[ad_1]
In 1996, at the age of twenty-four, he made his NB I debut, retired two and a half years ago, leading 321 avant-garde matches, and was only preceded by Viktor Kassai in the perpetual standings. Of course, Zsolt Szabó is still up to date regarding the arbitration events, he is the number one advocate for the introduction of the video judge in Hungary, who also blatantly tells about the shortcomings of the system. Great interview.
Just a few days ago, he sided with his community to lead one of the most memorable matches of his career, the Salzburg-Juventus El match, 10 years ago. By then, a headset was already in use, but the cameramen still had no trace. How much more difficult or easier was it to hold a meeting ten or fifteen years ago than today?
Let’s add that ten years ago, the six-referee system still dominated on the international stage, since then UEFA saw the solution in having more referees on the field, so that more eyes see more.
However, it turned out that despite the increase in the number of referees, there may be cases that cannot yet be judged well, as the game has been sped up so much that some events cannot be noticed with the naked eye. And technical innovations were introduced precisely because football is constantly evolving, footballers are physically improving, and therefore the game has clearly become faster. And thanks to the referee, there are far fewer errors that affect the outcome of the match, so a referee does not feel burdened after a match by the fact that, for example, a team is eliminated for their mistake. Consequently, it is easier to lead parties today, of course, the task is still responsible.
What do you think the turn brought? Can we name matches after which FIFA and UEFA said it couldn’t continue like this? For example, many mention the England-Ukraine match at the 2012 European Championship, in which István Vad II, as a baseline assistant, did not notice that the ball had bounced behind the goal line. It is true that the head judge, Viktor Kassai, did not see this either.
This could also be a decision point, but basically it became clear that very serious money depends not only on the performance of the players but also on the performance of the referees.
It does not matter in the life of a team if they win the championship or if they fail to finish first due to various referee errors. Soccer is a sport, of course, but it is also big business. The bargaining position of a company executive who leads a soccer team does not matter in case the team is champion or “just” finished second. A sponsor usually wants to support the winners. Perhaps one of the last drops in that particular glass will be the 2010 FIFA World Cup. It happened in one of the previous qualifiers.
In the France-Ireland match, in addition to extra time, the French scored in such a way that before Gallas won, Thierry Henry clearly took the ball out of hand (this was later recognized by the French world class in a statement – ed .), Swedish referee Hansson, however, did not cancel the blow, but pointed to the center. It was an eclectic example of how a national team could make it to the sport’s most prestigious world competition in completely uneven conditions. Such a hit can now be completely ruled out with the video judge’s introduction.
Perhaps not many people remember that the video judge’s presentation also has Hungarian implications. Namely, Viktor Kassai and his assistant, György Ring, were the first to use this type of technology in one of the semifinals of the 2016 Club World Cup, in the clash between Atlético Nacional from Colombia and Kashima Antlers from Japan.
That’s right, Viktor Kassai first passed an action and then, after looking back through the video evaluation system, handed the legitimate penalty to the Japanese, who ultimately won the match.
Who knows what the meeting would have been like without modern technology?
Recently, the video recorder also favored us in two meetings related to Hungary. In the Molde-Ferencváros BL qualifier, the Norwegians were not first sentenced to a criminal situation, and immediately afterwards, Fradi was able to kick 11 after a dubious case. I wonder how you saw these two scenes.
Let’s get it right from the start, we didn’t like the video judge as these were the right decisions. So this was not a discount, nor a past of sympathy, but it is safe to say that in both cases the right decision was made. In the handling of Fradi -if I remember correctly, Igor Haratin’s hand was touched by the ball- the Spanish referee did not have to impose a penalty because the Franciscan’s arm was touched by the ball and it is not irregular under the rule changes that They came into force in the summer of 2020. While the referee judged that the referee’s ear controlled the case for safety, the Spanish colleague looked at him. According to statistics so far, in most cases, the referees will later change their sentences, Del Cerro Grande did not do it correctly. The other case was not so simple anymore, I admit it, I repeated the situation several times. First I also saw that the local player’s right hand was touched by the ball, then I looked over and over again and realized that his left hand was in front of his body and hit it, so he hit backwards. The referee warned it perfectly and for that reason he sentenced a penalty in favor of Ferencváros. He didn’t even look at the case here either, because those sitting in the video judge’s room also confirmed the accuracy of his decision.
