The use of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) has been subject to continuous scrutiny and debate since its deployment even by those broadly in favour of its use. VAR supporters want match officials to reach the correct decision in a timely manner and see VAR as the most effective solution with current technology to be capable of delivering. Before its introduction, lawmakers were clear it was not intended to deliver 100% correct decisions. What they failed to understand was that the laws of the game are open to interpretation and VAR is no more than a judgemental view albeit assisted by video playback. The video playback does not make the decision, it assists in the making of the decision thus perfection was never a prerequisite.

 

Notwithstanding such oversights, the lawmakers saw the weekly run of hotly contested issues between fans, pundits etc, on controversial refereeing decisions part of the game and were worried it may be significantly removed. In reality, it has had the opposite impact. Football debates are now more rigorously contested with video evidence now used to support one’s view. It has arguably united opposing fans to agree with each other and blame VAR, demanding its removal. VAR is receiving mostly scathing reviews from most stakeholders in the game. Below are Tweets posted in February 2021 by two prominent football pundits which reflects the general consensus.

VAR and Football: An unbreakable marriage that needs counselling

 

As stated in the laws of the game, ‘The referee may be assisted by a video assistant referee (VAR) only in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ in relation to: (1) a goal, (2) a penalty, (3) a direct red card, and (4) mistaken identity.

 

An early study into VAR was conducted by The International Football Association Board (IFAB) and KU Leuven. Since March 2016, it reviewed 972 competitive matches, across over 20 national associations. Before VAR, there was an average of one clear and obvious error every three matches. VARs implementation corrected this in 18 out of 19 matches, and in 9% of matches, VARs impact was decisive on the outcome (win, lose, draw). In summary, referees’ decisions were 98.8% accurate after the introduction of VAR, compared to 93% before, thus showing an improvement of 5.5% overall. In the Premier League, the introduction of VAR helped raise the percentage of correct key match decisions to 94% from 82% the season before.

 

In response to the above Tweets, according to the above studies (which were carried out by stakeholders who promote its inception it must be noted), VAR has actually helped officials in terms of more ‘correct’ decisions being made. However, the issue is that VAR has been used to draw disproportionate attention to the fewer bad decisions/mistakes. So, in terms of making the referees look worse, absolutely, though recent rule changes have exacerbated this too. Therefore, it appears that VAR has simultaneously helped improve official’s decision-making as well as magnifying those instances when they get it wrong. In other words, there appear to be fewer injustices in football, but the ones that remain are a hell of a lot harder to accept.

Above is an image depicting the good and the bad side of VAR since its introduction. This article aims to highlight the actual problems with VAR, what has caused them, what the IFAB are doing about it and solutions/offers to improve VAR. The article will first explore how the rules, technology and referees have been exposed since its introduction as well as the impact of the flow of the beautiful game. To note, in July 2020, the IFAB transferred the responsibility of VAR to FIFA. This article is about a thirty-minute read.

 

1. Exposing Rules

 

(a) The Offside Rule

After the successful (not perfect!) integration of goal-line technology to determine whether the ball had actually crossed the goal line or not, you would think that another computerised, line referee would be able to cope with making offside decisions. It’s simple right: was the player in an offside position when the ball was kicked? It is simple, but the lawmakers had difficulty defining the player. Before anything is measured, is must be defined. Below are excerpts taken from IFAB: Laws of the Game 20/21.

(i) Contradictory Rule Book – The armpit offside

Straight away, before a ball is even kicked, and before VAR starts scrambling for replays, the rules are not aligned. This cannot be classified as a teething problem. By just having this contradiction in the rulebook, it was only a matter of time before they collided. Furthermore, it must be highlighted that VAR had already been running in most top national leagues for a couple of seasons. Put simply, there is/was no excuse whatsoever the lawmakers could make. This was not in the miniate of detail in the laws, it was, however, a clear and obvious error (pun intended).

 

Since the upper boundary of the arm is not handball [Handball Rule], it means that a player can legally score using this part of their body (though instances of such goals escape my memory). Now, due to its apparent goal-scoring ability, offsides are being given for the upper boundary of the arm being deemed to be in an offside position. Yet, the offside rule stated above indicates arms are not considered. This is a problem. A problem that will go down in football folklore, as the ‘armpit offside’.

In the above examples, the second offside that rules out the goal scored by Leeds’ striker James Bamford has arguably been given the ‘worst VAR decision ever’ title. Not only having this title, it has left pundits, fans etc absolutely incensed. (Though this sort of headline is churned out rather frequently). Remember, this could have been avoided if the rule book was written properly, without contradiction. It is of no surprise that the anti-football argument criticism of VAR is beginning to bear fruit. A perfectly legal goal according to the actual offside rule (no arms) is chalked off.

 

There have been many more examples, such as Aston Villa having a stoppage-time goal disallowed. Villa’s boss Smith said, “I still don’t understand that disallowed goal – you can’t put it in with your arm but they know the laws better than me.” Well, the offside rulebook agrees with Smith. However, the new handball rule does not agree with Smith as a player can score using their upper arm. To be clear, the upper arm is referenced from where the arm starts from the body down to the armpit. Interestingly though, when an arm is horizontal, it does extend away from the armpit (see image below). Whilst offsides will always be given to cm/mm (discussed later), an outstretched horizontal arm would place the attacker about 10 cm nearer the goal. Hence, this is why it has caused numerous goals to be deemed offside and dubbed the armpit offside.

So, what’s the solution?

Well, firstly, the IFAB has recently (March 2021) issued a clarification of its interpretation of the offside law, affirming the definition of handball, whereby the arm ends at the bottom of the armpit and, such a definition must be applied when judging whether a player is offside. As stated earlier, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to write a contradictory rule on two fundamental rules. This is quite simply unacceptable from the IFAB.

 

Secondly, there has been widespread disquiet, open rebellion in some quarters, at goals being ruled offside by a toe or armpit, with clubs speaking in favour of additional tolerances to be allowed for next season. Premier League clubs have demanded a fix to the ‘armpit’ farce under VAR — and to allow attackers a 10cm leeway in marginal decisions. According to the managing director of the Professional Games Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL), a 10cm latitude would have resulted in 9 of the 25 goals ruled offside by VAR for offside this season to stand.

 

In the past, there has been guidance from the IFAB in promoting a positive approach to the offside rule such as giving the attacker the benefit of doubt or the concept of having daylight between an attacking player and the last defender – though that was never the case. Now, if the consensus is that extra tolerance should be built into the rules then this, of course, has implications. In the proposal for a 10cm leeway, it must be recognised that whilst it would remove the armpit offside, it is also giving a 10cm leeway in decisions without the upper arm boundary being the furthest body point. This sounds rather obvious, but it must be made clear and communicated. In other words, an attacker’s foot could be 10cm nearer the goal than the defender’s (given these are the body parts nearest the goal) and be deemed onside.

