You’re the ref. You think you see an infringement by the attacking team when a shot on goal is imminent. Do you blow your whistle or wait to see what happens?
Prior to 2018, it wouldn’t have even been a serious question, of course you’d blow. Now though, thanks to VAR, a decision that would previously have been a no-brainer now requires some deliberation.
Goal checks
If you’re right, and there was a foul in the build up, then it wont matter. What if you’re wrong? In a situation like this, you’ve got to weigh up what would be the lesser of two evils. If you let the play go on and it doesn’t result in a goal, it’s not going to be a big deal. If it does result in a goal and replays show that your initial assessment was correct and that there was a foul, then it can always be ruled out later. If, however, from the view/angle you had, you didn’t get a clear enough view of the incident, and it turns out to not have been a foul, then you’ve been spared the inevitable stick you’d have gotten had you blown the whistle.
For if you blow the whistle, and replays show that no foul had been committed, it’s too late. What are they supposed to do? Make everyone stand exactly where they were when you whistled, and put the ball at the aggrieved player’s feet again? Even if you could, the moment has gone and the rhythm of the original play can’t be recreated.
It’s the optimal decision to allow play to go on and, if a goal is scored, let it stand, and then let the good folks in the VAR booth pick the bones out of it. Human nature/common sense/risk assessment/logical thinking – call it what you will, it means that the officials will be biased towards the attacking team.
Because of this, instead of making sure that there’s nothing immediately evident in the replays to suggest that the initial decision was incorrect, the emphasis is on them looking for anything and everything that could cause the goal to be disallowed. Goals are guilty until proven innocent, if you will. The onus is on VAR to look for reasons to rule out the goal rather than their supposed design to just check for any clear and obvious errors.
And that, in a nutshell, is why VAR in association football is such a flawed concept. “Clear and obvious” is a lie. It is when it comes to checking goals, anyway. Only checking for clear and obvious errors only works if the officials make an impartial decision. The decision can’t be impartial though, as explained in the above paragraphs.
The narrative that VAR will only intervene if replays show a clear and obvious error by the officials sounds fine in theory, and this buzz phrase may well have been devised to pacify those raising concerns about it ruining the spontaneity and flow of the game – unfortunately, in practice, those doubters have been proved right.
Put it another way. When they’re taking seven minutes to review the replays, it can’t be clear and obvious. When they’re having to draw imaginary lines on the screen to see if someone’s shoulder or kneecap might have been an inch offside, it isn’t clear and obvious.
Although the system of checking every goal isn’t the only reason VAR has been so infuriating, it’s certainly where it’s made its biggest mark. It used to be that the assistant only raising their flag a few seconds after a player had put the ball in the back of the net and started to celebrate was widely criticised. It was almost considered cruel, allowing players and supporters alike several seconds to think the goal would stand before snatching it away from them and making their celebrations in vain. Now it can be several minutes.
Other imperfections
The decision to overturn the penalty awarded to Everton against Manchester United last season, with the referee only being shown the replays at angles that obscured the view of Ashley Young being fouled, was baffling in the extreme. The only plausible explanation is that the referee declared he’d awarded the penalty for a foul by a particular Manchester United player, and so the people in the VAR booth only focused on the challenge by this player and not the one who’d committed the foul. This would show a distinct lack of common sense or even understanding of the game by these decisions makers, as the fact remained that a foul had been committed and that a penalty was the correct decision.
A more sinister theory is that, for all the big talk by the authorities and big hopes from the supporters when it was introduced that it would ensure no more biased decisions or favouritism towards any team, instead it seems to have given the officials two opportunities to make sure decision go in favour of the more fashionable clubs. While supporters of these clubs may find such a claim outlandish and paranoid, I’d like to see the data on how many VAR decisions have gone for or against the glamour clubs compared with the others.
When VAR was brought in, they said it would make the game fairer. They also said it would put an end to any controversies and doubt.
Ho hum.
