“The Var did not have the image available with Candreva“. There is a yellow around the goal of Owned by against the Salernocanceled for an offside that was not active and was not even offside, as it turned out later in the post-match. For many it already is the most serious mistake since the Was. A blunder that undermines the credibility of Serie A. The Italian referees are not there to take the blame for the disaster and try to wash their hands. They do so with an official statement, in which they explain that the decisive image was not available in sal. There is. As if to say: this time the referee has nothing to do with it. It would be the first case in which the responsibility actually lies with the technology, not with those who use it. But it’s not true: ilFattoquotidiano.it can prove why thanks to the photo below.
“The technical organ of the Can has viewed the images made available to the Var and the Avar for the competition in question, not finding any correspondence with the video in question. Can’s technical body also specifically asked the company providing the technological service for the Var if the chamber in question, defined as tactical, was available to the Var employees for the match played at the Juventus Stadium. The answer that was given is that the room was not available to the Var and therefore it was not usable by the arbitrators. With this clarified, we are convinced that we have clarified the episode that occurred “. This is the press release issued byItalian Referees Association in the aftermath of Juventus-Salernitana. To understand why The Hague is saying only a half truthor maybe just a lie, we need to reconstruct exactly how the Var works and what happened yesterday.
On the pitch during a match they are running from 12 to 18 cameras, depending on the stadium and the importance of the match. However, not all of them are available to the Var and above all for the offside case history. For example, the offending image from above which is so much talked about comes from the so-called “tactical” camera which is not part of the production, it is not used to broadcast the match on TV but to process the positional data and the tracking of the players that flow into the statistical reports. A service room, in short, which is not provided at the Var. Instead only 5 rooms are used to draw the lines in case of off-side: that centralthe two to 16 meters Not two on the goal lines. Effectively, Candreva stood outside of these shots and therefore when the software has automatically drawn the lines it has not considered it, providing an incorrect and misleading frame. Put like this, it looks like a bug in the system that misled the Var Banti and the poor carpenter.
But what The Hague doesn’t say is that the referee team had anyway all tools to notice Candreva. Perhaps he did not have the possibility to access the tactical room in real time, but he could use others: for example, Il Fatto.it can confirm that it was in the immediate availability of the Var the low image from the sidelines which also shows the footballer of the Salerno and has been circulating widely in the last few hours. Filming that cannot be used to trace the lines (for that as mentioned, only the 5 official chambers are needed), but sufficient at least to signal the presence of the player and reflect on the choice to make. In the room there were four people (the Var Bantito wash Apple trees huh due technicians), all perfectly aware of the limits in offside shots, not to mention the linesman and the referee himself on the field: in the event of an offside on a corner kick, follow the position of the player who bats and of the one who opposes the cross is the abc of the arbitration direction. Human error was and remains sensational. The patch is no worse than the hole, just because the hole is a mess.
–