A further implication is that the proposed new rule does not actually stop offsides being given by a player being a toe (length) offside. A player may now be theoretically offside by 11cm but technically only deemed to be offside by 1 cm (or however short technology measures it). The point is, the line must be drawn somewhere, and measurements to that line will be made to determine whether a player is offside or not. Again, this is rather obvious but needs to be made clear to fans, something the IFAB lack communicating.

 

Whilst introduction of the new tolerance is looking likely for next season, there are other ideas currently being trialled. The IFAB is proposing a change to the offside rule whereby a player should be considered onside if any part of their body that can legally score a goal is level with the second-last defender. Football Association chief executive has noted a mixed response to the proposal as there are some who believe it will create a more defensive game whilst others believe a more exciting game would occur.

 

In sum, a degree of tolerance would be welcomed. To implement this would be easy (see Exposing Technology section). And whilst offside decisions will still be deemed harsh when only the smallest of margins determines it to be, we can hopefully wave goodbye to the farcical armpit offsides. With regard to the new offside rule above being trialled, this is in effect adding a much larger tolerance that also will vary depending on the attacker’s body position, having quite possibly a significant impact on the way football is played. More interestingly, and ironically, it could well flip the armpit offside farce, i.e., a player could stand in an offside position at a freekick, then raise their arm furthest away from the goal, moving their upper arm boundary level with the defender. In other words, being onside by an armpit.

 

(ii) Playing Advantage Disadvantage

In an attempt to stop flagging attackers offside who were in fact onside and stopping play unnecessarily, in particularly, in a strong scoring opportunity, the lawmakers instructed officials to let play go on and then to use VAR if a goal was scored. It appears a good idea at first, but if you take a second to think about the consequences, then it’s clear and obvious (sorry – long article) that a whole load of goals would be chalked off as attackers who were in fact offside were not given offside. The first problem with this is that it literally creates more problems than it solves. In other words, more incorrect offside decisions are being made due to more offsides not given than offsides given that were not. Second, the psychological impact of disallowing a goal scored is far greater than denying a potential goal-making opportunity. You would feel hard done by if a friend took back a £50 bet, for a bet you should not have won in the first place.

 

At the beginning of its inception in the Premier League, in almost every instance of an intervention (15 of 19), a goal is being taken away. The perception of VAR is its anti-football. First, it must be acknowledged that this was always going to be the case. Out of the four reasons for VAR being used, mistaken identity is rarely used as it was rarely an issue. Red cards occur far less frequently than goals and offsides, with offsides tending to lead to significant goal-scoring opportunities. Even before the introduction of VAR, offside was already being blasted for removing goals. However, chalking off goals has certainly been magnified under VAR.

 

So, what’s the solution?

Playing advantage has a BIG disadvantage. Solving one problem by creating a bigger problem is never a good outcome. Some in football have suggested reverting to letting assistant referees make the decision. Whilst this would ensure the bigger problem not coming to fruition, it does not deal with the first problem. It feels like going backwards too. Another suggestion has been to give teams a number of reviews each game – something that has worked well in other sports (but not all sports). The problem with introducing a review system in football, especially for offside, is what do you do if the attacking team were correct? Replicate the situation again? Give them a direct freekick from the position of the attacker where they received the ball? The problem here is that it is unlikely to bring justice. Not to mention the flow of the game being further interrupted (see later).

 

Ideally, technology will help fix the first problem without creating another (dare I say). How will technology do this? By providing instant decisions, providing real-time signals to assistant referees. Whilst this appears wishful thinking, certainly for next season, it may not be as wishful as you think. FIFA are currently testing semi-automated technology to detect offside, whereby a decision is transmitted ‘virtually’ instantly to the assistant referee. It would then be for the officials to decide whether the offside player was interfering. Football Association chief executive noted that, “Everyone recognises that when a goal is scored and fans have to wait to find out if it’s a goal or not isn’t a brilliant experience for the fans, particularly those in the stadium… in theory for offside decisions there would be no need to go back to the video assistant referee.”

 

In sum, having technology instantly inform an assistant referee whether an attacker is offside or not would be an absolute game-changer! It would remove VAR from offside – unless teams were given one review per game. Remember, technology is never perfect and would need to be able to distinguish between multiple players being offside (perhaps a number of dots on the assistant’s watch to indicate this). However, until this real-time system is in place, for now, assistant referees should just judge to the best of their ability, or at least if they are confident with their decision. This would be a temporary solution till technology permits.

 

(b) The Handball Rule

As illustrated above, the IFAB has made a number of changes to the handball rule during the season. The IFAB’s reason for this is that, “interpretation of handball incidents” not being applied consistently. However, all three rules above are clearly different, but more importantly, fairly black and white and do not leave much interpretation. Thus, indicating once again, the IFAB’s incapability to write sufficient, clear rules.

 

Unsurprisingly, scathing reviews from all key stakeholders in the game flooded in such as ‘football has been lost’ and ‘football is dead’. In an attempt to deal with this, the Premier League ordered its referees to be less strict in interpreting the law. Officials were advised to focus on the distance of an offending player from the ball and whether an arm had been extended outside the natural line of the body. With regard to the distance directive, such considerations are redundant in certain incidents. More pertinent, did the offending player have reasonable time to determine the path of the ball?

 

So, what’s the solution?

Handball in the penalty area is a tricky one, because this is where one size fits all approach certainly does not work. To be fair to VAR it delivers timely replays in the sense that it allows the referee to see the incident again, determining the arm position, ball location etc. However, the context must not be removed (see exposing technology). Notwithstanding that most incidents need to be viewed on an individual basis; the ball’s expected path is the most salient issue here.

 

A group of referees / fans etc, need to review 100s of incidents and agree on factors that determine whether it was handball or not. Incidents could then be grouped into categories, for example, charging down a shot or making a tackle, to determine if certain factors are more prevalent for certain incidents. This would then help referees review / interpret future incidents. Thus, the interpretation of the rule being applied consistently. For example, a checklist or classification chart should be attempted by the IFAB.

 

Before moving on, previously, the offside rule gave fruition to anti-football (goals being chalked off), however, a combination of the new handball rule and VAR, penalties appear to be increasing. So, do more penalties (goals) mean VAR is not anti-football? Not quite. Fans want to see goals but not this way. Again, VAR is seen as anti-football here. Just how many more penalties are occurring since the new handball rule this season being assisted by VAR of course?

 

Earlier on in the season, there were a plethora of articles stating over 200 penalties were going to be given in the Premier League in the 2020/21 season. These articles claimed / predicted that up to 292 penalties were going to be awarded. Now before this season’s current data is presented, it is worth noting that across Europe’s top 5 leagues, the trend for the number of penalties given has increased over the last 13 years. Data was taken from statbunker.

