VAR Revisited: Judgement Day Approaches

Thursday will play host of the 21st edition of the FIFA World Cup in Russia, but also the first to use VAR (Video Assistant Referee) technology. After a rough ride since its inception, FIFA’s sometimes blind ambition to pioneer this approach has led to numerous instances of error, confusion and delay that has widely split the footballing fraternity of how best to move forward. A year on from my initial questioning of this approach, I suggest that the early teething pains being felt are more likely to be long term symptoms of a technology that doesn’t quite fit the sport.

From the outset I’ve long been a critic of using video technology in football. Proposing that a categorical decision can be made on matters of opinion has always struck me as merely adding another layer of contention to an already heated arena. The subsequent delay and confusion would also in my opinion damage the essence of why football is so loved.

Off the back of a mixed pilot at the latter end of the 2016/17 Australian A-League season, I detailed a number of failings, highlighting further concerns that needed to be ironed out in the subsequent year ahead of the World Cup. The last 12 months however have done little to suggest this has been achieved.

The decisions up for consideration remain the same; 1) circumstances surrounding goals being scored, 2) penalty decisions, 3) red card incidents and 4) mistaken identity. While the initial pilots experienced quite significant failings in Australia and at the Club World Cup, the full season rollouts were introduced as agreed, in the German Bundesliga, Italian Serie A, Portuguese Primeira Liga, sporadic English FA Cup ties and a full season with the A-League, alongside the FIFA competitions; Confederations Cup, U20 World Cup, Club World Cup and sporadic international friendlies. The testing ground was now vast, but with it came the inevitable hand-in-hand controversies.

The three areas of concern raised last year were the wide interpretation of the rules, the time delay in making the decisions and the behaviour on the pitch, which all had a significant part to play over the last 12 months. However, an additional concern can now be added to the list of snags; that being technological malfunction.

Interpretation

One of football’s enduring qualities has always been its freedom. There’s no steadfast way of playing the game and with it means there’s few laws that can be considered as categorical. While Goal Line Technology (GLT) has developed quickly into being a mainstay of modern football, VAR was always fighting an uphill battle as it considered multiple shades of grey over the unquestionable decision of whether a ball had crossed the goal line or not. 

Last summer’s Confederations Cup, the official warm up for this year’s World Cup had a number of interpretation issues that caused upheaval. Chile were denied a VAR review upon a clear enough looking penalty decision against Portugal in the semi-finals, while they conversely were the beneficiaries in the final when Gonzalo Jara was spared a red card upon an on pitch review for an equally clear elbow on Germany’s Timo Werner. 

Later that year, at December’s Club World Cup, Real Madrid who were affected by the VAR at the previous edition in 2016 were under scrutiny once again. On two occasions during their semi-final with Al-Jazira VAR stirred up confusion; first a goal for Casemiro was ruled out, overturned, then ruled out once more due to an open for interpretation offside decision against Karim Benzema which questioned whether he was interfering with play or not. 

Secondly, Al-Jazira had a goal ruled out for offside, when Mbark Boussoufa was judged to be offside (after a significant delay), again a call that caused debate. After the match Real coach Zinedine Zidane and player Luke Modric spoke of their frustrations of the system, citing their confusion and the scope for interpretation as the technology’s limiting factors.

The issues that VAR highlights tend to become more defined when a supporter’s team is affected, highlighted perfectly by the England national team over the last 12 months. Firstly, Raphael Varane was sent off for France against England in Paris last summer for a soft but likely last man foul on Dele Alli, widely praised in the country as a clear example as to why video technology was first introduced.

Fast forward nine months and the shoe was on the other foot, as England conceded a soft penalty to Italy after VAR intervention. Both decisions were very similar; clumsy but contestable. Predictably however there was outcry on this occasion; as former national team striker Gary Linekar put it England had a “clear and obvious victory taken away” from them. He, like many pundits that night pointed to the rules that state an overturned decision needs to be “clear and obvious”, while in the same year the same group of observers didn’t bat an eye lid at the red card awarded to Varane.

