Fiorentina had the technological “clash” between Var and Gol line technology

The one between football and technology is an arranged marriage, born more out of interest than out of love. After years of discussions and controversies, we now have the most advanced technologies in the industry. Every year there are innovations that help referees and even VAR has entered the football family as if it had always been there. In reality, few remember the first major modernisation, yet it has only been seven years since UEFA welcomed the Goal Line Technology in their competitions.

It was May 2016 when the Europa League final used the use of the GLT for the first time in a European match. Since then the referee no longer needs his colleagues on the goal line, if the ball crosses the white line he is warned by the watch on his wrist.

The end of an era that had also experienced a world final, that of 1966, left with the doubt of a “ghost net”. All finished. Maybe not.

Yesterday at the Franchi an episode rekindled the controversy over the use of technology on the field, so disruptive that it occupied the trending topic of social networks all night long. Paradoxical given that a match was being played on the margins of European football.

What happened during Fiorentina-Braga

In fact, almost everything had been decided in the first leg of a playoffs which gives a place in the eighths of the conference league. Spicing up a match useful only for statistics seemed impossible, but in the Fiorentina-Braga the feat was achieved. If on the one hand Vincenzo Italiano’s team did their part managing to reopen the qualifying discussion in less than half an hour after winning 4-0 in Portugal, on the other Bastien’s match direction left many doubts. All irrelevant for the Viola’s qualification, starting with the first away goal, but all important for transforming the key episode of the match into the “perfect storm” so feared by all.

The nightmare of football fans came true at the beginning of the second half. On the provisional 1-2, Arthur Cabral’s momentary equal goal is canceled despite the technology having validated it. The Var against Goal Line Technology.

The stadium is silent for over three minutes while the French referee talks to the Var room. PBy the clock the ball has crossed the goal line but after a long consultation the situation changes: the draw is annulled because the images suggest to the Bastien whistle that the ball has not completely crossed the goal line. Yes, they suggest. But what happened? Step back.

How Goal Line Technology works

Among the various possibilities available, UEFA has chosen the so-called “hawk’s eye” system which uses seven cameras per goal and makes use of software that follows the ball into the penalty area. Using visual processing techniques and software, “the Hawkeye – writes the European federation – is able to indicate with certainty in one second whether or not the ball has crossed the goal line through a vibration and a visual signal transmitted to the match referees’ watches”. At least in theory. There is no certainty. Not even the images we see are what we think. Anyone who saw the match on TV experienced a new twist after Cabral’s goal was cancelled: the TV images show that it is a goal, the ball has crossed the goal line. Are you sure?

Il gol annullato a #Cabral 😱

[@SindacoDepresso 📸]#Fiorentina #SpaceViola pic.twitter.com/mrqVtqHEgo

— SpaceViola.com Fiorentina  (@SpaceViola_Com) February 23, 2023

The one transmitted by the international direction is actually only the graphic reconstruction of what was recorded by the technology, not a real image. Of course, the same images with which the Var and the referee Bastien disallowed the goal were not so clear as to give the certainty that the ball had not gone in: the best shot is from the post and with a resolution such as not to solve the mystery . The Conference League “goal/no goal” will always remain, a sort of paradox of Schrödinger’s cat in a football version with a thousand other repercussions.

A lot of technology, but the referee decides

It is not the first time that the match director has canceled a goal validated by the technology on the pitch. It has already happened both in Italy, in the French Cup and even in the Premier League.

The case of Florence enters a different reality, it is more opaque than the other cases and could reopen a door that everyone hoped had been closed forever.

If after reviewing the episode, the referee has opted to cancel the goal despite the Conference League directors subsequently showing a replay with the ball entirely beyond the ball line, what will happen to the next millimeter offsides signaled by the new technology of the “semi-automatic offside”? Will there be a return to post-game slow motion again? Will we have one technology against another technology? Hopefully not, at least by following the most important rule. With the introduction of Goal Line Technology, not surprisingly, UEFA inserted a new paragraph in Article 35 clarifying how the decision to award a goal remained at the discretion of the referee. After all, if the system should fail, the matches are still played without the use of the GLT. Meanwhile, Fiorentina reassembled Braga and won 3-2. In the end, only the result counts in football.