In the above graph, it appears that the Premier League has seen a general decline in the number of penalties taken over the last 13 years. Whilst this is true, though very small, over its entire existence since its first season in 1992/93, the Premier League has also seen an increase in penalties given (see Appendix 1). Why is this? Off the top of my head, it could be argued that players are more protected these days. Other reasons might apply such as the game is quicker now, and defenders are getting caught out.

 

How many penalties will be given in 20/21? As of February 18^th at noon, see below.

Yes, it appears that the new handball rule and VAR (in previous years) has produced more penalties. Now, to untangle VAR’s contribution or the new handball’s sole responsibility in the increase in penalties is too complex to be discussed here. With regard to this season, it must be pointed out that the 2020/21 season is rather unique in two ways. First, the majority, if not whole, of the season is being played without fans. A consequence of this is that away teams may be as likely to receive a penalty then the home team. Second, it is a very congested fixture list and players will be more fatigued and potentially making poorer decisions/tackles.

 

In sum, the IFAB’s new handball rule this year has been a disaster and further evidence of their incompetence to write clear rules. The IFAB had to change the handball rule (at least) twice during the season. The IFAB need to be more proactive in finding mitigating factors for a handball offence so greater consistency is applied by officials. This requires the IFAB to be proactive rather than reactive. Finally, it appears the new handball rule which tends to be reviewed by VAR is increasing the number of penalties. A consequence of this is that it further strengthens the grip of the penalty takers on golden boot awards, thus, reducing the competition for the awards.

 

 

(c) Interpretation Unavoidable

 

As mentioned earlier in the article, the IFAB have acknowledged that officials make interpretations. The below extraction from the Laws of the Game 20/21 is simply to highlight that a referees’ interpretation of a potential foul is borne from the Laws of the Game.

The decision to award a freekick is not an exact science. To illustrate this, there are many terms that are not defined, for example the term excessive force. What does excessive force mean? Are players allowed to use more force in some scenarios and not others? Players are not equipped with force sensors to determine the force imparted by an opponent – it’s intuitive! Another factor, and one that cannot go unnoticed, is the fact that some players try to win fouls by deceiving the referee (i.e., playing dishonestly).

 

Therefore, decisions in football are rarely binary: absolute yes or absolute no. They tend to fall on a continuum. It is not uncommon at all for any debate on a refereeing decison to end ‘could have gone either way.’ Nevertheless, the referee must make a decision one way or the other. Below are two Twitter polls on whether a penalty or an offside should have been given.

As you can see from the results (mid poll), the penalty decision saw about half of the fans agreeing that it was a penalty and the other half disagreeing. Just over two thirds agreed that Timo Werner’s goal should have been given, thus he was not offside, compared to just under a third believing it was offside and the goal should not stand. Whilst this is only a brief sample of two polls, what is does indicate is the interpretation within the Laws of the Game, i.e., decisions are not absolutes despite everyone having the same rule book.

 

The purpose of VAR is to review match-changing decisions and not every single decision the referee makes, i.e., all potential fouls. Though, one could argue that any decision is match-changing. Moving on from that pedantic view, what VAR has done is expose the rules. As in the previous examples of the offside rule and, especially, the handball rule, the lawmakers and governing bodies have been reactive, not proactive. Interpretation by a referee is never going to be removed completely, even with VAR.

 

So what’s the solution?

Being proactive: conducting research and rewriting, if necessary, the laws of the game to help reduce interpretation. How will this be achieved? Individual incidents will be polled watching replays by fans, referees etc to decide whether they think it was a foul or not. This will show how much particular incidents are contested. All these incidents can then be compared with each other showing what percentage of decisions have the most interpretation. Below is an example that uses fictitious data.

The penalty poll (1) earlier would be placed in the <55% category in the middle. That’s because 51.4% said it was a foul. To give another example, let’s say another poll was run (3) and that 78% thought a particular incident was not a foul. This would be placed in the 75-89% category on the right-hand side as indicated in the graph. To note, when a particular incident is deemed to be a foul 48%, then the converse is true it being not a foul would be 52% and be placed in the middle. Thus, all incidents with less than a 5% discrepancy are placed in the middle.

The purpose of this research is twofold. First, to identify how much/little referees or fans or mangers etc agree with the interpretation of the laws. Second, to identify specific incidents that are more contested than others (as a percentage). Incidents would need to be categorised, for example, aerial challenges, slide tackles etc. As a result, the lawmakers could then rewrite some of the laws or guidance on these particular incidents to help promote more consistent decisions, i.e., making the outside columns higher and the middle columns lower.

 

Importantly, it must be noted that just because 99% people think it is a foul, does not necessarily mean it is a foul. However, once the correct decision is determined, the aim of this research is we want people, in particular referees, to agree more often, so that there is more consistency when applying the laws of the game.

 

In sum, interpretation is inextricably entangled within the laws of the game. However, the IFAB need to be more proactive than reactive. More research is required into scenarios / incidents that provide the most disputed interpretation and use the data to reduce such interpretation by referees and fans through the provision of well written rules i.e. minimise the potential for dispute.

 

 

This section has explored how VAR has exposed the rules of football. It has done this in three ways. First, it has shone a light on lawmakers’ inability to write clear, non-contradictory rules. Second, how the IFAB are more reactive than proactive, demonstrated by the two rule changes to the handball rule during the season. Third, to be more proactive in conducting research and reducing the interpretation within the laws of the game.

 

2. Exposing Technology

 

(a) Technology is not perfect

 

Clearly.

It’s not just the virtual offside lines too. Even the great Hawk-eye has told lies. At the beginning of the 2020/21 Premier League season, Aston Villa keeper Orjan Nyland was unable to grab a firm hold of a freekick, stumbling backwards and bundling into the net and post. Despite Nyland appearing to carry the ball over the line with him, a goal was not awarded due to the referee’s watch not buzzing. As shown by the images below, this was just before half time. Quite bizarrely, during half time, it was reported that the referee’s watch then indicated it was a goal whilst he was sitting in the dressing room.

 

Hawk-eye later claimed that there was nothing technically wrong with their equipment and later stated, “The seven cameras located in the stands around the goal area were significantly occluded by the goalkeeper, defender and goalpost…This level of occlusion has never been seen in 9 000 matches that the Hawk-eye Goal Line Technology system has been in operation.” That may be a valid reason, but even sophisticated technology ruling on quite a simply task of whether a ball went over a line or not, is not flawless.

VAR is increasingly relied upon to determine whether a player is offside or not, consequently, confidence in the virtual offside decision lines is a must. So far, these lines have been heavily criticised, and rightly so. Despite the impressive features of Hawk-Eye; the angle of view, lens distortion, field curvature etc and associated factors considered when determining the precise position to draw these lines, cameras only operate at 50 frames per second, taking one picture every 0.02 seconds. Whilst impressive, it does not give the cold, hard objective decision that VAR, unfairly, is held against. VAR cannot know for certain where the players or ball are at any one point because the players and the ball move during each of the 50 frames. We are on the margins here, but nonetheless, there is a small, however small, margin of error in its virtual offside lines.