Time Delay 

There have been countless cases where VAR has worked perfectly, either as a sanity check to ensure the referee has made the correct call first time around or to pick up something that was initially missed. However, in plenty of cases this process has been lengthy and often misleading for fans in the ground and broadcasters/viewers around the globe watching on TV.

The most famous example occurred in Germany in April, when a relegation “six pointer” between Mainz and Freiberg descended into farce, as players were brought back out of their half time break to conduct a penalty for an incident that happened a good five minutes ago in the first half. Alongside the impeding logistics of recalling players out of the tunnel (some of whom didn’t even reappear for the penalty to be taken), fans who had made their way downstairs in the ground and TV broadcasts on ad breaks would have critically missed a key part of the action.

Concerning in-play decisions, some calls are also demonstrably time consuming to resolve. Central Coast Mariners midfielder Wout Brama’s eventual red card in the A-League took a whole two minutes, from initial yellow to its eventual upgrading. A short period of time on paper, but as can be attested on video footage a lengthy period that raised tensions on the home bench, particularly with coach Paul Okon.

Behaviour on the pitch

FIFA have taken preemptive action on the behaviour of players calling for a VAR check, insisting any call for such would be punishable by a yellow card. Given the lack of success FIFA and national leagues have had in clamping down on dissent towards referees from all quarters, it’s debatable this extra legislation will have any effect, but at the very least FIFA are accepting changes in behaviour have occurred since VAR’s implementation.

Players and coaches objection to initial decisions and the follow up reversions will be pointed to as passion, part and parcel of the game, but the question clearly is to why bother in introducing a system that exacerbates the debate rather than resolves it? The long term future will pile more pressure on the referees instead of the technology being there to support them, leading to occasions where referees are clearly changing the way they officiate.

In Australia, it has been regularly debated whether officials are often overlooking decisions, as they’ll be picked up by VAR anyway, to ensure a chance isn’t lost in real time play. The opposite happened in last summer’s U20 World Cup final between England and Venezuela. Venezuelan forward Adalberto Penaranda went down in the box under the challenge of Kyle Walker-Peters, which was quickly blown up by the referee as being a penalty.

Upon immediate questioning the referee rushed the decision up to the VAR box, seemingly suggesting, “I couldn’t be sure, but it’s getting checked over,” bringing the updated VAR processes into doubt, as referees are negating their initial job of making the decision on the pitch as they see it.

While the decision was agreed upon, or at least not seen as a “clear and obvious” mistake by the referee, even though from a personal standpoint there looked to be minimal to no contact, the resulting penalty was missed by Venezuela, muting any hard feelings from the England bench. A bullet dodged for the referee and FIFA, but questioning should be directed on the consistency in the use of the technology between individual referees. 

Technology Malfunction 

One aspect I hadn’t considered this time last year, was that the technology wasn’t fit for purpose in the required moment. The comical graphics used by the VAR team behind the FA Cup tie between Huddersfield Town and Manchester United went viral, as Juan Mata was called offside for United, justified by an uneven yellow line across the field. Hawk-Eye, the operators behind the technology put it down to a glitch in the system.

This year’s A-League Grand Final went one step further and saw its VAR system switch off for two minutes. While this could’ve happened another time to little effect, the period in question saw Melbourne Victory score the only goal of the game, despite the television audience being fully aware that James Donachie was offside in the build-up. The outcry was tremendous, but crucially for FIFA isolated in a low key league outside of Europe, but a comparison to a winning goal in the World Cup final would be disastrous. Despite a lengthy explanation citing a technical failure, the FFA have agreed to use VAR in next season’s A-League campaign.

Ironically after the affair, there were calls for the VAR referee in question to be banned from ever taking up the role again, irrespective of his lack of technological expertise. This surely culminates the VAR’s ludicrous moral 360, from introducing technology to take the pressure off referees, we are now calling into question the careers of those using it.

Quite possibly the most bizarre example however, came in Portugal, when a clear offside goal scored by Aves v Boavista in the Portuguese Primeira Liga was missed by the VAR cameras as a supporter’s flag was flown in the way of its sight. Clearly the most surreal incident in VAR’s short history, it’d likely raise a few smirks even from the Boavista fans, if we weren’t used to so many damning clangers in the past.

