push, but it happened. Mason, who doesn’t have much time to give his verdict, must not have noticed Mitchell’s action.

The second mistake is the responsibility of Salisbury, who has the final say. Invited to check the play, the field umpire did so. And he also didn’t realize the burden of the Palace player on the Newcastle player.

He saw exactly what Mason had seen, something that, moments before, when following the play, he had not been able to see – nor the linesman (assistant on the side of the lawn), who can also pronounce if he identifies a foul.

The move was very fast, Salisbury had several athletes blocking his field of vision, so he thought it best, first, not to whistle anything and give the goal – even because he has the “comfort” of VAR, which will save him in the event of a clear error. is obvious.

We come to the third, and final, mistake. Evidently this was not an occasion for clear and obvious error. Thus, the initial decision taken on the field by Salisbury should prevail. It was not the case of VAR intervention.

The bid is peculiar. Mason was unlucky for Mitchell to have used his arm, in a shoving motion, on Willock’s back. If that hadn’t happened, everything suggests that the Newcastle player would still have clashed with the Palace goalkeeper.

Would it be missing? It would depend on the referee’s interpretation. There is a propensity for referees to protect the goalkeeper in his “habitat”, the area, especially in the small area.

There, he would be untouchable… except that there is nothing in the rule to say so.

In this way, the attacker’s free-kick becomes subjective.

There is the referee who signals, considering the use of excessive force in contact with the opponent and/or recklessness, and there is the one who does not signal, understanding it as a normal dispute between the opponents (body against body).

It is subjectivity, which unfortunately is very present in football games (and I don’t see how it could be different), that causes discussion, doubt, controversy.

In my opinion, Mason didn’t make a serious mistake, which would warrant a trip to the fridge for a period of self-analysis and recycling.

Mason was a victim of himself, for failing to discern that this type of occurrence does not fall under the clear and obvious error. And in so doing, he gave rise to an avalanche of criticism and his subsequent punishment.

In time: if the focus of the discussion related to VAR becomes what in football is a “clear and obvious error” (since it should be clear and obvious what is a clear and obvious error), and if this definition is based on the subjectivity, there is no way or fix. Nobody will ever be right, it will be like discussing the sex of angels.