 

So, how small/big is this error? To begin with, let’s calculate the largest possible error. Last season, Alphonso Davies for Bayern Munich was clocked running at 36.51 km/h which is about 10.14 m/s. Adam Traore of Wolverhampton Wanderers was clocked at 36.25km/h which equates to about 10.07 m/s. Using 50 frames per second, Davies moves 20.28 cm per frame and Traore moves 20.14 cm per frame. Hypothetically, let’s say Davies is sprinting out of defence whilst Traore is streamlining towards goal. To determine whether a player is deemed on or offside, the offside law states that it’s at ‘the first point of contact’ when the ball is played. Therefore, this ‘first contact’ is likely to occur between frames. What this means, is that, potentially, Traore could be deemed to be offside by 40 cm but actually be onside (40 < 20.28 + 20.14).

There have been numerous calculations online to determine the margin of error for offside decisions. This is nothing new. Nearly two years ago, the above article was published calculating the relevant speeds for an armpit offside by Raheem Sterling. What’s important to note is that the difference between the Sterling offside and the hypothetical one between Davies and Traore. Sterling is a quick player, but the margin of error was only calculated at 13cm (assuming defenders were not moving), whereas the error for Davies and Traore was just over 40cm.

 

The reason is due to the relative speeds of the attacker and the second-last defender. For example, if an attacker is running towards goal at 25 km/h and the defender is tracking back, also towards the goal, at a speed of 15 km/h, then the margin of error would be calculated on a speed of 10 km/h. Meaning that the attacker is moving 2.78 m/s quicker than the defender which equates to 5.56cm per frame. Thus, the attacker could appear 5.56cm offside but actually be level, i.e., onside. In the hypothetical scenario, Traore’s relative speed to Davies was 72.76 km/h (36.51 + 36.25). Now, it is extremely unlikely to get the two fastest players both running at their top speed in opposite directions appearing to be in line with each other at the same time a teammate plays a through ball as well as the passer first making contact a millisecond after Frame A. (To note, this season, Haaland has been clocked at 36.04km/h and Davies at 35.95km/h, thus the error is even bigger than one calculated above.)

 

So, what’s the solution?

As already mentioned, FIFA are looking at introducing a new 10cm leeway/tolerance for offsides from next season. The purpose of this leeway is to eradicate marginal calls, in particular the armpit offsides. Despite the IFAB and FIFA stating that the virtual offside lines are accurately drawn, it is a fact that they are not due to movement of the ball and player(s) during each frame. Notwithstanding the ruling bodies defensive reaction to criticism, the introduction of a 10cm tolerance next season will mean that the system is, in fact, factoring in VAR’s margin of error – though not admitting to this. Interestingly, where has this seemingly arbitrary number of 10 been drawn from? Has it been calculated? Or have the lawmakers fallen foul of round number bias? (Humans are just more comfortable with numbers ending in zero.)

 

Ideally, the margin of error would be calculated according to the attacker’s speed relative to the second-last defender. Thus, the ‘tolerance’ would vary as the margin of error varies. However, until this is incorporated in the new semi-automatic, real-time offside system that is currently being trialled, adding another calculation to the current manual process of selecting points on players would likely further interrupt the flow of the game. To point out, the Dutch Eredivisie ignored FIFA’s orders of zero tolerance this season and brought in a 10cm ‘linesman’s call’.

 

Before the implementation of the new real-time offside system, what should the new tolerance be? Should it be 10cm? Earlier on in this article, it stated that when the upper arm is extended horizontally, it would be about 10cm (rough calculation). But, is this 10cm tolerance a good substitute for the margin of error? To calculate a one-size-fits-all approach, FIFA will need to find the average speed of an attacker relative to the defender in offside decisions. This average will be found either reviewing close offside decisions or all close calls, whether onside or not. Once methodology is decided, then enough data must be collected – perhaps for a number of seasons. When this average speed is calculated and converted to cm per frame, it then needs to be halved. This is because, on average, the first point of contact will be halfway between Frame A and Frame B.

Working backwards, a player moving, on average, 10cm per frame relative to the defender, equates to the attacker’s relative speed at 36 km/h. This figure seems a little higher than I would expect, but having not done the research/data collection, I simply do not know. There is also the factor of the kicking foot and ball speed at ‘first contact’. Finally, an interesting idea, which is worth mentioning comes from Martin Smith who assigns probability thresholds for VAR decisions. Despite maths inevitably being involved in the calculation and needing to be communicated to the fans, but, perhaps not whilst watching a match!

 

In sum, it is clear that the virtual offside lines are not drawn with 100% accuracy due to players and the ball moving between the 50 frames of video per second. As a reaction to the armpit offsides, FIFA’s proposed 10cm tolerance does appear to remove this, though, in fact, it is also factoring in the margin of error in the system. Two things must be pointed out here. First, just by factoring in a margin of error does not mean perfect decisions will now be made by VAR. All that it does is, on average, not rule an attacker offside unless certain. If the first point of contact was in fact nearer the previous frame than the next, i.e., the light blue, red, green and orange dots in the above illustration, then the attacker will have still been offside, though marginally. So, until the first point of contact is measured 100% accurately, VAR cannot be sure. Thus, a 10cm tolerance will give attackers a marginal benefit of doubt.

Second, until the margins of error are adjusted for each scenario, a 10cm tolerance equates to a relative speed of the attacker of 36 km/h. Meaning that, if the attacker’s relative speed is less than 36 km/h, then more tolerance is built in, whereas if the attacker’s relative speed is more than 36 km/h, then less tolerance is built into the VAR decision. Furthermore, most offside decisions appear to occur when the players are not moving very much at all (see above) and therefore if the tolerance was adjusted for each incident, then armpit offsides would still occur. Thus, it would be recommended to have a minimum tolerance of 10cm, which then increases if an attacker’s relative speed is greater than 36 km/h.

 

 (b) Losing Context

 

Football is a contact sport. Just because there is contact between two players, does not necessarily mean a foul / penalty is automatic. Having said that, there are times, absolutely, when the slightest bit of contact results in a foul. Whilst acknowledging that all incidences are slightly different, the effect on the match official watching replays of the incident must be acknowledged.

 

Currently, replays from VAR present different angles as well as different speeds of the incident to the match official should they review the incident themselves. Now, let’s say that VAR has all the relevant data available, how does the controller decide what to select, and more importantly, what not to select? There seems to be no consistency in TV replays or any transparency whatsoever, one is drawn to assume that the choice is driven by VAR.

