Video ref must pass the test of time
SO FAR, all the introduction of video assistant referees has proved is that referees are not as rotten as we think. Two games, three hours of football, and not one decision overturned. The only controversy has surrounded the timing of the replay and the time required to reach a firm conclusion. On Wednesday at Stamford Bridge, play carried on for more than a minute before a penalty call against Arsenal’s Danny Welbeck was assessed — and then it took a further two minutes to reach a firm conclusion. Mark Halsey was one former referee left unhappy. ‘As soon as that ball is out of the danger zone play should be stopped,’ he argued. And how would that work? Out of the danger zone is not the same as out of possession. Chelsea still had the ball in the aftermath of Welbeck’s tackle on Cesc Fabregas. They were putting Arsenal under intense pressure. Had Martin Atkinson simply blown his whistle and interrupted play, only to then discover it was no penalty, that advantage would be lost. The only viable restart would be the 50-50 chaos of a drop ball, or a downfield punt by Arsenal to return possession. Either could take the sting out of Chelsea’s attacks. And for what? Nothing. Their players would be moaning about that, for sure. Equally, by waiting for the ball to go dead there is a risk of even greater complexity. What if Arsenal had broken away, and scored — only to discover midcelebration that, no, it was a penalty down the other end three minutes ago? It has not happened yet, but on the law of averages it will. So far, VAR has been excellent, but there are complications to come. That’s when our commitment to the brave new world of technology will be tested.