No Woman, No Cry?

When is a goal suddenly not goal or a penalty not a penalty?

When it’s awarded in the FIFA Women’s World Cup, that’s when. And vice versa.

In a summer devoid of any major football tournament, and with the Cricket World Cup matches either rained off or watched by 1,573 people on Sky, there is a perfect platform for the women’s game to take another super-charged leap forward – as if it needs it.

The world’s fastest growing participation sport is enjoying a global audience, almost to itself, yet it is in danger of being laughed out of town; all because of a three-letter word.

We know the one. In the group stage of the competition, the problems with VAR were clearly evident, but they came to a proper head in England’s first knockout match on Sunday against Cameroon. The fall-out after their anything-but-routine win has been as extreme and opinion splitting as anything the Johnson v Hunt match up could throw up.

Many felt no sympathy with the Africans, epitomised by Phil Neville’s holier than thou post-match interview, understandable perhaps after some of the less savoury incidents that took place and left his captain injured and a doubt for the next match.

Others were more charitable. They felt sorry for the way things went for the Indomitable Lionesses, even if it wasn’t the ‘miscarriage of justice’ their head coach felt it was. My initial reaction was that it had been harsh. Now, having watched the replays and heard all the arguments I’ve changed the word I’d use to ‘cruel’.

The behaviour of their players either side of half-time – while not condonable – was not, in my opinion, as bad as some people made out. While rumours of them threatening to stop playing and making accusations of racism were already circulating during the break, the reality was they were just really upset. To have two decisions go the wrong way (from their perspective) in a matter of minutes and in the biggest game of their lives was nothing if not cruel.

This wasn’t simply down to a few girls getting a bit hysterical. A World Cup seldom comes around and Cameroon had already defied the odds to get out of their tough group. In the knockout phase you can begin to dream. Their dream felt – to them at least – like it had been ripped from their grasp and while it’s so easy to sit back and say ‘the rules are the rules’ it doesn’t consider the shock and perceived injustice that was unfolding in Le Havre.

I felt it in 1986 with the Hand of God and in 2010 with Frank Lampard’s ‘goal’. Your hopes are being extinguished for another four years and you feel incredibly hard done by if you sense – or know – that something isn’t right so if it happens twice, the impact is at the very least doubled. But those incidents were clear and obvious errors – the kind that technology was designed to eradicate – rather than looking for a reason to allow or disallow any goal.

The main difference between the two eras is VAR and some say the pinpoint precision with which the ‘right result’ is reached justifies the means. I was surprised by how so many pundits hid behind the images; the shrug of ‘it’s VAR that’s making the decisions’ suggested that the video footage is 100% perfect; the camera never lies and all that.

But it’s hardly bomb-proof, given what it had failed to address earlier. If offside is offside, then isn’t an elbow an elbow and a gob full of phlegm a gob full of phlegm?

We can’t have it both ways, although that’s exactly what we are getting at the moment. We have laser-precision to the width of a toe nail when it suits, yet other – clearer – offences that VAR was supposed to get right are being gotten absolutely wrong. How does that improve things?

The easy and lazy conclusion to reach on Sunday was that because Cameroon’s players earlier elbowed and spat, it made the later VAR decisions that went against them more palatable. They are, of course, unrelated, yet somehow, by full-time, two wrongs had made a wrong; two rights made a right and it all equalled one unsightly mess.

Waiting in Vain

First up, England’s second goal was clearly onside, so there wasn’t as much to complain about as the Cameroon players felt, except the assistant referee wrongly putting her flag up (it did look offside to be fair) and the video replay on the stadium screens adding to the sense of unfairness – again incorrectly. The time spent hanging around for it to be resolved only made things worse and stronger refereeing would have helped.

But it’s worth remembering but this is not a team of highly paid Champions League stars who have got used to VAR over two seasons in the 2018 World Cup, Champions League, various European leagues and domestic cups. These are players who have barely seen VAR on anything but television and get paid even less than Rihad Mahrez’s nanny.

And the heat of the moment is a major factor. If there was some perceived injustice – right or wrong – when I played, I’d easily lose the plot, even when the stakes were no higher than the Inter-Schools summer 5-a-side and a goal was given when the ball clearly went over my head height (and I was six-foot tall at the age of 11).

Cool heads are for those not involved. We over-do it; it’s a natural, chemical reaction that no amount of media training and warnings (not even 3,000 as Phil Neville suggested) beforehand can counteract. Likewise, referees – despite three years of training – have also been under-prepared for VAR’s influence and that training probably didn’t cover a Cameroon player bursting into tears. For all the defence that has been put up, the introduction of new rules and VAR so close to a major tournament, when the players have had little or no exposure to it, is far from clever.

