Feyenoord saw off Vitesse in Saturday’s Johan Cruyff Cup ahead of the beginning of the new Dutch football season.
The game ended in a tie and was decided by penalties, but normal time was not without one extremely contentious decision.
It wasn’t so much the decision that caused the problem, though, but the manner in which it was made.
54 minutes into the match, a Vitesse striker was felled in the box as he charged through on goal, and the ref failed to award a penalty. Feyenoord responded by going straight up the other end and scoring. By that point, something was buzzing in the ref’s earpiece, causing him to disallow the Feyenoord goal and run to the touchline.
After listening to his earpiece for almost a full two minutes, the ref then brought play back and awarded a penalty to Vitesse, allowing them to equalise.
No PK decision: 54:04
Opposition goal "scored": 54:24
PK decision awarded: 56:30There's utility in VAR.pic.twitter.com/wVMcpCUCuM
— David Phillips (@lovefutebol) August 5, 2017
Was it the right decision? Very probably. However, the confusion that the system caused for both teams — and the extreme time-lapse of two minutes between the foul and the decision, clearly highlight what many opponents of video technology take pains to point out.
There’s no denying that video technology proved a disruption in today’s game. It also yielded the right call. Is it worth it? Only when football can decide on that question will we have a final answer to the use of video technology in the sport.
