By Nick Mabey.
The Video Assistant Referee (VAR from here on) provokes some of the strongest feelings and opinions the average football fan can muster these days, so I thought it time I gave it some prolonged attention here. For those wondering why I’m distracting myself from Saints’ league position at this time, firstly nothing much has changed since my last article, Rock Bottom and secondly it’s quite depressing.
I’ll start with some IT introduced to football that has been accepted pretty much universally – I’m talking about goal line technology. In 2006, the idea emerged to adopt cricket’s ‘Hawkeye’ technology to resolve regular, if infrequent, did it? didn’t it? debates over whether the ball crossed the line. It seems like this remained a theoretical concept until Frank Lampard’s goal in the 2010 World Cup (against Germany of course) was not awarded when the ball had clearly crossed the line by a huge margin, after which the technology was fast-tracked through development and approval. The system was introduced into the Premier League for the 2013/14 season and has not looked back since (I can only remember one controversy when players‘ bodies prevented Sheff Utd getting a goal at Aston Villa during Covid).
Why am I introducing this to a conversation about VAR? Firstly to counter the suggestion that football authorities and fans are somehow luddites, spouting anti-technology guff against VAR. More importantly I believe goal line technology has been accepted as part of the footballing furniture for two reasons that VAR should learn from: (1) It only concerns fact based decision making. Did the ball cross the line or not? It’s not concerned with whether the ball might have crossed the line at some future point if an offence hadn’t been committed – so no opinions, just facts. (2). It happens really quickly. Decisions seem to take between 1 and 2 seconds, so there is no interminable wait while angles are calculated, lines are drawn or 25 separate cameras are checked.
All of which leads me to make my first anti-VAR point. In the stadium the scoring of a goal used to mean a release of unbridled joy involving jumping in contorted ways, hugging strangers and losing various personal items. With VAR the initial rush of adrenaline is soon overtaken by the dread of what might follow depending on the whims of the committee of officials housed at Stockley Park. Football is a low scoring sport (and that’s not just true for Southampton although we currently have the fewest league goals in England) so goal celebration moments are precious and VAR has ruined them. When we got relegated to the Championship it took quite a few games to heal from VAR-induced celebration-dampening (as I like to call it) and revert to a quick glance at the referee and their assistant while bouncing wildly around.
Turning to more rational debated, Southampton’s last two games have featured VAR decisions that have had a major impact on the game. In the interest of fairness, one of these benefited the Saints and one the opposition. I’ll use them to explore the issues with VAR – and for those of you who spot bias in my thinking let me declare straightaway that my conclusions will look that way, but I’d like to think I would make the same points if the two situations were reversed.
Everton at home, it takes us 83 minutes to take the lead and contemplate our first win of the season. At 89 minutes Everton equalise and that familiar sinking feeling – conceding late to drop points – rises quickly and lasts around 30 seconds when it becomes clear VAR are getting involved. How we know this is because the game doesn’t re-start and the referee has one hand to his ear. It’s a sort of code and sure enough a minute later the scoreboard tells us VAR is checking for potential off-side. Hope is raised, but the wait goes on. We know the 2,3,4-minute wait means it’s a close one. Do we dare to dream? After what seems like an eternity and a constant scan for clues our centre half Jan Bednarek punches the air, having presumable heard Stockley Park in the referee’s ear. The goal is chalked off, our fans roar, and we hold on for three valuable points.
The problem here is how long this all took. It turned out to be a relatively clear offside – more foot than toenail – so why the delay? The idea that there is someone measuring angles and drawing lines on a monitor doesn’t do much to enhance credibility or inspire confidence. Apparently a semi-automated (whatever that means) system is on its way that so I guess we should put up with this until technology can speed up the process. In summary I am prepared to accept VAR for offsides providing VAR can make the decision by the time everyone is ready for a restart (about 30-45 seconds). Since the removal of the ‘interfering with play’ clause offside is pretty much fact-based rather than reliant on an opinion. The exception to this is players who obscure the goalkeeper’s view from an offside position but who don’t touch the ball, which might need a bit more thought.
Next up Wolves away, and the home side take an early lead which could easily deflate a Saints team low on confidence. But no, within ten minutes we score a deserved equaliser and all is well in the world…again for about 20 seconds. Several players have gone sprawling in the box in the build-up to the goal, but the referee is excellently positioned and sees nothing to alter his decision that the goal should stand. After another wretched wait, the referee is summoned to a monitor to review his decision. This pantomime is then complete in the most predictable way when he reverses his decision to the joy of the home crowd and the bafflement of everyone else. Later, after much analysis by hundreds of ‘experts’, we can find no one else on the whole planet who share VAR’s opinion. How can it be possible that such a universally agreed decision is regarded as a ‘clear and obvious error’ by a referee in a studio? The only defence I can find reported is that “Wolves have been on the end of some poor VAR decisions in the past eighteen months” as if this somehow makes it alright.
Unsurprisingly, if I had a vote, I would not allow VAR to be involved in any decision reliant on an opinion more than a fact. If this means more scrutiny of the on-field officials, then so be it; twas ever thus. Full stop. Have I made it that clear? If a goal is given, or not, and the referee has seen the action from a good position, then that is the end of the matter.
If I was forced to concede to an exception to this it would be if there was clear evidence that referee may have missed something. In this scenario I would use VAR the way Rugby Union uses the TMO (Television Match Official – it’s even a better name). If you don’t know how this works let me describe using the Wolves example. Saints equalise – any one of the officials has been talking to each other in the build up about a possible foul. One of them – the referee, an assistant or the TMO – says there is something worth viewing. The referee might overrule that immediately saying, “I had a good view I’m happy with the goal”. Or if they think they might have missed something, the referee draws the shape of a TV with their arms. The official with the concern speaks and their words are broadcast. In this case the TMO says “just want you to check whether there was a foul in the build up to the goal”. The referee retains control (this is very important) and asks to see the incident again. Meanwhile the assistants have arrived on the scene to chip in their views. The referee may immediately say “I saw that contact, I’m not seeing enough to change the decision – anyone disagree?”. Or they may review some different angles if they are unsure. The process is transparent to spectators who are watching the same image and hearing this conversation.
The decision may take time – it might sometimes actually be longer – but the important distinctions are (a) the referee in the stadium retains control of the who process and in charge of the decision, (b) the process is completely transparent in real time and (c) the decision to review with the TMO happens before the referee signals a goal – which implies within about 5 seconds of the ball going in the net.
This has turned into an essay. Apologies for that but if you have made it this far thank you for your perseverance and allowing me the catharsis of getting all that out of my system. We March On.
- In Common is not for profit. We rely on donations from readers to keep the site running. Could you help to support us for as little as 25p a week? Please help us to carry on offering independent grass roots media. Visit: https://www.patreon.com/incommonsoton