The president of the FIGC Gabriele Gravina had given its willingness to experience important innovations to improve the game
The quiet, after the storm, brings with it the usual series a little useless of questions: where was the VAR?, Why wasn’t it intervened? Questions fine to themselves that do nothing but feed controversy sterile and exasperate the tones. In doing so, it is only possible to increase the distance between ordinary people, who feel legitimate “owner” of the game of football, and the arbitration class, called precisely to make the game of football more just in the eyes of the people. A paradox. So, a construction question would be: why not do the VAR on call, the so -called challenge in use in basketball and volleyball?
Experimenters
–
At the dawn of this season, the new re -elected president of the FIGC Gabriele Gravina had announced the Italian availability to experiment with important innovations to improve football and project it into the future. From the actual time to the electronic communication system between coach and captain, to end with the VAR on call and with the possibility for the referee to motivate the decisions taken with the help of technology on the field. Gravina had written to the IFAB – the international organ responsible for modifying the rules of football – manifesting Italy’s will to act as a “forerunner” to these forms of experimentation. “We want to make our contribution to improve football – he declared the number one of the Football Federation – in order to make the game more and more attractive and spectacular, especially for young people. We know that the path to innovation must be shared and then made , but if you don’t start, you will never get to change the status quo “. Invitation welcomed, the challenge is at the study of the IFAB.
heavy yellow
–
The VAR was born with a “restricted” protocol so that it does not become a movement in the field that breaks the fluidity of the match, making it an unquestnable show. At the same time, however, this limitation of the intervention – 1) goals; 2) penalty kick; 3) direct expulsion (not second admonition); 4) Identity exchange – she is itself limiting, that is, the bearer of annoying short circuits such as the one that occurred yesterday in Empoli. Tomori expelled by second warning trying to stop a player in suspicion of offside; Fuorigioco, however, impossible to verify when the VAR cannot operate in the case of yellow card. A true paradox. The second admonition, date or failure, has the same weight as a direct expulsion in the balance of the race and in the subsequent one, due to the disqualification. In this championship of such errors we have seen many. Among the most striking examples, Naples-Lecce (second yellow not given to Di Lorenzo), Juventus-Cagliari (second excessive yellow in Conceiçao) and Lazio-Como, in which both cases have even occurred (second yellow missed in Pellegrini e Wrong to Tchaouuna). Therefore, a solution could be widening the VAR protocol and at the same time narrowed the number of calls thanks to the challenge.
© RESERVED REPRODUCTION