Miguel Ángel Gil: “The VAR should only intervene to correct clear-cut errors”
Miguel Ángel Gil wanted to analyze what happened in the match against FC Barcelona.
Miguel Ángel Gil wanted to analyze what happened in the match against Barcelona, and in particular the reversal of Gerard Martín’s red card, following a decisive and interventionist involvement by the VAR: “When we look at the footage and listen to the audio shared by the Federation, all we can feel is shame. It is not possible that we are allowed to hear their comments, which are completely at odds with what the correct use of VAR should be, and that nothing happens as a result. Referees have the same right to make mistakes as players, coaches and club officials, but mistakes made in the flow of the game are just that, mistakes. It is a different matter entirely when a VAR referee predisposes the on-field referee while he is assessing an incident.”
For our CEO, “the on-field referee must bear the responsibility and make decisions by interpreting the intention of each player. The VAR should only intervene to correct clear-cut errors, not to decide in place of the main referee.”
He also commented on the inconsistent criteria that have been applied recently to identical situations: “It is not acceptable that in identical situations different decisions are made, that the criteria change and that we have no idea what to expect. This has happened to us in the last two matchdays. It makes no sense.”
Finally, Miguel Ángel Gil highlighted the fact that the CTA itself had explained an identical incident from a Betis vs Rayo match, stating that a red card should have been shown: “And the worst part of all is that the CTA itself explained an incident a few matchdays ago, confirmed that it should have been resolved with a red card, and then yesterday, in an identical situation, the referee made the correct decision only for the VAR to lead him into error by overstepping its authority, the very authority that has been explained to players, coaches and club officials, and that unfortunately is then not upheld.”