Throughout all this, FIFA carries on regardless to push their opinion that VAR has been of benefit to those who have introduced it into their competitions. An IFAB report from January suggested decision making has improved, from 93 to 98.9% success rate, yet still the biggest players in club football continue to be unimpressed.

In February, UEFA confirmed that they weren’t going to use VAR in their upcoming Champions League campaign, while the English Premier League followed suit in April stating; “The decision came after comprehensive discussions regarding the progress made in VAR trials in English football and key learnings from the many competitions elsewhere using it.”

It’s probably a wise decision for both organisations to take, given they haven’t yet experienced the crisis moments that FIFA had, back in 2010, where a few clear decisions were missed in South Africa’s staging of the World Cup. But even for those who were initial pushers of VAR, regular use has seen their opinion change.

As we edge towards the biggest football competition in the last four years, the previews have quite sensibly been looking at the players and teams that will hopefully make the headlines come the World Cup final. While I may speak as an unwavering sceptic of VAR, I can’t foresee a scenario where at least one team won’t be negatively impacted by the use of the system however. While question marks and technical bugs continue to hover over it, VAR will always be lurking ready to tarnish the greatest show on earth.

VAR: The case against video assistance in football

The future seems inevitable; video technology is set to play an integral part in football for years to come. FIFA have announced the roll-out of their Virtual Assistant Referee (VAR) system at next year's World Cup in Russia, off the back of a trial run at this summer’s Confederations Cup. The testing process has been going on behind the scenes for some time now, but over the last 6 months it’s fully taken flight. A version of which had been trialed at December’s Club World Cup, alongside one off friendly internationals, before Australia became the first “beneficiaries” of the new technology for the latter part of their domestic league program.

With a number of leagues queuing up for the privilege, the German Bundesliga, Saudi Pro League and Major League Soccer will all adopt the system later this year, the feeling is broadly positive for the technology, coming off the back of the highly successful Goal Line Technology (GLT) brought in across many leagues and tournaments, including the English Premier League, 2014’s World Cup and this year’s UEFA Champions League final.

The VAR system clearly differs however from GLT, as it involves less defined decisions, made by a human watching a screen, rather than a black or white decision determining whether a ball has crossed the line or not. The VAR system, which has gone through many trials with different implementations has been trimmed down to exclusively assess the following criteria; 1. Goals, 2. Penalty decisions, 3. Red card incidents & 4. Mistaken identity..

Each criteria (less so to a degree on the final point) has an element of opinion based to it, demonstrated in almost every decision its deployed, which has left me hesitant to view this system as the right direction for football. To my surprise I’m significantly in the minority, with a huge clamour from clubs, referees, pundits and fans for an extra pair of eyes when it comes to match defining decisions. In the short time I’ve experienced the technology through observing it at the Club World Cup and in the latter stages of the A-League, I’ve remained unconvinced that clarity can be provided on a regular basis and in some cases it can make tensions worse, with four shortcomings coming to mind when looking to implement this method going forward.

Interpretation

The area which I believe is the strongest case against VAR technology is that decisions at the end of the day are based on opinions. Even the most obvious calls are still opinions, even if they are roundly agreed with. In the initial stages of planning behind the VAR, examples of clear offsides, atrocious dives and obvious handballs will have been pointed to as the very examples why the VAR system needs to be introduced, effectively to irradiate “the howlers.”

But the VAR calls sadly can't and don’t stop there. Even in it’s infancy, the VAR got embroiled in decisions that even months after the event can be interpreted differently by different viewers. The first call made in a FIFA regulated match, at the Club World Cup between Kashima Antlers and Atletico Nacional brought up plenty of question marks. The call was made that a penalty was to be awarded to the Japanese side, despite strong suggestions that that player involved (Daigo Nishi) was offside and possibly inflicted a foul on his marker in the lead up the incident. 

Opinions were split, some pointed to a poorly implemented offside rule, as the referee interpreted that the offending player wasn’t active. Some pointed to the initial infringement that should’ve resulted in a free kick the other way (something not under the VAR remit). While some agreed with the referee, in that it was a penalty to Kashima. All opinions are valid, but the key to the matter is that the VAR’s debut decision wasn’t nearly as clear cut as FIFA would’ve hoped for.