Aside from the subjective interpretations and excessive time taken to make these decisions, there’s also the inconsistencies and backward logic of it at times. In this age of obsessing over player fatigue, the constant and long delays while VAR checks are undertaken mean that it’s not uncommon for league games to take 120 minutes in total to complete – this in an age when they’ve scrapped extra time in League Cup matches (and it’s only a matter of time before the do the same in the FA Cup), precisely to avoid the players being out there for those extra 30 minutes.
Other contradictory traits include the fact that VAR will disallow a goal if there has been any kind of infraction during the build up, even if it took place in an earlier phase of play to the goal itself, yet if a team score as a result of a corner or thrown-in that shouldn’t have been awarded to them, VAR doesn’t get involved (ironically, between typing and submitting this article, Crystal Palace’s first goal against Liverpool was from a hotly disputed corner).
The issue of phases of play is another problem – which leads nicely to…
Comparisons with other sport
While they refer to video replays in rugby league and the NFL, the duration of this replay would only be from when the “snap” took place – unless under exceptional circumstances, the ball would only be in play for a few seconds before the try or touchdown. In association football, the ball could be in play, with the attacking team in possession, for several minutes before a goal is scored – as far as I’m aware (and feel free to correct me in the comments if I’m wrong) there are no set rules as to how far VAR is supposed to go back during this build up – presumably it would have to examine everything during those several minutes .
The contrast between association football and the other variations don’t end there. That they use video assistance in other sports is another defence of VAR, but the logistics are so different. Rugby League and the NFL are naturally very stop-start affairs anyway, so waiting a couple more minutes (and it is almost always a maximum of a couple of minutes, usually less) for a video decision isn’t as frustrating. Also, while all scoring plays are reviewed in these sports too, they tend to be looked at by the on-field referee, and, perhaps because of the stop-start nature of these sports, the decision to allow or not allow the try or touchdown is taken far more objectively than in association football (see earlier in this piece!) so in American Football, they genuinely are only looking for anything clear and obvious (“enough evidence to overturn the ruling on the field”), while the referees in rugby league are mic’d up throughout and will explain to the crowd exactly what they are checking, with replays also being shown on the big screens at the game so that the attending supporters can check along with the official, making it a far more transparent and even interactive experience. While any infraction in the build-up would see possession turned over in rugby league, American Football would, with a couple of exceptions, see the attacking team still keep possession and just be penalised by having to go back a few yards, so the attacking drive is still alive and so there’s not the same finality that there is when a goal is ruled out in association football.
Lastly, the other brands of football are far more high scoring affairs – and I don’t just mean because of the points awarded, there are far more tries and touchdowns scored per game in these sports than there are goals in football. Unless it’s a decisive scoring play in the last few seconds of the game, tries and touchdowns, while celebrated, aren’t greeted with the same jubilation as a goal in soccer.
Perhaps it would be better to compare how video technology is used in basketball and ice hockey, both much more fluent and spontaneous sports and more comparable to association football in that respect.
However, like the other two sports mentioned, they are again much more high scoring than football – perhaps because of this, the video assistance is used more sparingly. My (admittedly limited) research has revealed that, in ice hockey, not all scoring plays are reviewed, the video official only intervening to check specific infractions, while in basketball, only those deemed to be critical moments are checked, in addition to each side being allowed one “coach’s challenge” per game, in which they can request the video ref become involved. The coach’s challenge is also utilised in the NFL.
What can we do?
Recently, after (what would have been) Fulham’s opening goal against Chelsea was controversially ruled out, one of the many comments I observed on a fans forum suggested that Fulham’s players should have staged a walk-off. While extreme, one could understand their frustration and it would be one way to make a stand, however, where would you draw the line? How controversial, or unfair, would a decision be perceived to be to cause this in future – it’s down to interpretation.
