VAR at tipping point
Once upon a time football was a simple game. Two teams of 11 players, a referee, two linesmen and a football over which possession was fought with the aim of placing it in a goal twenty four feet wide, by eight feet high. The length of time allocated to this aim varied from between 90 – 95 minutes but rarely longer.
From 1888 when the world’s first professional football league was formed to 2018 the game was adjudicated solely by a referee and two linesmen fallible human beings who, for all their faults, managed to get the vast majority of decisions pertaining to incidents on the pitch and goals scored correct. Only rarely did their failings result in a miscarriage of justice. But for the most part the players and the fans accepted this fallibility as part and parcel of the game. Even the most one eyed supporter would probably concede that over the course of a season the decisions would balance themselves out such that a club’s final league position would be a true reflection of their ability.
But with developments in technology and particularly their positive application to more complicated games such as tennis and cricket it was taken as red that technology would have a similar benefit on football. If we could give referees a full proof method of confirming a hand ball here or a foul and perhaps an offside there, all debate over the accuracy of their decisions would end and football as a game would be much the better for it.
Against that background in season 2013-14 the Premier League dipped its toe into the proverbial technological pond by using something called Goal Line Technology. By positioning a camera in line with the goal it could inform the referee whether the ball has crossed the line or not. In this regard reaching a decision was clear cut because the sole aspect against which a judgement was being made was static i.e. the goal line.
If you think about it this is the reason why it works so well in both cricket and tennis. In cricket the stumps are static making LBW decisions relatively simple; ditto line calls in tennis. Furthermore cricket is armed with the additional aids of hot spot and snicko to determine whether a ball has been hit on its way to the wicket keeper. Only when you have two aspects moving simultaneously e.g. when a catch is taken that looks like it has hit the floor at the point of being claimed, does ambiguity set in making reaching a decision far more difficult.
It would appear that IFAB (International Football Association Board) FIFA and by implication the FA seemed untroubled by the latter and in season 2018–19 the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) was first employed in the FA Cup to do what it said on the tin – to assist referees in determining whether an infringement had occurred that meant a goal should not be awarded. Less lorded was the caveat – the infringement had to be “clear and obvious”.
Though VAR’s use in the FA Cup experiment had not been without its teething problems for season 2019–20 the Premier League decided to fully embrace the technology. The panacea of a world in which all controversy over refereeing decisions would be consigned to history was within reach. Yet as has been seen during VAR’s inaugural season, it is the exact opposite that has occurred.
From the outset myriad have been the objections and not just with the injustice of the decisions. The time taken to reach them (often as long as four minutes) sucks the atmosphere from a game and when they go against a team it can have a detrimental impact on their mindset. Since the Wolves v Manchester City game - in which I railed at its iniquitous use - we have had the Pedro Neto goal v Liverpool disallowed for an infringement not evident to the naked eye followed today by a Jack Grealish goal disallowed for a similarly marginal violation. Also today a Manchester City fan was ordered to take down his anti VAR banner at the game v Everton and Jose Mourinho in his post match press conference added to the disquiet by suggesting that “The referee’s are no longer the referees. They should change video assistant referee to VR… video referee”. And in the last few hours the Premier League has been told that “it could be stripped of its VAR licence if they do not adopt the IFAB protocol”. Once you start talking about applying protocols to what is a simple game then alarms bells start ringing.
A tipping point has clearly been reached. The Premier League can either continue with VAR but only if it fully applies the caveat “clear and obvious”. To do that give the Video Assistant a maximum of 30 seconds in which to reach a decision and if they can’t it’s referees call. Or simply scrap it. I know which one I’d prefer.
©Mark Brennand