The latest scenario occurred this last weekend in the A-League Final Series, where Sydney FC took on Perth Glory. Sydney's second goal, scored by Jordy Buijs, was initially ruled out for offside, as his colleague Bobo was adjudged to be interfering in an offside position despite not touching the ball. After a mellay of frustration and confusion, the referee went to the VAR, who overturned the decision, concluding Bobo wasn’t interfering with play. In real time, this left plenty puzzled at what had just happened, leaving two questions; what was the initial call? And why was it overturned?

The scenario was the greyest of greys which essentially came down to whether you thought the defender (Glory's Dino Djulbic) would’ve made up a distance of ground if he wasn’t impeded by the Sydney striker. The commentating team at the time thought he would have (which I agree with), ruling the final call incorrect, while back in the studio former Socceroo great Mark Bosnich took the opposite view. Either way, the initial call was far from a “howler” and questioned the legitimacy of the VAR butting in to effectively re-referee a decision, something the technology was never intended to provide.

Time delay

Probably the biggest bugbear of any technology naysayers is whether the time in which a decision takes is something that can have a detrimental affect on the match being played. The IFAB (the lawmaking body) have assured the VAR process will be swift in its action, to keep the game moving, a process that has been successfully proven by GLT. The examples that have taken place so far involving the VAR have however proved to be anything but smooth.

On a whole, a decision seems to take a minute, from incident to to decision, this was first seen in the clunky effort in Japan at the Club World Cup, where a referee used a monitor at the side of the pitch before awarding the penalty. The process has streamlined somewhat since then, with the referee keeping in touch with a fellow referee in the VAR booth via an earpiece, a change that should in effect allow for a much quicker review.

However, as was the case in the A-League’s debut VAR decision, the first of it’s kind in a top tier domestic league match; in the match between Wellington Phoenix and Sydney, the delay was illustrated to be much longer if the ball is still live. The decision, a handball by a Wellington Phoenix player in their own box was agreeable, but the conversation between referee and the VAR didn’t take place until 30 seconds had passed while the ball was still in play. This situation offers up a temporary in-play state where anything possibly can happen (ie. a goal, a red card etc.) which in the end could be upended if play is called back.

In the end nothing came of a Phoenix breakaway, but it brings into question the emotion change, as the home side went in search for a goal only to then find out they are conceding a penalty at the other end. Even if the play is dead, the seconds/minute delay to double check the findings can suck the atmosphere out of the moment, moments that define football’s worldwide popularity. Cristiano Ronaldo and Filip Holosko have both had to wait agonisingly to see if their goals have stood in the last 6 months, before half-celebrating at the end, as the news trickles through. The heart in the moment stuff that goals in this sport provides you with,will inevitably be lost in a simple 30 second delay.

Behaviour on the pitch

One thing that can’t be certain about bringing itechnology in is the long term behaviour of those in the stadium; players, referees, coaches and fans. GLT experienced little if any teething pains with this, due to it’s clear cut nature. If a player appeals, the referee can point to his watch to categorically answer his critics. With the VAR, no such certainty as I’ve discussed before can be given, which can only lead to lengthier appeals, questioning of officials and raised tensions, all adding to yet further delay in-play.

The A-League were quick to confirm their stance on this; stating that any player/coach appealing for a decision to be reviewed to the VAR would be booked, adding that the initial rounds of its implementation would largely allow players a “get out of jail” free pass as it was a new concept to get used to. However, as we all know confrontation of match officials is regularly a problem the game can’t get away from, so it begs the question if regular non-VAR decisions are regularly being allowed to be contested aggressively, what will stop players contesting to use the VAR?

The A-League elimination finals at the weekend saw multiple examples of confusion, aggravation and abuse from both sets of players pre and post the decisions being reversed. It also didn’t alleviate the pressure from the stands; Sydney FC fans, despite having two decisions reversed by the VAR in their favour, roundly booed the officials leaving the pitch at half-time. We may be going into this hoping it’ll clear up the games’ biggest talking points, but at present it seems to be creating more.

