Five Changes Needed for VAR

Technology is something that I’ve been eager for football to implement for as long as I can remember. With each dreadful refereeing decision, I would beg no one in particular for its introduction. Goal line technology was a start, but with each missed offside call, clear handball or obvious foul, my frustration grew. You can imagine my glee then, when they trialed it at the 2018 World Cup; and my outright joy when I read that it was coming to the Premier League.

I expected some teething problems; and read many of the reservations put forwards by the so-called experts; but such was my want for a fairer game, my desire for what became known as VAR never wavered. Throughout its first season in England however, there have been numerous aspects that have continued to frustrate me; bugs that need sorting out ASAP before the game is destroyed as a spectator sport. So, to throw in my two cents, here are five changes that I would make to what has quickly become the hottest topic in football.

Set a Time Limit

The time taken to reach any decision is the main complaint of many football fan, pundit and player. In truth, it is a joke that it can take two, three or four minutes to make a decision; leaving the fans scratching their heads as to what is going on (more on that later). If it is taking that long to come to a decision, can it really be classed as clear and obvious? It is a massive contributor to what is rapidly sucking the excitement out of the game.

Players these days are hesitant to celebrate for fear of the goal being chalked off; and for every passing second taken to make a decision, the anger grows. All we’re left with is a massively anticlimactic moment as the opposing team kicks off, or a bemused team when a red card is given or removed. I argued that for the sake of fairness, the goal aspect at the very least is not too different to one that is chalked off for offside, while the double celebration side of things is always fun, but it simply doesn’t need to take so long.

For the above reasons I would incorporate a time limit. One minute seems like enough time to come to a decision on the clear and obvious. Should this be exceeded, you stick with the call of the on-field officials.

Involve the Crowd

If we are insistent on taking as much time as possible to come to the ‘correct’ decision, then why not involve the fans? Not only would this allow spectators an insight into the decisions, but it would add a sense of theatre and stop them twiddling their thumbs in irritation; adding to the excitement, rather than take away from it. It works well in Rugby, and I believe that it would only add intrigue to the beautiful game.

Sure, there would probably still be boos, but I expect the number of people jeering would largely decrease; replaced by genuine interest in what is going on in the mind of the officials. Even if a time limit was put in place, I see no reason why those in the stands should not be able to listen in. They are a part of the spectacle after all; they pay good money and deserve to be brought along for the ride. If used well, VAR could bring football closer to the observer than it has been in years.

Use the Damn Monitors

This is something else that has been talked about almost to death. For me, the referee is the boss on the field and should have total control of the decisions; 100% of them. This doesn’t mean that the help wouldn’t be appreciated, but the final call should be theirs. The footballing authorities have paid God knows how much money for monitors to be added to the side of the pitch, so why not use them? It’s nothing if not criminal to have them as nothing more than very expensive ornaments.

You might argue that this is a contradiction to my previous point; that having a referee run over to the side of the pitch can only increase the time taken to decide on a course of action. However, it will only be for major decisions that the panel believes need to be looked at and, to be completely honest, it should take no more than 15 seconds from any part of the pitch to run over to the monitor. This would give them 30 to 45 seconds to pass their judgment and would leave the decision completely in their hands.

Set Looser Offside Limits

Paul Merson joked that teams would be looking for players with smaller feet in order to beat the offside trap with VAR in play. It’s become that ludicrous, though, that some might say that this idea has some merit. It’s bordering on lunacy to think that a well-worked goal that would otherwise be seen as a thing of beauty can be chalked off because someone forgot to trim their armpit hair in the morning, or their fringe gets caught in the wind. Ok, I’m exaggerating (slightly), but you get my point. We get back to the clear and obvious point here too, in that, if you have to get the rulers, protractors, compasses and any other mathematical implements out to make a decision; then can it really be deemed as such?

Sports like Cricket and Rugby have been using technology for years and will freely admit that it’s not faultless, so why is Football obnoxious enough to believe that they have perfected it in a way that they are able to judge decisions down to mere millimetres? Cricket leave it up to the Umpire when the video shows the ball to be going on to hit a small margin of the stumps, so why does Football think it can 100% accurately judge both the very moment the ball leaves a player’s foot and the very moment the attacker makes their run? I’ve heard people talk about the old rule, whereby there has to be daylight between attackers and defenders; but that only shifts the problem. To simplify, look across the line on the monitor, and if the decision isn’t clear, go with the linesman’s flag (otherwise, why bother having them flag in the first place?).

Red Cards for Diving

This isn’t so much a problem with VAR and how it is used, but something that should come from its introduction. Diving is a real cancer in the game, which is something I will get into in more detail in a later piece, and what better way to cure the game of this disease than by sending a player off for taking a tumble when no contact is made. The retrospective punishment idea was clearly a dud, more than anything because it only came into play when . they were successful in their cheating. Reprimanding retrospectively gives no benefit to the team that was the recipient of the deceit.

There are too many occasions where a challenge comes in, a player goes over, and it can only be one of two things: a foul or a dive. The ref however, in a high percentage of these situations, quite frankly bottles it. With VAR there is no hiding place; they can look at the screen, call it a foul or a dive and penalise accordingly (in my eyes, give a red card if the former is proved). Again, we go to that buzz phrase; it would need to be clear and obvious. There are plenty that are, and in my eyes it would go some way to clearing the game of what is, in my humble opinion, its greatest sin (aside from any intentional leg-breaking challenge or spitting/biting). I’m not naïve enough to expect it to be 100% eradicated, but an extreme reduction would be nothing but good for the sport of football.

The list had originally included six headings, but there has been one aspect that has vastly improved in the last few weeks. That is the height of the bar when it comes to overturning fouls; which seems to have been drastically lowered and, while there is still some inconsistency, they are definitely heading in the right direction with this. One gripe I do have is that given how high the bar was at the beginning of the season, there is a case to be made that the season has been a little unbalanced; but I can hardly complain about them attempting to fix something that is broken now can I?

By Calum Dewsbury.