Video refereeing and VAR have caused great controversy in Norwegian and international football in recent seasons, and many people are now calling for the system to be abolished.
Viaplay commentator Kasper Wikstad was among those upset that referees were suddenly sent to the video screen, without players, TV viewers or the public noticing any violation.
– When the opportunity ends or the shot is wide of the goal, you suddenly see the referee holding his ear. You can never fully focus on football, as you did before, Wikstad tells Netafsen.
Football has lost a lot
He believes VAR has taken away much of the spontaneous joy of the sport.
– I think football has lost a lot with VAR, unfortunately, as there are a lot of stops in almost every match you watch. This means you’ll never be sure what’s going on, especially if you’re in the stands.
As a commentator, Wikstad now has greater reservations about scoring and believes the rhythm of the matches is missing due to all the match breaks.
It has been said before that if the referee is invisible and if you do not see the referee, he has played a great match. Now it’s quite the opposite. There are referees in a close-up shot from the beginning of the match to the end, which closes up the referees holding their ears.
Lack of discussion: – Strange
Wikstad explains that VAR is not the only possible video referee system and that debate should be raised about alternatives.
-I don’t see why you don’t discuss other methods of video refereeing if you’re going to do that first. They decided to use one system, which is VAR. They are so adamant that this is the system they think is best when so many people see it as a system that doesn’t work.
– There are no alternative methods for video arbitration, and this is very stingy.
– What are the alternatives available to VAR technology, in your opinion?
-I think there are many other ways. What is promoted by VAR is that they have to deal with big situations. In an interview with the “Father of VAR” Roberto Rosetti, he talks about “Minimum intervention, maximum benefit.” Now that is not the case at all.
– In ice hockey, you have a “Coaches Challenge,” and if the “Challenge” is not accepted, the team gets sent off for two minutes. If you had something like that in football, it meant you were going to have a bad time throwing the Coaches Challenge and you had to make sure. Therefore, you would only do it in situations that you were sure of. Then everything else will go. I think it would be a better way to do video judging. I’m not saying I have a conclusion, but I think it’s strange that there isn’t a proper discussion about whether there is a better way of video refereeing than VAR today.
– The debate has become as polarized for and against VAR as it is for or against video refereeing. I think that’s a shame, because I think the discussion about a successful system could have been productive, says Wikstad.
“Infuriatingly humble internet trailblazer. Twitter buff. Beer nerd. Bacon scholar. Coffee practitioner.”
