We are one day away from kick off, and this one promises to be a tech-friendly tournament. Everything is in place: the return of the Telstar (albeit a more modern version, featuring a Near-Field Communication chip that can be synced with smartphones!), Goal-Line Technology, Electronic Performance and Tracking Systems (EPTS), and, yes, the ever-controversial Video Assistant Referee (or VAR as we like to call it).
Are we just one step away from robot refereeing? Poor Michael Oliver will no longer be able to play for Real Madrid as a twelfth man, awarding dubious penalties that managed to rile the temperate Gigi Buffon up.
On a serious note, all this tech at this year’s world cup might mean that we won’t have a repeat of Frank Lampard’s “goal” (GLT will send an immediate signal to the ref’s watch if the ball crosses the line), and in the midst of controversy that we all love so much in the world’s most popular sport, the referee can square up and turn to VAR.
How will VAR work at the World Cup?
If there was such a thing as VAR for dummies, I think it would say: picture a bunch of people, all holed up in some media centre somewhere in Moscow, watching footage from 33 positional cameras, including 8 slow-mo ones, to “correct clear and obvious errors and missed incidents in clearly defined match-changing decisions” (could they be any more vague?).
For the first time in the tournament’s history, FIFA have delegated 1 VAR and 3 additional assistants (imagine Gianni Infantino placing that order at Head Quarters), making it 13 officials that will standby in case things get Messi (see what I did there?).
So, if the referee missed a “clear and obvious error” the peeps at VAR’s control tower would radio him (would have said or her, but let’s not go there), and feedback the incident via earpiece. The referee then has two options: the first is to immediately act upon the information received, while the second is for him to review the footage himself on a pitch-side screen.
So what are these potentially game-changing decisions?
The list could be endless, but fortunately for us, there are only 4: goals, penalties, red cards, and cases of mistaken identity. Yes, you heard right, mistaken identity, as in when the referee sends the wrong person off because he looks like a teammate. Don’t believe it? Watch the video below:
Wow, I know right? Awkwaaaard. I mean, Kieran Gibbs doesn’t really look like the Ox (smaller frame, more nimble, you know what I mean). Point is, if the ref accidentally sends the wrong player off, VAR will jump right in and be like, “oh, um, I think you meant to send the other bloke off, ref.”
Kelechi Iheanacho made history in the FA Cup, when he scored the first VAR goal in English football. As you can see in the footage, the ref’s communicating with the boys in the off site control room, before drawing a rectangle in the air and awarding the goal.
As for VAR being used to award a penalty, here’s an example of it being used in the Bundesliga (brownie points for Lewandowski doing the ‘Wakanda Foreva!’ salute).
Contender for weirdest VAR moment so far? Mainz vs Freiburg. Handball in the box, ref doesn’t seem keen on it (as usual). Players go off at halftime, but are imminently called back out as the boys upstairs review footage and inform the ref.
Players take to the field, wearing bemused expressions on their faces, De Blasis steps up and fires home for his second of the night, guiding Mainz to a 2 – 0 victory. Might not have been game-changing, but it definitely made an impact on their season as they avoided relegation on goal difference. Wowza.
The VAR factor
Like with most things, there are those for and against the technology. You can’t really argue with the stats; VAR has increased the accuracy of refereeing decisions from 93% to 98.8%, but what you can say, as a purist, is that it kinda sucks the spirit out of the game.
But, emotions aside, VAR poses some serious pragmatic problems. For instance, what constitutes a “clear and obvious” decision? Iheanacho’s goal was given, but then why was Juan Mata denied a brilliant second for united in the FA Cup, after VAR ruled him out for offside (maybe the tip of his nose was)?
“Clear and obvious” are vague, highly subjective terms, that might create more problems than they solve, but again the stats don’t lie (like Shakira’s hips), and that 98.8% is like the kid that aces her maths paper, and her parents argue that she didn’t study, at the end of the day the only argument is the 98.8%!
The other issue with VAR is the fact that it takes a long time to come to a decision. It’s back and forth between the control room, sometimes the ref stops to watch the incident himself on the screen, and by the time all that has happened, the game would lose momentum, and cause frustration among players and fans.
It works in cricket, because the sport is not played over 90 minutes (plus injury time, extra time, penalties), whereas football moves at the speed of sound (except when you’re watching Greece, yikes!), and so it really becomes irksome when game is stopped because the ref’s decision has been contended by Big Brother.
VAR: what they say
England head coach, Gareth Southgate, is concerned that the fans in-situ have no idea what’s going on when a VAR decision is being made.
“A better way of communicating with fans in the ground (is needed),” he says.
“That was a little better tonight because at least they knew something was going on, but I think ideally in other sports there is a clearer communication with those in the stadium.
“When those at home have a better idea of what is going on than those in the stadium, I’m not sure that’s the right thing.”
Southgate will be pleased to know that FIFA have somehow tried to solve this by introducing a ‘networked touch tablet’ that will relay information to broadcasters and the big screens in the stadiums to keep fans up to date.
Real Madrid’s Luka Modric seems to be on the fence when it comes to VAR, saying: “In some aspects it helps, but it causes a lot of confusion.”
Former England star, and BBC pundit Alan Shearer, bemoans the subjectivity of VAR, arguing: “That’s why it’s all wrong. It’s someone else’s opinion. [Use VAR] for a matter of fact, not for opinions” bringing us back to the vagueness of “clear and obvious” once again.
There are those, however, who don’t seem to mind the technology, like Claude Puel for example, who praised the tech after his Leicester side beat Fleetwood, saying: “The time was not so long to watch the video and take the decision. This evening I like the technology.”
And Chelsea manager, Antonio Conte, actually thinks refs should take their time to come to a decision, saying: “If we want to try to use this new system, it is important for the referee to wait, especially in this incident that is not so clear.”
The verdict?
We have enjoyed football over the years because it is more than a sport. It is high-octane entertainment. It brings a crowd to its feet, causes hearts to leap into mouths, breaks some hearts and warms others. All because it is a human sport, with human errors that can change the course of a game.
But that 98.8% accuracy might mean that we can finally get rid of those errors we tend to moan about decades after a game has been played. Could they finally perfect the technology, and make it work in a big occasion such as the World Cup, or are they just ruining the game with all these added complications?
I’ll leave you with a quote from Fleetwood boss Uwe Rosler as you decide whether or not you are for or against VAR at the World Cup this year.
“My opinion is don’t complicate the game – it’s beautiful as it is. People try to make it different for some reason. I don’t like it, it interrupts the flow.”
