There was only one team in the World Cup final and they lost, as France recorded a barely deserved 4-2 win over Croatia thanks to a helping hand from the VAR.
The glaring flaw with Video Assistant Referee technology is that it’s used one minute to decide a subjective decision, only to go missing in action for the next.
So it was that Antoine Griezmann conned referee Nestor Pitana with a blatant dive that led to France’s opening goal from a free-kick, before Les Bleus were then awarded a dubious penalty for Ivan Perišić’s handball from a corner.
There’s no way that penalty is given in pre-VAR days, but now that FIFA have decided that football is to be re-refereed in slow motion, what was once a simple sport is now stuck with a technological problem entirely of its own making.
And the seemingly inexorable march of big teams enjoying one-sided decision-making goes on.
Not that it seems to bother Gianni Infantino. The FIFA president – who was pictured on screen almost as frequently as the players this World Cup – campaigned on a platform of change, but has only offered more of the same in his self-glorifying stint in charge of the gravy train.
And you have to wonder whether FIFA would have been so quick to introduce VAR technology, had they not been looking to steer media headlines away from countless corruption charges.
At any rate, Croatia deserve credit for taking the game to France, and Perišić’s superbly-taken first half equaliser threatened to blow the game wide open.
But he went from hero to villain in quick succession, even if his handball from a corner – which seemed to take an eternity to make – was a ridiculously harsh decision.
Danijel Subašić didn’t exactly have his best game in a Croatian jersey, and it’s always surprising to see how often goalkeepers dive to their left at penalties.
Had Subašić gone the other way he would have easily saved Griezmann’s tame spot-kick – which was carbon copy of the penalty he scored against Argentina.
It was always going to be a tough ask to come back from a 2-1 half-time deficit, and when Croatia found themselves stretched as they chased the game in the second half, the French were clinical enough to score a couple of insurance goals.
Perhaps there was some justice in the fact that Mario Mandžukić was then gifted a consolation thanks to Hugo Lloris’ goalkeeping blunder, given that it was Mandžukić who inadvertently opened the scoring with his unfortunate own goal.
And the French lifted the World Cup trophy despite having flattered to deceive for much of the final.
(Photo by Clive Rose/Getty Images)
Kudos to Didier Deschamps, who became just the third man after Brazil’s Mario Zagallo and Germany’s Franz Beckenbauer to win the World Cup as both a player and coach.
In doing so, Deschamps went some way to exorcising the demons of losing the final of Euro 2016 to Portugal on home soil.
And in teenager Kylian Mbappe – who scored France’s third goal – Deschamps unleashed on international football a player who is clearly destined for stardom.
It’s just a shame the VAR decision will dominate the headlines today – not least because the World Cup as a whole was outstanding.
Just when football looked to be sinking into a mire of predictability – with the same teams winning the same trophies year after year – the World Cup breathed new life into the international game.
It was ably hosted by a Russia that surprised many with its charm and cheer, although you probably wouldn’t want to be those pitch invaders right about now.
And France – despite getting a huge leg-up in the final – were just about the best team in the tournament.
Congratulations to Les Bleus. They’re the new world champions, despite the best efforts of a Croatian side that was truly gallant in defeat.
jbinnie
Guest
Waz - At last some common sense. Football today has 2 styles of play for the fans,the hated "parking the bus" and the much loved "beautiful football". It is probably more correct to deem them "defensive" and "attacking" and if one examines these descriptions one has to appreciate "having possession " and "wanting the ball" as to how a team is performing. This final was played between two sets of players,one long regarded as being lovers of creative,exciting, attractive football and the other a nation in transition, as it struggles to absorb the changes being made in the tactical approach to today's game. France , being coached by a former defensive player ,adapted better to what is proving successful in today's football,demonstrating a disciplined approach to getting behind the ball as soon as possession was lost, France ,unlike Italy ,have never been recognised for their defensive attitude but this team played their parts almost to perfection ,in fact it could be argued that their opponents,the renowned entertainers, needed a deflection and a goalkeeping howler to penetrate their defensive wall,while at the other end 4 goals were being registered by the so called "defensive" team Whether we like it or not this is how the game is being played today and France have to be congratulated for the way they went about their business in this match. Cheers jb
sava lloyd
Guest
Was that Usain Bolt playing on the left wing for France In the World Cup Dropper (Soccer)Final?He could be a good buy for the Mariners. Sava
Eden
Roar Rookie
The problem with video decisions is you set out to resolve all the errors but still make errors, and the spectacle is significantly diminished. People still talk about the decisions and grumble as per this article and the A league final. I think VAR was rushed in to the biggest stage and I hope it doesn’t come into the EPL and other main leagues. As for France I feel they played only as good as they had to each match, which is commendable for how they improved and adjusted but I couldn’t find myself enamoured with how they played as they had so much more to offer. When they wanted to attack they could scythe the opposition but did it so rarely it was disappointing. Belgium were my favourites and showed off the beautiful game, but that is rarely enough to win a tournament and the French tactics disposed of them like they did with every other team. Brazil were unlucky to lose casemiro in the crucial match. I wonder if two yellows for a suspension is justified. Uruguay also unlucky to lose Cavani who was really warming up. Croatia were good but I think people overstate their dominance. 2 penalty shootouts against weak teams and late winner against England before a strong first half and some misfortune in the final. Was a great WC though!
