THE long-overdue introduction of video assistant referees (VAR) to the World Cup finals this year had, one or two minor grumbles aside, been considered a resounding success.
Until, that is, the England match against Tunisia in the Volgograd Arena last night.
Match official Wilmar Roldan of Colombia had no great need to refer to his assistants, digital or otherwise, when he awarded Tunisia a penalty during the first-half.
VAR confirmed it was a spot kick to Nabil Maaloul’s side, who were trailing 1-0 at the time of the incident, but there was really no need for that verification.
Even the most one-eyed England supporter would have accepted that Kyle Walker had been foolish to raise an arm to Fakhreddine Ben Youssef inside his own area after 35 minutes and deserved to be punished.
None of them could have complained when Feranji Sassi stepped forward and stroked a well-taken effort beyond Jordan Pickford and into the bottom left corner of goal to level the match.
But there were certainly widespread protests at not one, but two of the spot kick decisions made by the South American official afterwards.
Harry Kane, who had opened the scoring with a typically opportunistic effort from just a few yards out early in the first-half, was wrestled to the ground by Sassi inside the Tunisia box shortly before half-time.
There was an almost identical incident early in the second-half when Meriah was the offending player as well, but, once again, nothing happened.
Surely these were just the kind of flashpoints which VAR has been brought in to identify and punish?
Chris Waddle, a former England player who knows all about just how important penalties are at the World Cup having missed the decisive attempt in the semi-final shoot-out at Italia ‘90, was apoplectic.
Summarising on BBC 5 Live Sport, he said: “It’s an absolute farce. This is the best tournament in the world. It’s an absolute disgrace.”
There was, then, a sense that justice had been done when Spurs striker Kane popped up in injury-time and nodded a header into the Tunisia net to seal a narrow, but deserved, 2-1 triumph at a corner.
“There could have been a couple of penalties, especially when you look at their one,” said Kane afterwards.
VAR is very much in its infancy and there is a feeling among many knowledgeable observers that it has been rushed in prematurely at Russia 2018.
Football may lag years behind other popular sports like rugby union and tennis when it comes to the use of modern technology in decision making. But these systems need to be trialled for years, not months, before they can be perfected.
Could this World Cup end in acrimony and controversy because of the use, or lack of it, of VAR? Watch this space. But last night’s events didn’t fill sceptics with much confidence.
Overall, this was a hugely satisfying result for Gareth Southgate and his England players.
They should be able to secure qualification for the knockout rounds, something which they failed to do in Brazil four years ago, if they can beat minnows Panama in the Niznhy Novgorod Stadium in their next Group G match on Sunday.
If Belgium, 3-0 winners over their next opponents earlier yesterday, defeat Tunisia in the earlier game in the Otkritie Arena in Moscow then a triumph will book their safe passage to the last 16.
There was much for Southgate to be encouraged by in his side’s opening display. They could and really should have won by a far more comfortable margin in the end. Some rustiness is understandable. They should be far sharper from this point onwards.
Of course, that isn’t an issue for Kane. His double took his tally for the last 10 months to 48 for club and country. He appears poised to become one of the star players of the World Cup and underline he is one of the best strikers on the planet.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel