Another weekend, another round of exhausting debates about VAR and refereeing. At Bournemouth, Arsenal fans labeled referee Robert Jones a 'cheat' and chanted that the Premier League was 'corrupt'. On social media, the outrage was even more intense. Fans have always grumbled about referees, traditionally calling them 'blind' or dismissing them as 'wankers' or 'bastards'. The 'You're not fit to referee' song came next; the cries of systemic corruption, however, are relatively recent. Perhaps this is just the world we inhabit, one filled with distortions and paranoia, shaped by a variety of populist cynics from José Mourinho to Donald Trump, with social media fostering conspiracy theories that have flourished as Covid receded. Or perhaps there's something more intricate at play.
Before delving into that, it's important to note that none of the key decisions in the games involving major title contenders over the weekend were egregious or inexplicable. William Saliba was rightly sent off in Arsenal's loss at Bournemouth; he deliberately pulled back Evanilson when the Brazilian was poised to capitalize on Leandro Trossard's misdirected pass, with Ben White 30 yards away and unlikely to catch up. Was the error clear enough for VAR to intervene? Yes, undoubtedly.
Although the foul was similar to Tosin Adarabioyo's on Diogo Jota in Chelsea's defeat at Liverpool, the context was markedly different. The ball Jota was chasing was moving much faster and veering to the right; Levi Colwill, about five yards away, was likely to reach it first. Evanilson, therefore, was denied a goal-scoring opportunity; Jota was not. The penalty Bournemouth was awarded was straightforward, as David Raya tripped Evanilson. Even Mikel Arteta, whose frequent complaints about referees have fueled Arsenal fans' sense of persecution, didn't protest, even if he didn't explicitly accept the decisions were correct.
The conspiracy theory favored by Arsenal fans suggested that VAR official Jarred Gillett, an Australian, was a boyhood Liverpool fan, which is why he has never refereed a Liverpool game in the Premier League. Saliba will now miss Arsenal's game against Liverpool. But even setting aside the childish notion that professional officials cannot be impartial, the fundamental point remains that the decision made was correct. While the Saliba red card indirectly benefited Liverpool, the two major VAR calls at Anfield both went against them: not only the non-dismissal of Adarabioyo but also the overturning of a penalty when Robert Sánchez was deemed to have made enough contact with the ball before Curtis Jones fell over it.
The case seemed borderline, and Sánchez was probably saved by his slowing momentum at the time of the collision. Whether VAR should have intervened is debatable, but the call was subjective; whether it was a penalty or not, it would be difficult to definitively say it was wrong. Manchester City's last-minute winner against Wolves falls into a similar category. It could be argued that Bernardo Silva was close enough to Wolves keeper José Sa when John Stones headed the ball goalwards to be interfering with him. He was close enough, after all, to have bumped into Sa as the corner was taken (when he was not offside), and had Stones's header been directed towards Sa's right-hand post, it would have passed very close to Silva. But Silva was not in his eyeline, and the header went in the middle of the goal.
When Wolves had a goal disallowed in similar circumstances against West Ham last season, their manager Gary O’Neil called it 'one of the worst decisions I've ever witnessed'; his view was notably different this time. Which is to say that while, personally, I think that sort of thing should be offside, I understand why the goal might be given and don't think it's scandalous that it was. But there's no room for such grey areas from the hyper-partisan viewpoint of the modern fan, little room even for incompetence. Everything has to be part of a grand plot. Why this should not become the default is impossible to say with any certainty, but here's a theory. Fans know the game is in grave danger; that mega-rich owners, far richer than any previous owners, have the potential to bankrupt whole competitions through repeated legal action of questionable merit.
They know as well that the new breed of owners care nothing for the traditions of the game, disdaining regular fans for occasional visitors who regard a match as a day out and splurge on merchandise and overpriced stadium food. Owners are fleecing fans and reshaping the sport, dragging it away from the communities that have sustained it – and been sustained by it – for a century and a half. But that is too painful to accept. Against their might, the average fan is helpless and so, in a classic case of discomfort displacement, perhaps blinded by partisanship, they turn instead on the familiar enemy: referees.
Source link: https://www.theguardian.com