 

Three issues arise here. First, the context of the incident can be lost. Second, VAR may wish to push a selected view to the match official on the pitch by repeatedly showing/favouring a particular angle. Third, VAR may unintentionally influence the referee by the selection of content, angles and speed of replays chosen.

 

To date, several studies have investigated the effect of slow-motion replays on human judgement. In 2016, a study showed participants (n = 1,610) real surveillance footage from a murder or broadcast replays of violent contact in professional football. It reported that the act of viewing an action in slow motion can lead the observer to perceive an action as intentional whereas the same view in live action is judged unintentional. Intentionality bias occurs, in part, because slow motion video introduces a new consideration whereby the observed player is perceived to have more time to act, whereas there is no change to the elapsed time.

 

A study in 2018 tested 80 elite English professional football officials. The review produced more severe outcomes in slow motion compared to real time (e.g. red card with a yellow card reference decision). More recently, in 2020, using the same 80 elite officials, a further study claimed its findings cast doubt on the validity of the slow-motion intentionality bias concept. A note of caution is due here since the results did show an effect of playback speed on decision making, just not a consistent bias.

 

What all the studies agree upon is the need for future research on the extent to which other potentially modulating variables affect human judgement. Variables include the number, the order, the duration and the viewing angle of replays on the assessment of foul-play incidents. Notwithstanding sparse research on this issue, previous research suggests that allowing officials to view both real-time and slow-motion replays mitigates slow motion bias but does not eliminate it. Conversely, the 2020 study mentioned above found that a slow-motion replay shown before the real-time replay, and vice versa, did not have an impact.

 

So, what’s the solution?

Storyboard replays. Having VAR produce consistent replays to referees. It’s the job of the video assistant referee to populate the story board so if the match official reviews it themselves, they can.

The above illustration is simply to point out that a referee’s decision is affected by what replays they are shown by VAR. In the example above, Storyboard 1 only shows slow-motion replays that are repeated with consecutive freeze frames in between, thus showing a shorter period of on-field action, thus removing context. Storyboard 2 shows a mix of real-time and slow-motion replays with real-time shown first and repeated twice overall. In short, the storyboards have a different number of replays, order and lengths of footage. As research has already shown, if referees are given two different versions of the same event, they end up making different decisions.

 

Therefore, there should be a consistent methodology to which VAR produces the replays shown to the referee. This sequence can be agreed / voted on. Or even better, empirical researched as well as trialled before implementation. These storyboards must be consistently presented (i.e., the same number of pages). Now, acknowledging that nearly all incidents are different, and some angles and/or speeds are more informative than others, it should be left to the referee to determine what they need to see repeated replays of. Referees should have a remote control (or touch screen controls) to allow them the ability to skip, watch again certain replays whilst having to see the incident in real-time at least once. This could well add time to the final decision; however, it is giving power to the referee. Conversely, it won’t necessarily add time as a referee may be fairly certain in their decision and only need to see a particular replay again, though must be conclude watching a real-time replay.

 

Admittedly, it is not as simple in reality as all scenarios are different and some angles more beneficial to the referee than others. However, the point is threefold: first, removes subjectivity away from VAR controllers; second, provides a full replay of the incident, reminding the referee of the context; and third, gives ownership to the referee to choose which parts they would like to see again.

 

In sum, research has shown when watching slow-motion replays, humans and referees judge the offender more harshly due to a perception of more intent. Therefore, further research must be investigated on other potentially moderating factors to find the relative impact and the possible trade-off. The storyboard will provide consistency and hopefully remove unintentional and intentional biases.

 

 

(c) Subjectivity Still Present

 

It is not only the VAR replays that subjectivity remains. The virtual offside lines are drawn by computer software (developed by humans), whereas the nearest points of the attacker and defender are drawn/selected by VAR. Whilst acknowledging the difficultly in this task, i.e., where does a player’s upper arm end, it must be made clear this is a subjective decision.

 

In VAR replays depicting the virtual offside lines, you will have seen countless incidents of the attacker and the defender’s lines being in close proximity, almost touching. More worryingly, how many times have VAR replays shown these lines to be overlapping? Not once I bet. But, how can this be? Have all the offside decisions in the last few seasons, since VAR, not involved both players actually being level, or even more surprisingly, not within about 5cm or so? This sits extremely uncomfortable with many fans.

If you take the middle of each of the virtual offside lines shown and measure the distance between them when projected onto the pitch, a ‘close’ offside decision appears to be in fact offside or onside by at least 10cm or so. In the above example, the 3D virtual lines are also shown. However, it appears that the actual position selected on the player feeds down into the middle of the line, once again making an offside marginal decision, appearing not so. The conclusion to be made is that the virtual offside lines are increased from 1-pixel width from the centre and not to one side or the other.

 

So, what’s the solution?

Last season, the UEFA president said new thicker lines would be introduced. In an interview with Sky Sports News, the president said, “So, thicker lines are essential because the line is drawn subjectively. So, it’s not exact and if one centimetre… you ruin the season of a club with wrong decision.” Admittedly, I have not seen the majority of virtual lines drawn, what I have still failed to see in the current 2020/21 season, are overlapping lines, resulting in the attacker being judged to be onside.

 

In sum, the virtual offside lines are subjectively drawn which has been admitted by the UEFA’s president. This subjectivity needs to be removed and factored into making decision. Again, whilst technology does not allow for constant, real-time lines for the attacking and defending team, the lines will still need to be drawn subjectively. As previously mentioned, the 10cm leeway (i.e., drawing thicker lines), will account for most of this.

 

 

This section has explored how VAR has exposed technology. It has done this in three ways. First, it highlights that technology is not perfect – especially new systems. Second, research has indicated that slow-motion replays make humans / referees believe there to be more intent due to more time perceived to be available to the offender. A lot of research is needed, and VAR needs to provide consistent storyboards for referees to control. Lastly, VAR only assists humans. Humans still have to control it and how they control it leads to subjectivity. The previous suggestion of storyboards will help remove some of this subjectivity, whether intentional or not, as well as thicker virtual offside lines, thus allowing for a 10cm leeway proposed for next season.

 

3. Exposing Referees

 

(a) Harder Job?

 

A few seasons ago, according to the PGMO (Professional Game Match Officials), Premier League referees make, on average, 245 decisions per match. This equates to one decision every 22 seconds. Sixty (24.5%) of these decisions are technical, such as corners, throw-ins and goal kicks, leaving 185 (75.5%) decisions to judge physical conduct or disciplinary actions. Of those 185, 28 (15.1%) are visible decision such as fouls and restarts, and 157 (84.9%) are non-visible where play continues. Over the last few seasons, there has been an increase of around three per cent on the number of decisions referees have to make.

