VAR ultimately set up to fail

VAR (Video Assistant Referee) has got a lot of flack since it was introduced to top level football in 2018. It was brought in to help officials with decisions such as offsides, red cards etc. and seen as a much needed addition in line with other sports such as Rugby and Tennis, to name but two. Frankly, every top level sport had some form of video technology to help referees and linesmen.

Since it came in a little over 5 years ago there has been many high profile ‘VAR’ decisions which have angered fans, players and particularly managers. Most notably (because its the most recent) can be seen in the Newcastle and Arsenal match at the weekend, where VAR deliberated for roughly 4 minutes before awarding a Anthony Gordon strike which gave Newcastle a 1-0 win. Arsenal manger Mikel Arteta branded the decision a ‘disgrace’.

This isn’t just an isolated incident, it feels like every week we are watching managers rant about VAR or a decision or even thinking to ourselves that the officials got that wrong. But is it really an issue with VAR, or is it an issue with the rules of the game?

The Newcastle goal that Arteta felt so strongly about is a prime example. There was potentially 3 issues with the goal itself, starting with if the ball out of play. This seems pretty clear cut, and it should be, it either is in or its out, but no angle said conclusively whether it was one or the other. Second was whether Gordon was offside or not, which again is impossible to tell from the camera angles as the ball is shielded (to all cameras) before it gets to Gordon. Finally, and possibly most interestingly, was Joelintons ‘push’ on Gabriel. Former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher summed it up in a nutshell when discussing the matter:

The key word here is the word ‘subjective’. Firstly, something like the rules of a game should not be subjective, but it has always been the case with football, and it is just being highlighted more with VAR. If something is subjective and we cannot say for definite whether it was a foul or not a week on, how can we expect VAR to help in making a decision?

In tennis for example, hawk-eye works so well because it is not a subjective decision for the umpire, it will show if the ball is in or out, its black or white. The TMO in Rugby isn’t as clear cut as hawk-eye, but it does seem to be more successful than VAR. Is this because the referee and TMO talk to each other and communicate from the get go? We have seen it recently with Rugby and tackles to the head, its a red card, no ifs or buts about it. With VAR its as if the men in charge that day may have a different view than someone the following week.

Fundamentally, the issue lies with the interpretation of the rules of the game rather than ‘VAR’ ruining football. If a decision on the field is subjective, it does not matter what technology or advancements are in play, there will always and remain to be frustration and anger at calls because there is no definite answer.

Basketball is an example of a sport where the rules are a lot more defined, although its deemed a ‘non-contact sport’. Football is a contact sport and collisions, tackles and other aspects will always be in play, but until we can clearly say that a hand on the back is a free, contact with the foot is a foul regardless of force or studs showing and connecting with a player is a red regardless of intent, VAR will be set up to fail and opinions on decisions will differ from person to person.