If there is a point of almost general approval and zero controversy in this Cup, it is the “semi-automatic VAR”. This system that collects the position of 29 points of the body of each player on the field 50 times per second and the ball 500/s came to end with the delay and the disputes against the arbitration in bids of offside. And everything is done with almost no human interference.
Quick conclusions and clarity in the images, nothing like the traditional VAR, especially the Brazilian one (… pause to remember that absurd decision that hurt your team at the key moment of some competition). The refereeing turned smooth as silk.
What has changed the overall credibility is the use of a virtual vertical plane, parallel to that formed by the goalposts and which strikes the most backward point of the penultimate player’s body (the last one is usually the goalkeeper). If there is a part of the striker beyond that plan, it is offside. The arms don’t count.
With this, the placement of the lines made manually by the VAR team, the origin of many controversies, is avoided. In Brazil, the lines sometimes get as clumsy as a love message from a teenager.
Anyway, in the new system there is not even room for discussion. And that’s where the problem is.
What the software shows on TV is an illustration, not the actual situation. Faced with that image, there is nothing to contest because the fact was not displayed. Nobody knows what happened. The audience is gently pushed to believe the image.
The system came from tennis, where a computer notifies the chair umpire (and a digital image to the public) whether the ball is good or out —except in clay court tournaments, where the mark of the ball still rules. The company is the same, Hawk-Eye (Falcon Eye, in free translation, reference to the vision of this bird).
Football has a catch. The referee is the ultimate authority. That’s why the video referee is called VAR (video assistant referee).
VAR 2.0 puts that authority in check. The machine presents a result that no referee will confront. Everyone agrees that the program’s decision is correct without knowing exactly how it made it.
The central issue is that, apart from its creators, no one knows in detail how the program works, not even what the margin of error actually is. This VAR is creating a new reality, based on consensus and not just facts.
Unlike the much-discussed Brazilian electronic voting machines, the semi-automatic VAR is not auditable. FIFA has not provided any way to check whether the system has any major flaws – for example, is the wave communication between the ball and it hack-proof?
And, if your selection is jeopardized by a decision made by this electronic brain, there is no point in going to FIFA headquarters to ask for the second half to be canceled, for military intervention, or to cling to the front of the truck that will take the equipment to the airport and from there to a unknown location.
This VAR has become a kind of God: we accept and obey, without questioning. But if one cannot question the morality of God’s decisions, can the same be true of a machine? Worldwide, the discussion about the morality of decisions made by machines is intense. In football, no.
As a seasoned news journalist, I bring a wealth of experience to the field. I’ve worked with world-renowned news organizations, honing my skills as a writer and reporter. Currently, I write for the sports section at News Bulletin 247, where I bring a unique perspective to every story.