 

Diving. Players do it. And players are told to do it. Manchester United striker Marcus Rashford has previously said that his former boss Jose Mourinho told him, ‘if you are not savvy about the way you do it, then you are not going to get given it’. A ‘dive’ is when a player seeks to gain unfair advantage by going to ground and giving the impression that a foul has been committed.

 

In today’s game it is often, though not always, accompanied by the player writhing in agony and clutching part of their body. It is a deceitful act to gain advantage and/or see an opposing player booked or sent off and has long been one of the most controversial elements of football ‘professionalism’ and a regular talking point post-match. Decisions taken by referees in such circumstances are not easy, especially when inside the penalty area. The significance of a penalty in the outcome of a football match cannot be overlooked. On average ~ 2.7 goals are scored per match in the top 4 leagues in Europe, therefore, when a penalty (0.76xG) is given, on average, it contributes to ~ 28% of goals scored in that match.

Unfortunately, in the modern game, it appears that increasingly players are going to ground too easily in or around the edge of the box. An often-cited reason for such play is to highlight that there has been contact which may have gone unnoticed. Again, just because there is contact does not mean it’s a foul. Nevertheless, how many penalties have you seen given when a player is fouled but does not go to ground? There is a general consensus in football in that ‘you won’t get a freekick unless you go down’.

 

Over the years, players have mastered the dark art of diving by performing the perfect combination of theatrics. Two techniques all too familiar to the seasoned fan are the archer’s bow and contact consistency. The former comprises of a lifted head, arched back, spreading of arms and heels flicked back. The later technique is when a player is seen holding / nursing a body part other than where the impact occurred.

 

Recently, in the first leg of the Champions League quarter-final tie, Manchester City player Rodri successfully conned the referee by holding his face when there was actually no contact from the opposing player anyway near his face. Fortunately, VAR did its job and showed the referee that he had made a clear and obvious error. However, no action whatsoever was taken against Rodri for cheating! Rules state that deceitful play through the feigning of injury or simulating a foul should be sanctioned as unsporting behaviour and punished by a yellow card. This is what infuriates fans, where a player who has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt to have cheated yet receives no punishment whatsoever when no interpretation of the law is needed. It is noted that VAR is not used for bookings, but as a result of seeing the replay, the referee should have booked Rodri too.

Focusing solely on referees, on the one hand, with the game (players) moving faster, more decisions required per match, and more and more attempts to deceive a referee, it appears that a referee’s job is getting harder. However, on the other hand, referees are fitter, helping them get into an advantageous position to judge an incident. Also, with the introduction of VAR it has enabled a referee to review incidents at different speeds and/or angles to help them determine whether a foul has been committed – essentially having another go at a decision/error which is deemed to be clear and obvious.

 

So, what’s the solution?

Referees are not immune to accountability and VAR has certainly brought more accountability to them. Before the introduction of VAR, a referee had a reasonable excuse of not seeing the incident from an appropriate angle, or at a different speed, or sometimes an incident that they may have missed. A referee’s judgement is never going to be correct all of the time and is often open to debate due to interpretation of the laws. Having said that, all clear and obvious errors should be eradicated due to such incidents being reviewed with VAR. So, referees have no screen to hide behind (pun intended). Therefore, referees either need to meet the standard or recruit more referees. Only the strong survive.

 

In order to help referees, VAR should be used for a 5^th reason: to identify cheats. It must be noted that this is closely related to its use of clear and obvious errors anyway, e.g., if a player deceives the referee into believing there was contact for a penalty when there was not contact. If a player is found guilty of cheating, then a sin bin sanction should be applied. In addition, VAR could be used after games to implement retrospective action to players who have tried to deceive the referee through feigning an injury or pretending to have been fouled through simulation. Strick sanctions should apply such as first offence, 1 match ban, second offence 2 match ban etc.

 

Furthermore, players need to be encouraged to stay on their feet and stop going to ground so easily. Referees need to award players free kicks (if an offence has been committed) even if they do not go down – and importantly, there is no advantage. This is a little catch 22, i.e., a player feels they have to go to ground to win a win a freekick. To move away from this is catch 22 scenario, two things need to happen. First, players need to be encouraged to stay on their feet with referees recognising this and awarding fouls (if deserved and no advantage) when players do not go to ground. Second, strong sanctions for players who use simulation.

 

In sum, referees appear to be having an increasingly harder job with more decisions per match needed, more players trying to hoodwink them as well as their judgements coming under more scrutiny, aided by replays. Referees need help in reducing the number of times players try to deceive them by ensuring such acts are punished and punished with stronger sanctions, e.g., sin bin. Players need to be encouraged to stay on their feet with referees rewarding freekicks even when a player is fouled but not gone to ground. Finally, there is no excuse whatsoever for clear and obvious errors to remain in the game since the introduction of VAR. There are now, in theory, multiple referees, with the aid of slow-motion.

 

(b) Who is the referee?

 

How many times have you seen a referee been instructed by VAR to either review a certain incident or show them something they have missed? And how many times do they then change their mind (provided they saw the incident)? Now whilst it’s VAR’s role to alert the referee to any clear and obvious mistakes made, what is happening is that VAR is showing an incident that is not necessarily clear and obvious and the referee then agrees that they made a clear and obvious error. It appears, the referees are too reluctant to say no when shown an incident by VAR. Or alternatively, the referees are making decisions with little confidence in the first instance and thus, easily influenced.

 

Another issue is when VAR advises penalties to be retaken or not. Two reasons for a penalty to be retaken are player encroachment and when the goalkeeper is off the line when the ball is kicked. The laws state that ‘For player encroachment in the box, it is now judged on any part of a player’s body that is on the ground when the kick is taken. Therefore, if any part of the foot is on the penalty area or arc line it is encroachment. The player must still have a material impact on the outcome of the kick.’

Now, in the above example, Marco Verratti of PSG can be seen with his foot clearly inside the penalty area. The penalty from Lionel Messi was saved by the goalkeeper, then rebounded off the bar into the penalty area in which it was headed away from Marco Verratti for a corner. VAR could not have had an easier decision to make. If this was shown to 1 000 different referees (or fans), then 1 000 referees (fans) would have deemed the penalty to be retaken as the rules and evidence clearly state this. The only interpretation needed is to deem the first player to clear the ball away as ‘material impact’. Apparently, Messi’s penalty miss was reviewed by VAR, but yet, VAR still did not advise the referee for it to be retaken. For this to happen in any football match, let alone the Champions League in 2021, is simply unacceptable. It really does raise considerably doubt with VAR making a clear and obvious error itself.

 

So, what’s the solution?

The only decision VAR makes without consulting the referee is whether a penalty is retaken or not due to its absolute objectivity. There is no interpretation needed. Is the goalkeeper touching the line when the ball is struck? Are there any players inside the penalty area when the penalty is taken who have subsequently touched the ball or affected the next phase of play? These decisions are completely objective (apart from the later point ‘affecting’ play).  If VAR finds any of these two, then it must then be reviewed by the referee. To be clear, VAR does not have the final say but must checks all penalties. Then the referee can make the interpretation of ‘material impact’ of a player encroaching.