The change in behaviour stretches back from the players and coaching staff to the referees, as has already been seen. Referees in the comfort of having a second opinion in their ear have started to either play it safe or negate their duties altogether. There was an incident at the weekend where referee Peter Green pointed to his earpiece when questioned on a penalty decision, indicating “I haven’t been told it was a penalty,” effectively dodging his role to independently make the call.

How both players and referees view the game and it's decisions will also change. One of the first pieces of advice you are taught when you start to play the game is “play to the whistle”, but in a VAR world how can this still apply? In effect, if a striker sees the offside flag raised, and hears the referee's whistle, does he chance a yellow card for kicking the ball away, against the chance the VAR overturns the decision and he is allowed a shot on goal?

The same goes for the defending team, with VAR decisions now taking action, even when the whistle has blown for offside, if a defender stops as he hears the whistle, does that mean the goal can stand? There are going to be instances where the referee awards a penalty, when the play could continue to a goal scoring opportunity, only to be revoked on review; where’s the advantage there? We may get to the stage, where we regularly hear the whistle go, and play still goes on “just in case” the decision is overruled.

Just the beginning

Given the climate for continual changes to the laws of the game (cite the unnecessary amendment to kick off procedures, and the proposition of sin bins), it’s only going to be a matter of time before further technology is used. Already fans in large numbers have expressed an interest in a challenge based system, as is the case with tennis, where coaches/captains will be able to challenge calls, I’m assuming with the VAR in place, non-penalty box related action that doesn’t involve red cards.

While all in good intention initially, football isn’t the same sport tennis is. While tennis calls are done in the moment where play is stopped, these type of calls in football will demonstrably slow the game down, thus allowing a crucial tactic to kill the game dead. It’s possible to see coaches at all levels of the game, using their “challenge” to engage a timeout scenario, rather than using it purely to contest a call.

At the end of the day, the types of decision that we want clarity over, are the decisions that are the most subjective on the pitch, and in the end are the calls always going to be what we want? Former English Premier League referee Howard Webb, now playing an integral role in the implementation of the VAR in the MLS, appeared on BT Sport Score two weeks back to explain the new system, and it’s suitabilities, eventually to be introduced in England.

After a lengthy and interesting debate with ex-pros on the panel, Webb was called upon in live action to point out where the VAR would be used. It’s involvement was up for discussion quickly, as Hull City striker Omar Niasse was sent off for an overly aggressive challenge against Watford. While the panel of ex-footballers agreed in unison that the challenge shouldn't have seen a straight red. Webb concluded that the decision wouldn't have been overturned, as he wouldn’t be able exercise considerable doubt over the initial decision, to the disbelief of the studio. Ironically, two days later the FA panel overturned the red card.

These incidents are hardly reaffirming the need for video technology in football officiating. Those who back the implementation, will argue that it’s key to clean up a sport littered with missed howlers that need to bring balance back to key matches. However, I argue that bringing in the technology, will create yet another talking point when it comes to officiating, slow the game down and in the end take further attention away from the match being played.

Can Jeonbuk break Asia's Club World Cup hoodoo?

The Club World Cup kicks off tomorrow in typically illusive fashion. I almost feel ashamed it’s crept up on me so quickly, yet the marketing for the competition remains low key to say the least. Considering the magnitude that should come with the tag of “World Champions”, FIFA have only really started pushing their highest club accolade in the last week, previously choosing to focus on their new “Best 11” awards series, which narrowly but predictably focuses solely on player’s plying their trade in Europe.

That has long been the issue with the Club World Cup, it doesn’t interest Europe. Its timing is terrible; the tournament kicks off before a European mid-week slot has concluded, it runs through a period where the majority of leagues are still playing competitive league football, but most pertinently the award doesn’t grant the current European champions any extra credibility back home.

Europe has won 8 out of the last 9 competitions, not at a canter by any means, and in most cases they’ve merely strolled through the two matches needed to ensure the title. The only defeat, Chelsea’s to Corinthians in 2012, was met with little criticism given its lack of profile back in Europe. Chelsea could return home ahead of more important matters being their league form, which the whole fan base were more concerned about, without a single eye brow raised across the continent.