DP Schaefer
Guest
And I turned it off after the second woeful penalty decision. I copped the first because Griezmann still had to deliver a great kick, but the second penalty ruling gave me thoughts about contrived results and the game lost me.
holly
Guest
he is 3 yards from the goal, his hand moves towards the ball diverting it out for what would have been a corner if the penalty had not been given. 100% a penalty
Barca4life
Guest
First two goals were iffy for France, but Croatia played very well maybe another day the result might be different but Deschamps has got the French tactically set up to be very effective not pretty but got the job done with an ounce of luck on the side. A fun World Cup, I do fear the fun won’t continue in Qatar but we will see.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Like like the French player went to challenge for the header to me.
anon
Roar Pro
All our top athletes are playing AFL and League. Young boys and girls are pushed into soccer by their mothers at an early age because it's safer than the other codes. Also, 25 years ago the typical Croat child wasn't playing Nintendo they were kicking a ball around with the neighbourhood kids because no-one had any money.
christos sintos
Guest
gifted two goals??? very far from the truth Mike. all the headlines are about VAR? very far from the truth as well. there was only one team in the cup final and they lost? bitterness got the best of you Mike.
Lionheart
Guest
four's in
marron
Guest
Definitely flares per capita.
jbinnie
Guest
Waz - I m surprised that no one has mentioned that as a result of the ball striking the player's arm/hand it changed direction almost at right angles from a cross ball from the wing into a deflection forward that would have caused a corner kick to be awarded had the French players not immediately reacted towards the ref. So the question should be, did the Croatians get any sort of benefit from the ball striking the players arm or hand.? IMO had the ball been allowed to travel onwards on it's original course,nobody,I repeat nobody, can say with any certainty what would have transpired. France are a funny team to watch. They reflect their coaches thinking in the way they immediately retreat into their opponents half when they lose possession but even with Giroud struggling in the unfamiliar role it took a schoolboy error by their goalkeeper to raise Croatian hopes in those last few minutes. From a pure football angle, not a final that will be remembered but nevertheless France shows a discipline seldom shown in French teams of the past and this,balanced by the ages of their players ,bodes well for the future. Cheers jb.
tom
Guest
would put you to sleep regardless of who is playing.
Kane
Guest
Croatia has history of producing players of world class standard for generations, compared to Australia who have only produced a few, they live and breath soccer and they are good at it. And in regards to the indindigineus players it's probably because the indindigineus Australians arnet producing players that are good enough to play for the national team, I don't think they are being overlooked delibaretly. Why can't aus have a world class team that is full of Anglo Saxon players, it's got nothing to do with a players skin colour.
Redondo
Guest
The problem is the VAR can gets binary decisions perfectly correct but then just add an extra layer of subjectivity to non-binary decisions. As others have said, goal-line technology is great but for anything with shades of grey - handballs/dives/fouls etc - the VAR just shifts the controversy.
Brian
Guest
Stop trying to find perfect solutions they don't exist. What did we have pre-VAR Spain being knocked out by Korea after scoring a perfect goal. Poll giving Simunic 3 yellow cards, Lampard being denied a clear goal. Thos incidents were much worse then anything Croatia suffered. Yes Greizmann dived but 9 out of 10 such free kicks are still not goals the rest was football. As for Pogba being offside he does not touch the ball so its passive much like Croatia's well worked free kick. Indeed every decision was consistent with how the tournament was adjudicated and that is all you can ask for. There is no perfect, the whole premise of a penalty is not fair why is a foul inside the box so much more severe then outside it? VAR is an improvement its not perfect but its much better then what we had previously
Kane
Guest
Croatia has history of producing players of world class standard for generations, compared to Australia who have only produced a few, they live and breath soccer and they are good at it. If we are talking about population the. Russia China and India should have world class sides as well, so the population theory is proven to be wrong. And in regards to the indindigineus players it's probably because the indindigineus Australians arnet producing players that are good enough to play for the national team, I don't think they are being overlooked delibaretly. Why can't aus have a world class team that is full of Anglo Saxon players, it's got nothing to do with a players skin colour.
Redondo
Guest
It's strange one. In theory, I like the idea of the VAR, but in practice, it stinks.
chris
Guest
Redondo a bit like the A-League finale? Total debacle. Whilst this wasn't as bad, we now assume that EVERYTHING has to be 100% correct because we have our good little friend VAR sitting on the sideline. All seeing and all knowing. The reality is that it creates just as much controversy as you stated in your comment.
lunchboxexpert
Guest
Mike, I think there was nothing controversial about either of the decisions. I think it is because, in part, people don't understand that slow motion replays are only really good at establishing the facts about what happened. They are not very good at establishing the intent of the players involved, because time is distorted during a slow motion replay. To make a judgement about intent you need to run the video in real time because this is the time in which players make decisions. So in my mind the Griezmann free kick should have been awarded (as it was) because it looked like a free kick in real time, its only in slow motion that it appears that Griezmann MAY have taken an intentional dive but it is not definitive. This is where people need to be careful with slow motion replays, because the slow motion replay makes the players actions appear intentional because they appear to have more time. I did note that Griezmann's foot did land on the ground after the tripping action but I also think that is likely that the momentum of the upper body, while his legs where slowed by the tripping action, ultimatley brought Griezemann down. I also think that only Griezmann would know if he took a dive or not. So there wasn't an obvious mistake on the part of the referee so the free kick stands. With the handball penalty, the VAR was used to establish the fact that the ball had been handballed (with the arms away from the side of the body or arms not behind the back) in front of goal. Once that fact had been established then a handball is a penalty almost everytime and the only debate becomes a question about whether the offending player should be shown a card (including what colour) or not. Maybe the fault is with the coach (and not the referee) for not telling his players this? As for the coaches claim that the world cup final should be refereed differently to any other game, I think this is wrong also.