 

Admittedly, the lawmakers could give examples or write rules which reduce the interpretation. Also, referee’s reasoning appears weak, being heavily influenced on incidents which are not clear and obvious. A way to determine whether referees make strong judgements is to require them to explain their decision (see below).

 

(c) Explain your judgement

 

VAR has given officials more (rich) data, i.e., replays. However, with that, more responsibility, and yes, rightfully, more accountability comes too. Traditionally, when the referee makes a decision, the fans are never informed of the reason(ing) and consequently, always left in the dark. This lack of transparency / communication between referees and the fans has been further exacerbated during the delay while decisions are being reviewed by VAR.

 

This season a referee in the Premier League awarded Bruno Fernandes of Manchester United a penalty for a tackle / pressure from Ezri Konsa of Aston Villa. To be clear, is was not a pen and Fernandes should have been sent off for two bookable offences. Here’s why:

(1) Fernandes stops the ball dead on the edge of the box with Konsa’s foot inches in front of the ball’s expected path. No contact is made between the players. (2) Konsa’s foot in planted on the ground in front of the ball and actually makes contact with it. In the third frame, the ball has moved off the 18-yard line, proving that Konsa’s made contact with the ball. (3) At the point of contact on the pitch, Konsa’s leg has not moved position whereas Fernandes’ foot has travelled about a foot (from top of the ball in frame two). Thus, showing that it was Fernandes being considerably ‘late’ to the point of contact between the two players. (4) The contact itself is done in a dangerous manner, i.e., studs going over the top of the ball and being planted onto another player about 8 inches off the ground. This is worse as the ball was travelling slowly on the ground.

 

Fernandes should have been booked for dangerous play, the only reason it is not red is that they is not a lot of force going through Fernandes’ right boot. To be clear, Konsa doesn’t even need to have touched the ball. He is simply making a block and has not carried his weight through the ball. Fernandes has carried his weight / momentum past and over the ball, in a manner which is dangerous (i.e., going over the ball with studs) and significantly late (i.e., was a foot slower to the scene of the contact).

The second bookable offence was that Fernandes was guilty of contact consistency. He purposefully deceived the referee to give a penalty. Watch the clip yourself here and try to find the contact on the back of Fernandes’ right calf he is clutching whilst streaming. For anyone bemoaning a referee for sending off Fernandes for two bookable offences, is simply happy for the beautiful game to be filled with deceitfulness and no protection for player safety.

 

Commenting on the decision, United legend Peter Schmeichel said on Twitter: “I am sorry, but that was not a penalty. VAR continues to be a joke.” It must be made clear that the joke is the standard of officiating here. Due to VAR not intervening, we will never know if the referee would have changed his mind. Notwithstanding this, with video footage at their disposal, the officials in VAR considered the on-field referee to not have made a clear and obvious mistake. What absolutely infuriates fans it that VAR is supposed to remove clear and obvious errors, yet what has happened in this incident is that football authorities have actually doubled down on these errors. In other words, a clear and obvious error is made by the referee, yet, another clear and obvious error is made by the officials in the VAR room as they have not asked the referee to review it. It really does highlight the incredibly poor judgments being made by officials. They are simply being found out. VAR should be praised for this.

 

So, what’s the solution?

Despite the game’s lawmakers saying they will look into this, it is simply not enough to just acknowledge it. Action must be taken and it’s dead simple: mic’ up the referees, make them explain their judgments. This is nothing new. There have been numerous calls from various key stakeholders in the game to have the referees communicate their reason(s). This has only been exacerbated with decisions involving VAR. To be clear, it could just be VAR decisions that are communicated to begin with. This includes the reasons for why a VAR review has been shown in the first instance. Even before VAR, one of the big criticisms was the complete lack of transparency of official’s decisions. It would be extremely rare for a governing body that controls the football in a country to come out and explain the decision.

 

Having seen other sports successfully implement referees being mic’ed up, it marks the way forward. Referees need to give a simple reason (hell, this could be selected from a simple list). For example, ‘force was not excessive’ ‘player did not have full control’. Just something to indicate what the heck reason the referee used to reach a decision. At least that way, fans are not scratching their head and only guessing why a penalty was or was not given. It would help with consistency too, helping to garner a consistent interpretation of the laws of the game.

 

Another benefit of mic’ing up the referee is that players abusing the referee will be able to be punished. The way in which football players surround, intimidate and verbally (and physically) abuse referees is abhorrent. Football authorities must be held fully responsible for allowing, yes allowing, the abhorrent treatment of referees. It will certainly make players think twice before they verbally abuse the referee. There is great hope that a mic’ed up referee will allow football authorities to clamp down on players abusing them and finally, addressing the issue!

 

In sum, a referee’s judgement must now be shared with fans/players/managers, particularly when VAR is involved. This would also consist of VAR providing a reason for showing the replays to the referee in the first instance and the referee adding a (further) reason for the final decision. It would be a welcome development to see this extended for penalty and red card judgments too. Transparency is absolutely key for the future development of football for two reasons. First, it will engage with fans by informing them why a decision has been made and not left them guessing why. Second, it would help improve the interpretation of the laws of the game, thus providing more consistent decisions.

 

 

This section has explored how VAR has exposed referees. First, a referee’s job has been made harder with the number of decisions increasing, the speed of play and the number of players going to ground trying to ‘buy’ a freekick also increasing. VAR must be used to sanction simulation, i.e., to reduce cheating! Second, VAR must make the referee aware over any doubts to penalties being retaken and not make the final decision itself – something VAR is not supposed to do. Third, VAR has made the demand for referees to communicate their reason even more.

 

4. Flow of the Beautiful Game

 

(a) Review length

 

According to the 2018 IFAB initial 972 competitive game analysis, VAR reviews were not called upon in 69.1% of matches, used on one occasion in 25.4% and two or more in 5.5% of games. Thus, VAR did not feature in the majority of matches and only greater than one occasion in a handful. Anyone who follows football would find this puzzling – a typical example is that any offside decision leading to a goal will be reviewed (as it is a factual decision according to VAR). Also, the new farcical handball rules this season have arguably increased the number of penalties given, thus adding more VAR reviews.

 

Moving on from if and how often VAR is used, how long does it take? The graph below highlights that a typical VAR review takes 35 seconds (~0.6 min) and an On-Field review takes, on average, 69 seconds. Compared to the time lost due to substitutions (2m 57s), corner kicks (3m 57s), goal kicks (5m 46s), throw-ins (7m 2s) and free kicks (8m 51), VAR impact is significantly smaller. The IFAB state that the average time ‘lost’ due to a VAR review, is only 55 seconds (~1%) of playing time.