For the rest of the world this instead is seen as the key opportunity to test their mettle with the very best, an actual attempt to clinch a sought after global accolade. Within Asia this remains the case. The timing of the tournament is ideally placed for them given the AFC Champions League final was only contested two weeks ago. This year’s champions Jeonbuk Motors, have the run of form, no domestic distraction and the incentive to contest for the trophy.

The gulf in class between Asia and Europe, let alone anyone else and Europe, makes a triumph extremely unlikely however. Even if they were able to make it through, to say the final (something that hasn’t ever happened in the tournament's 16 year history), by beating their European counterparts, little would be made of the achievement in the West. In reality, in this sort of scenario, the European side (Real Madrid) would be seen to have played in 2nd gear, to have put less effort in than necessary, and to be honest that would likely be true.

At the beginning of the year, the Chinese Super League ramped up spending for another transfer window in succession that finally demanded the attention of Europe. The signings were grander than ever before, while players were being swayed in their peak (rather than at the end) of their careers from leading European clubs and no less lucrative deals to ply their trade in a league that continues to be criticised as being below par.

This view is generally accurate, as long as you're comparing par to the standard of a Top 5 European league, the CSL has a long way to go, but with spending set to increase again this year the gap will close, and the question is what will be the yard stick used to plot this decreasing divide? The Club World Cup, at present, if not in the long term with reported plans to create a global Champions League type of format, is the only recognisable “semi-competitive” environment to test clubs against one another from different continents.

Since the increased awareness of Chinese football, with the inevitable scepticism and ignorant slating that comes from the Western media towards this, I rooted for the likes of Guangzhou Evergrande and Jiangsu Suning in this year’s Asian Champions League, to clinch the trophy and set up the intercontinental end of year Battle Royale I’d hope for in Japan this week. I went too far ahead of myself at the prospect, we’re a long way from China competing with Europe, this can be illustrated by both side’s stunted progress in even their initial continental challenge. A football superpower isn't created overnight.

Attention switches to personnel, namely Asia’s leading light in Omar Abdulrahman. Clearly a talent that has outgrown his continent, ready for the test that Europe can offer him. The stumbling block in his way seems to be trust, he’s never going to have Barcelona, Real Madrid or Manchester United come in for him, on the wages he desires, with a first team fast track written into his contract. His nationality stops this to a degree; however talented an Emirati player is, a so called big club isn’t going to roll out anything more than a short term contract on modest wages.

In this case a Neymar-esc shop window at the Club World Cup could be hoped for. When Barcelona cruised past Santos in 2011 to seal their CWC title, Neymar for the most part was a mere spectator, but it was at least a chance for clubs to run the rule over a player against top class opposition. I would never expect Abdulrahman or Al Ain to challenge the likes of Real Madrid, but it could potentially be a bridging opportunity to generate interest in a move.

In the end of course football is played on the pitch by a team of 11 men, merely money thrown in from China or a one man magician in the shape of Abdulrahman is no match for the best all-round team in Asia at the moment, being Jeonbuk Motors. Functional, over any real wow factor, no big names (outside East Asia anyway), but the best unit of the year, the most worthy candidate to take on the rest of the world.

Their draw is tough, they’ve been paired with the CONCACAF champions America of Mexico in the quarter-finals, a hurdle where Asia representation has fallen twice over the last four years. On the other side, being drawn against either the African or Oceania champions has proved an easier route in the past, while aside to Guangzhou last year (which conveniently was against America also), Asia have usually been one step behind their North American equivalent.

It would however set up the glamour tie that all Asia wants; an encounter with UEFA Champions League winners Real Madrid. Putting aside the fact we won’t have the chance of an intriguing battle of new money vs. old money, or Amoory vs. CR7, Jeonbuk v Real still offers something, if not too much promise. Until one of these matches, however fortunately it may come, falls for the underdogs, I think we’ll continually hear snobbery at the culmination of the end of year showpiece, which is continually ignored across Europe. I’ll be left with hope though, however small, that this could this be the year Asia makes it's way to the final.