I Won't Miss Ludicrous and Intrusive VAR, Football's Equivalent of Brexit

The players and referee wait for the VAR decision before Manchester City are awarded a goal against Burton in January 2019. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images
The players and referee wait for the VAR decision before Manchester City are awarded a goal against Burton in January 2019. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images
TT

I Won't Miss Ludicrous and Intrusive VAR, Football's Equivalent of Brexit

The players and referee wait for the VAR decision before Manchester City are awarded a goal against Burton in January 2019. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images
The players and referee wait for the VAR decision before Manchester City are awarded a goal against Burton in January 2019. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images

When I joined the Observer in 1990 the country was just rediscovering its love of the national game, thanks to Gazza’s tears and the BBC’s cultured coverage of Italia 90 drawing a line under the careless 1980s, a decade when one horrific disaster after another followed from the general assumption that football supporters were a troublesome subspecies barely worth anyone’s care and attention.

In a couple more years the advent of the Premier League would massively increase the game’s prosperity and visibility, allowing grounds to be made safer and more attractive to a wider section of society. Yet encouraging as it was to see female fans and families returning to games, not every subsequent change has been for the better.

Back in the early 1990s no one had to worry about football turning into a proxy showcase for nation states with plenty of money but poor human rights records, for instance. The idea of playing a World Cup in Qatar would rightly have been dismissed as ridiculous, Fifa was yet to turn into an international embarrassment and the notion of a Champions League elite, a small cabal of clubs in each European league who would grow richer and stronger at everyone else’s expense, would have struck most as unfair and undesirable.

Yet a personal opinion is that what would really have stopped the football watcher of 30 years ago in their tracks would be the discovery that at some point in the future, games would be paused for minutes on end while a group of officials in a bunker miles away pored over minute measurements to decide whether goals should be allowed.

Celebrating a goal is one of the delights of attending a live game. Depending on the type of goal, it might take a judicious glance at the linesman’s flag before joy can be unconfined, but no more than that. Football is not cricket or tennis, which are stop-start activities involving hundreds of line decisions per contest. It owes much of its popularity to being spontaneous and free-flowing.

Theoretically at least, minutes can pass in a football match without the referee’s whistle or the ball going out of play, just as, in days of yore, most teams could get through most seasons with no more than a handful of genuine gripes about poor refereeing or wrongly awarded goals.

It is true there have been a number of high-profile cases where refereeing errors have been picked up by television cameras and highlighted to a living-room audience while the paying fan at the stadium remained in the dark, but that regrettable anomaly could and should have been eliminated some time ago by a combination of goalline technology and making reviews via pitchside monitor available to officials.

Instead we have VAR, football’s equivalent of Brexit, self-inflicted damage that becomes more ludicrous and intrusive every week, with no one willing to stand up and say this is not at all what was envisaged. Perhaps it is not exactly an emergency if a sport wants to make a fool of itself in such a way, though the game in England is a market-leading product and it is supposed to be part of the entertainment industry, not a subdivision of the earth-measuring fraternity.

Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester and an Everton fan, was bang on when he described VAR as a nitpicker’s charter. The whole principle, that every goal must be retrospectively examined to check whether there is any reason to disallow it, seems wrong, anti-sport, cart before horse. Who decided it was a good idea to give referees so much input, especially ones not even at the game? Who decided football was missing out on line decisions and needed to be brought in line with cricket and tennis?

To those who maintain it is important to be correct whatever the length of time it takes or that offside is a black-and-white issue whereby half an inch is just as culpable as half a yard, I would put the following points. Is a player offside by an armpit or a big toe cheating? Are they seeking or obtaining an unfair advantage? And given the distances are so small and players will not always know the exact moment when the ball is played, are they likely to have any idea of whether they are offside or not?

If the answer to all three questions is no, as is frequently the case, do we really need the game to be endlessly stopped in a pointless quest for the absolute truth? Some good-looking goals, as well as some crucial ones, have been chalked off because of trifling and unintentional transgressions that no one in the stadium can see.

Because, unlike the important lines in cricket and tennis, the offside line is not painted on the floor. Objecting to electronic lines being retrospectively applied is not necessarily a Luddite stance. A sport can make up or amend its own rules, it is not governed by the laws of the universe. Innovations such as the Sinclair C5 or the Betamax cassette prove technology does not always mean progress anyway. The way VAR is being used also feels like something we will end up laughing about in the future.

We keep being told teething problems are to be expected and that in time VAR will become quicker and more sophisticated, though my hunch is it will still carry on looking for the wrong things. As we have spent the past few seasons discovering, it is still humans who make the interpretations, so ultimately what is the point?

I will miss covering matches when I retire, but I won’t miss writing about VAR. This, I can promise, is my final word on the subject. Goodbye and thanks for reading.

Five favorite memories
Favorite goal: A lot to choose from but Robin van Persie’s “Superman” header for the Netherlands against Spain in the 2014 World Cup remains a vivid memory. It came from nowhere, was like nothing I had seen before and involved an almost unrepeatable combination of skill, luck, and timing. Gazza against Scotland in 1996 was pretty good for the same reasons.

Favorite chant: “You’re Welsh, and you know you are” – England fans at Cardiff in 2005. Special mention also for the chorus Liverpool supporters reserve for Merseyside derbies – “You haven’t won a trophy since 1995” – set to the tune of For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow. Hard as it is for an Evertonian to admit, you miss that sort of thing in empty stadiums.

Luckiest double: May 1999 was notable for two incredible last-minute dramas, Ole Gunnar Solskjær securing Manchester United’s treble at the Camp Nou and the on-loan goalkeeper Jimmy Glass going up for a corner at considerably less glamorous Brunton Park to score the goal that kept Carlisle in the league. It was a privilege to be at both events.

