The introduction of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) technology was regarded as the beginning of a new age of fairness in football, eliminating clear errors and preventing injustices, however, since VAR has been widely adopted and went live in the 2018 World Cup it has become a massive source of debate, controversy, and fan discontent in a very short period of time.
The Promise of VAR
Video Assistant Referee (VAR), in its basic level, was supposed to assist on-field referees on four significant match-changing situations: goals, a penalty decision, direct red cards, and cases of mistaken identity. A team of officials review the video footage before recommending that the on-field referee review and/or consider as to whether there has been a “clear and obvious error” or a “serious missed incident”. The idea is to communicate accountability and reconcile historical injustices; remember Diego Maradona’s “Hand of God” goal in 1986 or Frank Lampard’s disallowed goal for England against Germany in the 2010 World Cup. Those are the sequences that triggered the process of developing goal line technology that eventually led to VAR.
The Reality of Controversy
While VAR was initially created for all the right reasons. It has been a source of controversy just as often as it has been a solution. In first 23 rounds of recent Premier League season, the league itself announced there had been 13 mistakes involving VAR. This includes poor interventions and missed interventions. The ambiguity in how VAR fits into human decisions made by the match official (restricting interpretation of handballs, fouls, offsides, etc., to variable and subjective decisions). For example, the interpretation of what is a “clear and obvious error” can differ greatly from one match to another. It often leaving fans, players, and managers confused as to which interpretation of the game stands.
The effect on the game’s flow is a key criticism. The potential for long delays as a result of video referral then breaks up the momentum in the match. It becomes a deterrent to ecstatic responses that may occur spontaneously. The reactions of fans in stadiums can vary greatly. They often wait minutes without knowing what is happening. They are watching a player after making a foul standing still with the rest of the players also standing around looking confused after standing still for a long time, this can demolish a live event.
Fan Frustrations Erupt
Celebration Anxiety: The anxiety of celebrating a goal only to have it disallowed in five minutes due to a marginal offside or handball.
Bad Experience in- Stadium: Fans’ live experience in – stadium is roaring in ambiguity during reviews. Moreover, the fans get slight access to a big screen pre-review and almost no context compared to the viewers at home. They generally see the replay and the best viewing angle.
Perceived inconsistency: Identical events appear to produce varying outcomes often which creates a distrust in the process.
This pain came out explicitly in Norway where fans have organized protests.
The Path Forward
The challenge for football’s authorities is to refine VAR to maximize its benefits while minimizing its drawbacks. Proposed improvements include:
Semi-automated offside technology for faster and more effective decision-making.
Improved fan engagement in the stadium, such as broadcasting the referee’s communication with the VAR team.
Mutualization of protocols, subjectivity and rebuilding trust.
In conclusion, and while VAR fixed some glaring mistakes, the pursuit of perfection came with a cost. Technology has clearly become central, which has meant that the vitality of the beautiful game has diminished and robbed football of its visceral passion. The last hurdle is to balance engagement from technology with the spirit of the game.