This was not the end of the match, since in the match between Bulgaria and Hungary, the Polish Marciniak first sentenced a penalty in favor of the Hungarians and then withdrew it with the help of the video judge. Doesn’t it look bad if a completely different verdict is rendered in five to ten seconds?
The question is not how long it takes to be born, but to make the right decision. The fact of the irregularity was that it took place outside of the penal zone, so the video judge told his Polish colleague. In such cases, there is no need to go out to see the case, because it was not a rule interpretation problem, but something completely clear. Of course, quite a few seconds passed because I think the judge of the video repeated it several times, watching the case to make a clearly good decision. It wasn’t a big complaint, and that’s why the video evaluation system is good, because instead of a bad decision obviously, the good is born. Remember, at that point we were only leading 2-0 and there was still half an hour left to play. If the Bulgarians were selling the misapplied penalty, the match could have become extremely close.
Let’s move on to the Barcelona-Ferencváros Champions League match, as we could get upset with Tokmac’s goal, because the assistant pointed with a delay of several seconds, and then in the second half the Hungarians had a similar situation.
The referees did very well. This is because the protocol is for each action to be taken, and if there is a suspicious situation, it is displayed in the video room. The game cannot be restarted until a decision has been made as to whether an irregularity has occurred prior to a suspicious situation. If the video judge detects a crime, he will report it immediately.There was a similar scene in the second part of the game, so we can say that the Swiss colleagues acted consistently and well. And you just have to get used to the fact that every action has to be executed, even if it is conceivable that the referees will make a judgment with a delay of six to eight seconds.
Opponents and critics of the video referee system mainly complain that referees do not judge certain situations equally. Once the video judge helps, once he doesn’t interfere. When can a unified approach be born in this area as well?
Never.
Listen, never?
Never, because there will always be controversial cases. But FIFA and UEFA are constantly working on standardization and giving instructions accordingly.
So what does it take for a video judge to step in or not?
A protocol was also issued in this regard. The video judge must always investigate four cases. The first is whether there were any irregularities before the goal given. The second important point is the supervision of the criminal area, here we must examine two cases, whether the irregularity occurred outside or inside, or if any irregularity occurred.
The third situation already refers to exhibitions; misjudged whether the referee interpreted an irregularity or whether there was a serious fault behind him. In the fourth case, the video judge intervenes if the colleague shows a yellow or even red card to a bad player. It is important to note that technical assistance is never interfered with by mild irregularities in the field. First of all, I replied that there will never be a uniform refereeing, not even following the same principles, because we can see perfectly in the world championships, for example, that a European, American or even African referee judges with a different style.
What are the biggest benefits of a video evaluation system? And what details need to be perfected?
The benefits are completely clear and unambiguous, as the technique eliminates obvious, unequivocal, and outrageous errors from referees. The big advantage is that only regular hits are delivered, the ambush is clearly removed, a fairly realistic end result is achieved, and this is possibly a great virtue. However, when it comes to refinement, one could endeavor to make the same good use of the advantages of the video evaluation system in all leagues, following exactly the four criteria mentioned above.
Since the mid-nineties, you have been in the bloodstream of not only national football but also international football. To what extent have technical innovations (initially the flagger, then the headphones, the goal line technology, and finally the video referee) changed world refereeing, and thus football?
Of course, but they were absolutely necessary improvements. After all, if we only look at the health backgrounds and technical developments that have helped teams prepare over the past decades, we can rightly ask the question, why wouldn’t the referee need cutting edge technology?
I could also say that it is a shame to diversify against the new, it would be much better to introduce it everywhere as soon as possible.
You retired two and a half years ago, after 321 avant-garde matches and many prestigious international encounters. Is there no lack of arbitration? After all, based on his age, he could still judge.
The adrenaline rush that accompanies matches and preparation for matches is clearly lacking, but at the same time there have been many other events that have pushed the process in the direction of retreat. At the same time, life has proven since then, there is life even after refereeing, it is worth learning, training ourselves, because no one can take away a person’s knowledge.
[ad_2]
