“VG’s commentator complains about the climate in a debate in a case he won without a debate”

You don’t get any closer to using the word “cancellation” in the VAR debate without using the word “cancellation” than VG’s commentator Leif Welhaven does in his comment last week under the title “VAR debate on wild roads”.

The victors gagged?

In Ingressen he writes that “Supporters of VAR appear startlingly passive in the public conversation. Could it have something to do with the debate climate?”

As often before, it is those who shout the loudest to be gagged (or “cancelled”) who have the least reason to do so. And those who shout the loudest about domination techniques are often the ones who are best at using domination techniques themselves.

It is rarely a good starting point to use the debate on social media, especially Twitter/X, as a starting point for the debate climate in the public discourse.

Often it is a few, marginal voices who use the coarsest calibre. As a rule, the debate is civilized and matter-of-fact, even if it can be harsh at times, also on Twitter/X.

Why exactly VG’s commentator is worried about the debate climate once again, I am not sure, he himself is an outspoken VAR supporter, and can use Norway’s largest online newspaper to promote his views.

A likely explanation is that this engages and creates clicks for VG.

It is actually one of the goals that the rights holder for Norwegian football, TV2, has for VAR, namely to exploit the commercial potential of VAR.

It is not inconceivable that more temperature and a victim mentality in a case where you are actually sitting as the victor is also good commercially for VG.

But is it good for football?

Lack of a democratic process

It is quite peculiar to accuse the VAR opponents of being too loud and aggressive in a case where they have never been heard or taken into account when the decision is made. These are the reactions to an undemocratic process, we see the ripples.

And as in many other matters, it is more difficult to remove a new scheme than to prevent it from being introduced. This is what provokes.

Several of those who got involved, loudly but matter-of-factly, were positive about VAR, but have now turned around. The argument is that it kills the joy of football. Nothing less.

What should be of concern in this debate are the arguments that the VAR supporters and those in power have used, most often in closed rooms, to introduce VAR, and which, when they become known, make even VAR supporters fall silent.

That may be one of the reasons why those who are still in favor of VAR are cautiously approaching the door. They have run out of arguments or are waiting quietly in the hope that VAR will improve. But not VG’s commentator. He loudly reproduces Makta’s argument.

Many supporters do not have time to wait. They have waited long enough and in several contexts information and arguments are leaking out that strengthen their case.

No one acknowledges the origin

The football magazine Josimar have shown in several articles how all the actors involved in the introduction of VAR point to each other when responsibility is to be distributed and that no one is able to tell who and when the decision about the introduction of VAR was actually taken.

The podcast Good Vibes has explained in a good way how VAR came on the international agenda and how little it is actually possible to adapt VAR to local conditions because the guidelines from the IFAB (those who make the football rules) are relatively strict.

This means in reality that more cameras and “more VAR” will be the solution to improving VAR, if the alternative is not to scrap the scheme.

Experience from, for example, the Premier League shows that it does not necessarily help.

Associate professor Mads Skauge has in many articles, also on Idrettspolitikk.no, picked apart the arguments for the introduction of VAR and the consequences of VAR in a scientific way, long before VAR was introduced in Norway, without these arguments becoming part of the basis of the NFF , NTF, TV2 or others who were eager for the introduction in this country.

Basically, it looks like the introduction of VAR is due to an international trend that people have wanted to be a part of at all costs and that there are commercial motives driving it forward.

Can football ever be fair?

Many straw men and unfairness have been presented in the debate. References have been made to the Smoking Act and anti-vaxxers.

A bit clever in this context is that it is the VAR supporters who have used such references. Talk about a debate climate.

One central element in the debate is the argument about justice.

If you are looking for justice, I think you should find a passion other than football.

And I think football fans should look elsewhere than the VAR room for justice in football.

Lars Martin Gimse, Start victim, Dagbladet journalist and VAR opponent wrote https://twitter.com/LMGimse/status/1787084705923276914:

“One side apparently believes that ‘justice’ is almost essential for football, while the rest of us say that total justice is utopia and not an end in itself.”

And:

“Other things are more important. And modern football is, strictly speaking, bloody unfair. Some clubs get their coffers pumped full of investor money. Others have to manage completely by themselves, with the drastic differences it brings. If you are concerned with justice, you can start there.”

The whole debate really boils down to how you look at football. Whether you go for spontaneity, the magic of the moment and allow the referee to make a few mistakes or whether you go for remote-controlled referees and millimeter precision regardless of time and a football that must constantly be adjusted to adapt to technology.

For the record, I can state that the undersigned is against VAR.

read more: “VG’s commentator complains about the climate in a debate in a case he won without a debate”