River Plate's collapse against Lanús sets the stage for VAR controversy

"I definitely believe we failed in the use of technology," said Marcelo Gallardo, explaining part of River Plate's incredible collapse against Lanús. Gallardo's squad had a 3-0 advantage on aggregate - winning 1-0 in the first leg at the Monumental - and it seemed impossible for Lanús to reach the final of the Copa Libertadores. However, neither River's elimination nor Lanús' impressive qualification could overshadow the debut of VAR in South America.

The use of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system, which was in place for the first leg match in Núñez, sparked criticism and doubts. Most of the complaints came from the River Plate side, who felt affected by the referee Wilmar Roldán's decisions regarding the use of technology.

Towards the end of the first half, with River leading 2-0, Marcone handled the ball in a challenge on Ignacio Scocco, which the visiting team claimed as a penalty. Roldán waved play on, convinced that there was no foul. However, the Colombian referee decided to rely on the technology in two key moments of the match: the 2-2 equalizer by José Sand, to check if the forward was offside, and the play leading up to Lanús' fourth goal, which secured their qualification. With the help of VAR, a penalty was awarded to the home team.

As soon as the first leg of the Copa Libertadores semifinal ended, the analysis of the game took a backseat to the discussion about the necessity of using technology after what was witnessed at La Fortaleza. Being objective, the only mistake was not signaling a penalty for River, as the other decisions were correct. However, in South America, that is not enough. In the Bundesliga, they don't make a big deal out of it, while in Spain, they clamor for the arrival of VAR, hoping that the system will eliminate errors in favor of Real Madrid and Barcelona. Even Piqué called for it at some point.

The VAR is a clear example of the cultural difference between the two continents. In Europe, they understand that this system, like any other aspect of the game, can either favor or harm a team. That's it. However, in South America, it serves as a justification for defeat. Not long ago, during the Confederations Cup in Russia, which took place in June and July, Chile always had objections to the use of technology. 'La Roja' played and complained, while Germany focused on playing and ultimately lifted the trophy.

VAR was inspired by other sports, and despite all the criticism, it should continue to evolve. In tennis, there's the famous 'Hawk-Eye', where each player has a limited number of challenges. If they successfully challenge a decision, they keep their chances. If they fail, they lose a challenge. Perhaps limiting and allowing clubs to decide when to use technology will reduce complaints, encourage responsibility, and shift the focus back to football.