TA: B Fernandes’ Red Card Fiasco Proves VAR Remains Controversial

The well-known media outlet, The Athletic, has published a commentary pointing out that the red card fiasco involving Bruno Fernandes proves that VAR (Video Assistant Referee) remains highly controversial.

The commentary notes that during the match between Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur, when B Fernandes was defending against Maddison at Old Trafford, he slipped and then reached out to grab Maddison’s shin. Referee Kevin Cavanna promptly showed a red card to B Fernandes, sending him off. At the time, the video assistant referee Peter Bankes had the opportunity to review this decision through angles not visible to the on-field referee (who was obstructed by Ugarte and Romero), but Bankes did not choose to intervene, seemingly believing that the conditions for overturning the red card were not met. Therefore, B Fernandes was forced to leave the pitch.

However, when Manchester United subsequently appealed the red card, a disciplinary committee consisting of three former players collectively determined that the red card was erroneous, allowing B Fernandes to participate in Manchester United’s next three matches.

Everyone can hold their own views on whether a player should be sent off. This action appeared dangerous at first glance. However, upon slow-motion replay, it became clear that B Fernandes had slipped rather than intentionally kicked, and while he did reach out to grab Maddison, the force was minimal, posing no significant risk of injury to Maddison. In his post-match interview, B Fernandes also mentioned that even Maddison himself said, “It was a foul, but certainly not a red card.”

The key issue is not whether this call was accurate. The problem lies in the fact that two different review procedures—the VAR on the day and the disciplinary committee two days later—could view the same footage and arrive at different conclusions.

The referee’s decision was in a rare position: it was sufficiently correct, given that the foul did occur, preventing VAR from intervening, yet not sufficiently clear to pass muster with the disciplinary committee. This situation raises doubts once again about the purpose of VAR. The premise of VAR is that it can be used to correct mistakes, leading to an “objectively correct” decision, provided there are enough replays and time, thereby rectifying any erroneous calls made by the referee. However, the case of B Fernandes demonstrates the flaw in this logic, as in the world of football, achieving “objectively correct” decisions is an illusion.

For years, football has pursued completely accurate decisions. However, all evidence suggests that this is an illusion. Many judgments, especially those that are highly controversial, are subjective, and no amount of replays can overturn them through technical means alone.

Consider how much football has lost in pursuit of this illusion with the use of VAR—the joy of celebrating a goal replaced by minutes of suspenseful waiting. This has significantly impacted the sport’s ability to evoke emotions and feelings.

In conclusion, the media points out that the nature of football and the human element involved dictate that there will never be entirely objective and correct decisions on the field, something VAR cannot achieve now or in the future. Therefore, the cost of using VAR far outweighs its benefits, leading the media to once again call for the complete abolition of the VAR system.