Whilst acknowledging VAR numbers are probably a little higher in reality, nevertheless, VAR led interruptions to a match appear very small. So, what’s the problem? Well, it is when it is used. As we know, football is invariably a low-scoring game, and whilst hard tackles, fooling opponents with trickery and shots all excite fans, such excitement pales into insignificance when an actual goal is scored. Even if we take the 55 seconds of playing time lost, the issue is that VAR significantly overlaps – interrupts – goal celebrations. It doesn’t matter how quick the VAR review is, asking fans to hold their celebrations or removing their celebration by chalking off a goal after it has been celebrated simply is a real issue. It’s not the same as ripping off a plaster – the length of time is not the issue here, it is when.

 

So, what’s the solution?

A significant contributing factor are offside decisions. As noted earlier, playing advantage is making this issue worse. It was also noted that semi-automatic offsides are currently being trialled. All football authorities need to push hard for this technical advancement, the sooner offside decisions are made instant, this issue it significantly reduced. Furthermore, only allow VAR to intervene on fouls in the build-up play if they are blindingly clear and obvious. If the referee has not called a foul in the build-up and it is not clear and obvious, then leave it: the goal stands.

 

 

b) All offsides are clear and obvious

 

Offsides are judged to be factual decisions. What this means is that any offside call that leads to a goal will be reviewed by VAR even if it is not clear and obvious (most are not). Earlier, this article showed that offsides decided by VAR are not factual due to camera operation being limited to 50 frames per second. Notwithstanding this limitation, again, offsides reviewed by VAR have a significant impact on the flow of the game.

 

So, what’s the solution?

Semi-automatic, or even better, automatic offsides calls are a necessity. The margin of error needs to be factored into the calculation and more importantly, the margin of error for that particular situation, i.e., the relative speed of opposing players, as mentioned earlier.

 

Should semi-automatic or automatic offside calls not be technically doable for another couple of seasons, then a temporary solution is needed now. Possibly just allow assistant referees to make all the offsides calls and additionally allow teams to have one, or two, challenges per match. However, this only works for offsides not given and not the other way around. In other words, if the assistant referee incorrectly gave offside and the referee blew, then play has already been stopped. A possible offset would be to allow them to keep that review. This is not ideal at all, but something needs to change. The current offside fiasco cannot continue.

 

(c) Stadium (and tv) experience

 

Fans, both inside and outside of the stadium, are left in the dark with regard to refereeing decisions. There is so little transparency between the referee and fans. The underlying issue is the absence of information for supporters and viewers whilst decisions are being reviewed by VAR and the basis of the decision when made. An issue the governing bodies have claimed to have looked into – though no action has prevailed.

So, what’s the solution?

Very simple! Referees to explain their decisions when VAR is used. As mentioned in the previous section, a referee can be given a list of simple reasons for a decision, e.g., excessive force, dangerous play etc. There are so many benefits to this. First, fans are informed and not left guessing. Second, with referees making their reasoning known, more consistency in the interpretation of the rules will come. Third, it will highlight any variation in standards by referees. Fourth, lawmakers can finally clean up the game by booking players who verbally abuse our referees. No more failed initiative after failed initiative (e.g., only captains allowed to speak to the referee). It is demonstrably certain that our current lawmakers would not be able to manage a school classroom for more than 10 minutes with empty threats never followed through.

 

How would it all work? Quite simple really, when a VAR review is taking place, the on-field referee has to state why they have made their decision in the first place and VAR has to state why they have intervened. If the on-field referee then decides to change his decision, they must explain why. Football authorities have absolutely no excuse whatsoever not to do this. It also gives them baby steps towards having the whole game mic’ed and not just VAR reviews. Other sports do it successful so why not football? It’s even been trialled. Ex-Australian A-League referee Jarred Gillet had a live microphone for the entirety of his final game before leaving for the English Championship. In terms of viewing, TV broadcasters could have options for the viewers to hear it or not (just subtitles perhaps).

 

This final section has looked at how the flow of the game has been affected with the introduction of VAR. First, it is not the length of VAR reviews that is the issue, but that it significantly coincides with goal celebrations, either removing them or putting doubt on them. Delaying an instant emotional reaction is not an option. Second, all offside decisions are deemed factual and with advantage being promoted, more and more offsides are being reviewed by VAR following a goal being scored. Third, referees and VAR must explain their decisions by being mic’ed up. By simply making officials have a live microphone throughout the match, many other huge benefits would come to fruition such as cleaning up the abuse officials receive as well as aid more consistency interpreting the rules of the game.

 

 

Summary

 

The aim of this article was to highlight the actual problems with VAR, what has caused them, what the IFAB and FIFA are doing about it and solutions/offers to improve VAR. The first section explored how VAR has exposed the rules of football, showing that the IFAB have failed to write clear, non-contradictory rules as well as being reactive instead of proactive. The next section investigated how VAR has exposed technology. It showed that slow-motion replays can affect human judgement as well as demonstrating that the virtual offside lines are not 100% accurate. Next, how VAR has exposed referees was looked at. With more resources at the official’s disposal, greater responsibility and accountability is called for; absolutely – it would be in any other walk of life. The last section looked at how the Flow of the Game was affected. Whilst VAR decision time was small in comparison to the overall length of the game, the issue was when it was implemented.

There are many incremental steps that the IFAB and FIFA are currently taking/trialling to improve VAR. There are two significant ones: 10cm leeway for offside and the semi-automatic offside. Both will significantly help. Albeit a seemingly arbitrary 10cm tolerance for offsides, this will remove the farce of the armpit offsides as well as allowing some tolerance for the margin of error due to frame rate. Many suggestions are put forward in this article such as a variable tolerance level for offsides, greater transparency in the game with referees being mic’ed up, greater research into the interpretation of the laws of the game, storyboards, classification/decision for handball, etc.

Below is the set of scales set out in the introduction to this article with the intention of reducing, not entirely removing the negatives of VAR, but using VAR to improve the game.

The Stat Squabbler says:

 

1. It is not VAR that is a joke, it is the way it is being used. Incidents can be reviewed from many and varied angles and a wrong decision can still be given. Transparency of decision making is key, irrespective of whether you agree with the outcome.
2. Offside is the biggest issue for VAR. The proposed 10cm leeway from next season will remove the armpit offsides as well as accounting for the margin of error in the virtual offside lines. Playing advantage is causing more issues than it solves.
3. Technology currently being trialled such as automated offside calls could have significant impact on the game in terms of flow of game and accuracy of decision.
4. Use more technology: mic up the referees. Engage /communicate with the fans and finally clean up the game by stamping out referee abuse, cheating, etc.

 

Do you agree / disagree with The Stat Squabbler? Comment below.

 

Appendix 1: Number of penalties given since the Premier League began in 1992.