VAR: The problems & the solutions

Premier League clubs voted unanimously in favour of implementing VAR in November of 2018.

However since then, it has become the most polarising topic in football. The level of technology in the game lending access to multiple camera angles and the presence of social media has led to enormous criticism.

Read on to find out what VAR was brought in for, the specific problems it causes and how we solve them.

"Referee Nestor Pitana awards a penalty to France against Croatia after watching a Video Assistant Referee (VAR) replay of Ivan Perisic handling the ball" by Ben Sutherland is licensed under CC by 2.0

Understanding VAR

The buzzword around VAR used by the Premier League and the PGMOL is “Clear and Obvious error”

“The VAR should not be asking, “Do I think it's right or wrong?” The question is, ``Is what the match officials have done a clear and obvious error?””

As well as this they are looking for “Serious missed incidents”. The officials at Stockley Park are only permitted to intervene on four “Match-changing situations” they are:

Goals, Penalty decisions, Direct red card incidents & Mistaken Identity

The VAR is there to assist the referee, so the on-field official always makes the final decision.

The premier league themselves admit that they are not expecting to achieve a 100% success rate. It was brought in to “positively influence decision-making and lead to more correct, and fairer, judgments.”

They go on to say that the bar for the VAR is "set high" for subjective decisions to prevent disruption to the flow of the game.

It's worth noting, the clear & obvious error test will not be applied to factual decisions such as offside, mistaken identity and whether a foul is committed inside/outside the penalty area.

During VAR's test period it oversaw 68 live FA Cup and EFL cup games. Around 8 serious events were reviewed per game, with an average time of 29 seconds per review. 95% of checks had concluded before the game had been restarted.

The Premier League outlines the philosophy of VAR to be “Minimum influence, Maximum benefit”, many would argue it is currently having the reverse effect.

The Problems

Subjectivity

In my opinion this is the biggest reason VAR’s implementation has been criticised.

The Premier League state that during the trial period:

“There has been no unanimity. Different VARs came up with different outcomes”

This shows the root of the problem. There is a natural subjectivity in the rules of football. For example, how much contact constitutes a foul? Different referees will have different parameters leading to differing decisions.

Regardless of the final decision, there is still a discussion to be had over whether an incident was correctly officiated as many of the laws of Football are open to interpretation.

The Premier League admits this in the above quote, however there seems to be little measures to combat this in the way that VAR currently operates.

“Clear & obvious error” & “The bar is set high” are phrases which the Premier League are using regarding VAR but are subjective in their nature

Time

This is the big issue which fans in attendance have with VAR.

In spite of the encouraging statistics regarding the time of checks during the trial period, a survey showed that 67% of fans found games less enjoyable since the introduction of VAR.

This is most likely because of long delays on high stakes decisions being made. For instance, the last-gasp winner at Goodison park last weekend which was ruled out for offside. With many fans feeling, the uncertainty robs them of the moments of ecstasy regardless of the final outcome. Which is such a massive part of going to football.

Offside checks are often criticised because of the forensic nature in which they are examined. Gridlines, Calibrated cameras and Crosshair technology are all used to ensure that a correct decision is made.

This all takes too long, is this the price fans must pay for a correct decision?

Fans left in the dark

Another critique has been that fans have no access to replays and are left completely in the dark over the decisions being made at Stockley park.

In my view, this is just something which must be accepted by fans. The level of vitriol we see in the game would increase tenfold.

Differing opinions and forensic examination would see feelings boil over in the crowd much more than they do currently.

As well as this it would be an absolute circus with players surrounding the referee, all chiming in with their two cents on the incident.

"Hudson Pleads With the Referee" by Jon Candy licensed by CC BY-SA 2.0

The Solutions

Subjectivity

There appears to be one solution to rid football of subjectivity, an example of which we have seen in a recent rule change.

The rule change being the handball rule in the lead up to a goal. Which now states that any goal scored or created where the ball strikes the arm of an attacking player in the lead up to a goal will be disallowed and penalised. Taking out the subjectivity which previously existed surrounding what constitutes a deliberate handball.

This is a rule which was altered to accommodate for more accurate VAR decisions. But there is split opinion on this perspective, it cannot be faulted in terms of accuracy but lacks any sort of common sense approach.

This rule has increased the correctness of decisions and decreased the time taken surrounding handball checks. However, this is a rule now heavily favours the defending team as there is a double standard when looking at handballs preventing a goal which is judged using a different framework. Kelechi Iheanacho’s disallowed strike against Norwich a week ago perfectly illustrates the pitfalls of this approach.

Clearing up all rules to make the outcomes black and white will have a far more damaging effect on football than the way VAR is currently being operated. Any changes to the laws of football must have the game at the heart of the decision making and not be dictated to by VAR.

Arsene Wenger at Ifab

FIFA’s chief of global football development Arsene Wenger has proposed a change to the offside rule. He has put forward the idea that:

"You will not be offside if any part of the body that can score a goal is in line with the last defender, even if other parts of the attacker's body are in front"

This will not reduce the time it takes for offside decisions to be made or increase accuracy, however it will reverse the decisions where players players are deemed offside because “Part of their nose is offside”.

This potential rule change rewards attacking football helping to ease the transition of football officiating into this technological era.

Time Limit

This is my favourite of all the solutions.

It is to implement a time limit when looking at subjective decisions. This would be in complete accordance with VAR only overruling officials when officials are deemed to have made a clear and obvious error.

I suggest an official at Stockley Park is given 20 seconds to review an incident of this nature. If at the end of the 20 seconds they cannot definitively say the referee has made a clear and obvious error, then the evidence is deemed inconclusive and the game resumes.

This is not so much about making sure the correct decision is reached but instead ensures that the process is consistent and fair.

There will always be disagreements over officials' decisions with/without VAR. This will reduce the time taken per incident reviewed and most importantly ensures a level playing field for all teams.

Issues that will remain

Whether you are in support of VAR or not, it’s here to stay.

There is scope for the process to be improved in this country, with more active use of the pitch side monitors and through the suggestions above.

Wenger recommends bringing in former referees and experienced players to provide more of a common sense approach to VAR officiating.

VAR’s introduction will be a learning process and we are currently seeing the teething pains which must, and most likely will, be ironed out as they become more experienced using the technology. Both on the pitch and at Stockley Park.

It’s important to know that VAR will not please everyone and certain issues will remain. There will still be marginal offside calls, there will still be disagreements where there are grey areas in the laws and of course there will still be human error from VAR offiials.

Once the process is streamlined there is no doubt that the game will be better officiated with the technology than without it.

But who pays the price? Is this all at the expense of the fans’ experience on a match day? With a shadow of doubt still at the back of a supporters mind with every goal they celebrate.

Consistency and fairness must take precedence over reaching the correct decision. If this is understood by the match officials, the governing bodies and the fans. VAR might be more welcome in the game we all love.