One option for the players is to hold off on celebrating goals until they know they’ve been checked and definitely count. Fans could do likewise. In fact, given that players have usually dispersed and are back in position ready for the restart, there wouldn’t be much celebration at all. If fans also held their cheers until this point, well, it wouldn’t be much of a spectacle for the TV companies, and may impact adversely on global TV audiences and subsequent revenues. Asking players and fans to stifle their celebrations, though, is asking them to go against their instincts, and effectively spoil their own fun and their own passion and the whole reason they are involved, as player or spectator, in the sport.
The only other alternative for fans is to vote with their feet. Or their TV remotes. Such a gesture, however, may only have a minimal impact if only done by us “legacy fans”, with the rest of the global TV audience still tuning in and “fans of the future” queuing up to replace us in sold out stadiums.
Sadly the solution probably has to lie in the authorities making VAR better. All fans and players can do in the meantime is adjust their mindset and acknowledge that when a goal is scored now, it is only provisionally allowed. That may, in time, automatically bring the reaction suggested above, rather than forcibly suppressing their celebrations.
What can they do?
Taking the example from the other fast-paced sports, could VAR be used more sparingly and only check on certain aspects of play? Problem is, it would be difficult to decide on what would constitute a specific infraction or a critical moment, as it would be so subjective. Surely, though, limiting the scope of the replays/checks to, say, the moment the scoring player receives the ball, and just checking for handball or a clear offside, and the only other involvement being checking for potential incidents of dangerous play only – that would be more reasonable than the set-up we have now.
Alternatively, they could bring in a coach’s challenge (that’d they’d no doubt re-name as something much less catchy, like a “manager’s appeal” or something), in which goals will only be looked at if the opposing manager contests them, on the condition that if the goal is “upheld”, the manager wont be able to make any further challenges during the game – this way, only goals in which the defending team genuinely feel they were aggrieved or infringed upon would be checked.
The same could apply for issues during open play, again with the condition that if their appeal was rejected, they couldn’t make any more, ensuring that managers and teams would only challenge decisions if they were convinced they had a strong case, and not appeal everything out of opportunism or to cynically disrupt their opponent’s momentum if they were having the better of the game and/or building up a head of steam.
While even limited coaches challenges would still cause stoppages, surely this would be preferable to the endless interruptions to each game caused by constant VAR checks.
I seem to remember, many years ago, the concept of a challenge flag being suggested by a caller on the 606 phone-in, only to be quite dismissively laughed at by Robbie Savage, more for the idea of a manager in association football throwing a flag on the pitch than for the concept of the challenge itself. The caller seemed to already have the foresight to know that having a video review of every goal and every potential penalty appeal or flashpoint would be disastrous for the sport as a spectacle, and so it’s proving.
To return to the scenario at the beginning of this piece, the concept of the officials throwing flags (in addition to the coaches) might not be a bad idea either – something whereby the referee can make an impartial decision without stopping the game, rather than having to whistle, which would stop play. In addition to seeing if said play would lead to a goal, and means the VAR check really would only be for anything “clear and obvious”, a third plus point would be that, if, like in the NFL, these decisions can be accepted or declined depending on the outcome, it means that for the decision to “play advantage”, the onus is now on the aggrieved team rather than at the referee’s discretion. This might in the long run further help with the fluency of the game. This does raise more questions too though, like what if the flag gets in the way of the ball? (assuming that is used, and not some other sort of signal), or, ironically a similar problem to the VAR process now, what happens if the ball stays in play for several minutes after this? OK, so I’m aware this idea has plenty of flaws, but so has the current VAR set-up. I’m just offering up suggestions here.
Whatever happens, I believe most supporters would be in agreement that the VAR process needs speeding up.
The idea of goal-line technology took long enough but was so simple to implement, and has made such a positive change without disrupting anything about the game we love.
Similarly, the AI assisted semi-automated offsides during the 2024 European Championships were quickly and efficiently settled – for some reason that still hasn’t reached the Premier League.
If this could be fixed, and if all other VAR issues could be settled as quickly, then it would make the game a fairer and more positive experience for all.