The tears, to which Jeremy Hunt might have said ‘man up’, came after the disallowed Cameroon goal just after half time which was, for me, where the rules have it all wrong.

Football is a flowing game that needs great goals and to scrub one off – that would have breathed life into the game – for an offside from a previous phase where the player would have been onside had she been one shoe size smaller wasn’t in the best interests of the game; and that’s from an England fan who desperately wanted his team to win.

The ‘offence’ was not visible with the naked eye. It was barely detectable on video. A few years ago, level was a position from which the attacker got the benefit of the doubt, not called back because someone in a van had drawn a line in blue pen and a foot was 3/4 inch the wrong side of it. For all those that are now shouting that the result was the right one, what about…. VAR 1 Enjoyment of the Once-Beautiful Game 0?

Because after a few weeks in the Premier League, if it’s not drastically cut back from this ‘check everything’ mentality as well as refs waiting for the video to do their jobs, we are off to hell and I’m afraid a hand cart is the only vehicle of choice. It’s bad enough with one game each night consisting of three overturned decisions and 16 minutes of added time but wait till it is happening in 10 games every single weekend.

Away from VAR, the Women’s World Cup has felt like it’s trying to be a great competition in spite of the technology that is over-shadowing it.

As expected, pre-tournament favourites France and the United States have been strong, although one has to go out in the next round. Germany, England and European Champions, The Netherlands aren’t too far behind, while the threat from Sweden can’t be discounted.

As well as the wailers, there have been great goals, missed penalties, controversy, the odd shock result and no shortage of drama – although not always for the right reasons – and some memorable matches. A high skill level has been on display including some excellent one-touch attacking, fast wing play, a Cruyff turn and a tackle that drew comparison with Bobby Moore no-less.

The oldest and easiest criticism of the women’s game (mainly from men) has always been about the goalkeepers, but the standard of keeping in this World Cup has been magnificent with several stand-out saves from the shot stoppers of most of the teams involved. There have been mistakes too. For example, Jamaica – who qualified with the help of Bob Marely’s daughter, Cedella – goalkeeper, Nicole McClure made a right pig’s ear of some footwork that led to an Australia goal but a year earlier, Argentina’s goalie Willy Caballero’s miskick went every bit as tits up in the game versus Croatia. Mistakes are not gender specific.

Now, with seven nations left standing, after England beat Norway for a place in their third successive semi-final at a major tournament. They’ve come a long way and the growth in women’s football in this country has been phenomenal. As hard as it is to believe now, women were long banned from playing at English club grounds by the FA as the game was deemed ‘quite unsuitable for females’, although attitudes changed in the late-60s and the WFA was formed in 1969.

This might have been timely as the first unofficial World Cup for women took place the following year in Italy and in 1971, England were represented (sort of) in the next and more-official version although still not sanctioned by FIFA. For the record, Denmark won both tournaments.

Three Little Birds

In Mexico ’71, England had a 13-year old, 14-year old and 15-year old in their team and lost to the hosts and Argentina in front of estimated crowds of 80,000 fans – having to play in extreme Mexico City heat in the Azteca on successive days. Although not endorsed by the FA, it certainly jolted them into action and the 50-year ban was lifted that year although it would be another 20 years before the inaugural Women’s World Cup in China, and 1997 before our own FA really began to invest at grassroots level in the women’s game and appointed Hope Powell as national team manager.

Equality with the men’s game (financially as well as with resources, stadia and profile) is still some way off but the pathway is there. In the United States, it’s been there a while. Their team might be kicking ass – they could meet England in the semi-final – but it’s as a result of heavy investment that has been equivalent or in excess of that of the men’s team because their authorities decided that the women were a better bet for success and thus wanted to focus on and invest in them; no different to the way our Olympic committee decide which sports and sportspersons get priority based on their ability and medal potential.

All national associations have the same option. They could all divert or increase funding to their women’s game and aim for more success there. For instance, and to their credit, The FA have put much more into the development of the Lionesses and the domestic league in England; investment that will only continue to increase, one imagines, along with growth in participation by girls at school and youth levels.

This progress has manifested on the field. If England can reach the first final by any senior team since 1966, it will be money and time well spent.

Whoever wins the cup, it would be nice to think the remaining matches will be decided by the flowing football and great goals; not ruined by over-officious traffic wardens masquerading as video assistant referees. But in reality, I fear we might have to endure a lot more delays, added time, overturned decisions and women-in-the-middle making imaginary air-rectangles instead.

Time will tell.

words Darren Young, D3D4 columnist