Hoariest tale: The time in a hotel in Poland when a group of us were discussing the wisdom of the England captain’s tattoo fetish and speculating whether he might end up with one on his head, unaware Mrs Sandra Beckham was dining at the next table, partly hidden by a banquette seat. “Excuse me, that’s my son you’re talking about.”

Fondest memory: Palo Alto 1994, with Californian sun blazing down on a roofless stadium and Santana playing on the pitch before Brazil kicked off against Russia. The bloke I bumped out of the way in my eagerness to reach the seat for my first World Cup game turned out to be Pelé, causing an obstruction by signing autographs near the press box.

(The Guardian)



Argentina Secures a World Cup Spot and Then Celebrates It With a 4-1 Victory Over Archrival Brazil 

Argentine players celebrate their victory over Brazil during a CONMEBOL FIFA World Cup 2026 qualifier soccer match between Argentina and Brazil in Buenos Aires, Argentina 25 March 2025. (EPA)
Argentine players celebrate their victory over Brazil during a CONMEBOL FIFA World Cup 2026 qualifier soccer match between Argentina and Brazil in Buenos Aires, Argentina 25 March 2025. (EPA)
TT

Argentina Secures a World Cup Spot and Then Celebrates It With a 4-1 Victory Over Archrival Brazil 

Argentine players celebrate their victory over Brazil during a CONMEBOL FIFA World Cup 2026 qualifier soccer match between Argentina and Brazil in Buenos Aires, Argentina 25 March 2025. (EPA)
Argentine players celebrate their victory over Brazil during a CONMEBOL FIFA World Cup 2026 qualifier soccer match between Argentina and Brazil in Buenos Aires, Argentina 25 March 2025. (EPA)

Defending champion Argentina celebrated throughout Tuesday as the team secured its place at the 2026 World Cup hours before an historic 4-1 win over archrival Brazil.

Bolivia’s failure to beat Uruguay meant Argentina had enough cushion in South American qualifying to secure one of the continent’s six direct spots for the 48-team World Cup set to be co-hosted next year by the US, Canada and Mexico.

After Bolivia's 0-0 draw with Uruguay at El Alto, about 85,000 raucous Argentina fans kicked off the festivities at the Monumental de Nunez Stadium despite the absence of Lionel Messi. They were chanting into the night in Buenos Aires, now more confident their team can defend the World Cup title.

For Brazil, its worst deficit in South American World Cup qualifying history compounded pressure on coach Dorival Júnior.

Brazil is in fourth place in South American qualifying with 21 points, 10 behind Argentina but only two behind second-place Ecuador, which was held to a 0-0 draw by Chile. Third-place Uruguay and fifth-place Paraguay also have 21 points, and Colombia is one point behind them in sixth. Seventh-place Venezuela has 15 points after a 1-0 win over 9th-place Peru.

Brazil was missing three regular starters — goalkeeper Alisson, defender Gabriel Magalhães and midfielder Bruno Guimarães — and wasn't really competitive from start to finish.

It's the first time Argentina has won both matches against Brazil in a World Cup qualifying tournament. The home victory was also Argentina's first against the Brazilians since qualifying for the 2006 World Cup.

Argentina has led South American qualifying from the start, with few hiccups and major away wins at Brazil and Uruguay. But coach Lionel Scaloni has not fielded 37-year-old Messi in several games, which still raises doubts on whether the star will play at the World Cup next year.

Messi has an injury to his adductor and was not included in Argentina’s squad for the two latest matches.

ARGENTINE FLAIR, BRAZILIAN DESPAIR

Striker Julián Álvarez said Argentina's big win "is historic because of the rival, the context, what was said, the great match we played and because we are qualified to the World Cup."

"Very humbly we did our work," he said.

Argentina scored its two first goals in only 12 minutes of play, both thanks to accurate passing and some clumsy Brazilian defending.

Alvarez netted the first in the 4th minute after Marquinhos, Murillo and Guilherme Arana failed to reach the ball. The Argentina striker shot between the legs of goalkeeper Bento from close range.

Argentina scored again eight minutes later with Enzo Fernández, once again from close range after a low cross by Gonzalo Molina.

Brazil got one back via Matheus Cunha in the 26th after a mistake by Cristian Romero, who lost the ball to the Brazilian by the edge of the box. Enzo Fernandez found Alexis Mac Allister bursting into the penalty box unmarked 11 minutes later to make it 3-1 to Argentina.

During the break, Brazil sought to get some grip by boosting its presence in the midfield with Joao Gomes and the substitution of Murillo and striker Rodrygo. But it was to no avail, with Giuliano Simeone scoring for Argentina in the 71st after four Brazilian defenders failed to block a low cross in front of their goal.

"Everything we planned, from the first minute of play, did not happen," Brazil’s coach told a news conference. "Argentina was much better in every way. I apologize to Brazil fans, we expected something very different from what we showed. It was a very difficult night for us."

Brazil captain Marquinhos said all players should have done better in Buenos Aires.

"It isn't only about Dorival," Marquinhos said. "This is not only the coach's fault, it is the players too. We need to have our heads in the right place. They (Argentina) also had tough times before and they overcame it. We can do it too."

Ednaldo Rodrigues, the president of Brazil's soccer confederation, said he'd speak to the domestic media Wednesday, but didn't reply whether Dorival Júnior was going to be his main topic.

Argentine players celebrated with their fans, asking for "a minute of silence" for Brazil. Scaloni's team has not lost to their rivals since 2019.

The next South American World Cup qualifiers will be played in June.