VAR - Six Months Review...

So we are into the sixth month of VAR and so far it seems to have gone under the radar! Or maybe not. 

Even when I was in the group VAR was something the PL referee group were working on for over a year. It was constantly called for by the tv pundits and it felt like every Saturday night we heard the same thing, "this could be cleared up in 5 seconds with VAR!" The fact was every one of us knew it couldn't. Games finish at around 5pm...by 10.30pm it is very obvious which camera angle showed the best view of a decision. Even when discussing at half time the guys behind the scenes would be preparing the videos and showing the best angle. This luxury of time is not afforded to the VAR during a live game. With up to 30 camera angles of an incident we knew that simply looking at one or two, clearing the decision as correct and then 2 minutes later Sky find a better angle that proves VAR wrong would never be acceptable. Whilst the referee is given the "you can only give what you see" bumper of at least some forgiveness, VAR is not. With every angle at your disposal no media outlet would ever understand an incorrect decision. 

We worked hard as a group to try to create some element of consistency. How do we define what is "clear and obvious?" was a question we came back to again and again. If you go to the pub with your mates and look at a tackle, it's very possible that within your group some will say it's a red card and believe that 100%, some will say yellow and believe it 100%, some just a foul and the one that's called "psycho" or "killer" on a Sunday morning (every team has one up north) will be telling him to get up and it's not even a foul. How then is it possible when everyone is 100% certain that they are right can a group of 18 people nail down the definition of 'clear and obvious'? The fact is they can't. It isn't possible. What's clear and obviously a penalty to me is not the same to someone else. 

Referees visit the clubs before a season to discuss new law changes, new definitions etc so players are fully aware. Whether they choose to listen is their decision but on the whole most players were excellent and engaged fully. What struck me on a visit to Crystal Palace for one such meeting was when penalty incidents were shown. Even the players couldn’t agree on what is and isn't a penalty. In fact you could split the room in most cases. The attacking players would give a reasonable argument as to why it's a penalty - the high pace of a player being tapped by the smallest of contact causes them to fall...the defenders would sensibly counter this argument with valid reasons for it not being a penalty. We ask for consistency of a referee and of the whole group of referees but 25 professional footballers in the same room looking at the same clip had some heated discussions on the incidents themselves. 

Football is a game of opinion. This is where VAR must be accepted differently to the technology used in sports such as tennis, both codes of rugby and cricket. Firstly the technology has been used for many years, a few decades in some cases in those sports and so teething problems have over the years been ironed out. There is also the fact that most decisions in those other sports are factual. In tennis it's in our out, just like goal line technology. In rugby many of the TMO (Television Match Official) decisions are also black and white. Foot was in touch or not, pass was forward or not, try was grounded or it wasn't. In cricket the catch was taken or it wasn't, it's a no ball or it isn't etc. The one element of cricket which isn't black and white is LBW. The ball still has a distance to travel before hitting or missing the wickets and so the on field decision is taken into account on tight decisions. My point here is that the amount of subjective calls in football like penalties, severity of a tackle, the punishment of those etc are far more than most sports. Perhaps that's why we love the sport as we do, more talking points and more chance to put our own opinions on them when discussing in the pub with Psycho and Killer? 

What a VAR must do is put aside the question of "what would I give in that scenario". The question they must ask is "is that decision clearly and obviously incorrect?" If it falls into the TV pundit category of 'seen it given' then it isn't clear and obvious. My opinion also is that whilst it may take some time to find a definitive angle, once the angle is found that you are happy shows the whole picture, if the VAR has to look again and again for more than a reasonably short amount of time this does not equate to clear and obvious to me...I'll come onto offside shortly!!! The pressure on the VAR in what are match changing situations is huge. There is no room for excuse...you must get that decision right!! What we are seeing in the first 6 months is VAR has not overturned too many big on field decisions such as red card tackles and penalties. This is because the bar to overturn these has to be high. We do not want a Premier League game re-refereed to the most minute of detail from Stockley Park and so unless the decision on field is absolutely wrong and the referee can explain the process of thought with logic the VAR will leave it as it is, and in my opinion rightly so. Where a referee has made a clear error the VAR must intervene. The theory at the start of the season that they were scared to overturn their mate's decision is nonsense. These guys are absolute professionals and actually by not correcting a clear error would create far more mistrust in each other than basically bailing the referee out of making a howler. There is no league table of importance or superiority within the group. The most experienced referee, Mike Dean, would expect the least experienced, Peter Bankes and Andy Madley, to overturn an incorrect decision and neither would have any issues in doing so to help prevent an error. 

And so to offside...

This is the one area that has caused the most backlash in the first half of the season. Offside is black and white. When the ball is played by a team mate you are either onside or offside, there is no grey area. Just as the ball is either over the goal line or it isn't, you cannot interpret offside the way it is currently written in law any other way. This is why we are seeing decisions taken to the nth degree. The offside law was not designed for this purpose, it was written in the Laws with the current text before the implementation of VAR in fact. I do believe this will be revisited at the end of the season. Whilst I don't believe it will lead to two separate Laws of the Game, one with and one without VAR, I do believe that there will be some text in next seasons laws that will define some kind of leeway for officials. What that is I don't have the answer I'm afraid. However I think everyone in the game, referees included, can agree that a portion of somebody's shoulder being offside cannot be ruling out goals. The idea of VAR was to see more goals and entertainment, not less. The blame does not lie here with the match officials. I'm certain that every time Stockley Park gets one of these so called 'armpit goals' the heads go in hands and a collective "here we go again" goes up. The blame does not lie with IFAB here either, the law makers. The fact is VAR has moved a little quicker than the laws themselves and I think with a clearer definition next season and maybe even the acceptance from media and clubs that some leeway must be given, this situation will improve. Take away the controversy this season on offside and to be fair we aren't left with much to discuss. 

Penalty encroachment is another area that I personally feel can be completely removed of controversy with a simple law change. Take away the other players, take away the possibility of a rebound. Make a penalty kick like it is in a penalty shoot out - a one off shot at goal. If you miss or if it's saved then the keeper restarts with the ball. Have all other players back on the halfway line and remove the possibility of rebounds. A team is awarded a penalty because the other team did something wrong. The fact is most rebounds to an attacker are scored because having made a wonderful save the goalkeeper is still on the floor leaving an open goal...why then allow an attacking team two chances? Simply remove that possibility by having a one shot chance. If you score then great, if you miss then get on with the game from the keeper. 

Finally, the monitors. 

Today we have seen (apart from the trial games) a referee in England using the pitch side monitor for the first time. I'm reading things such as 'trailblazer' and 'saviour of VAR' and how this will change things going forward. Hold your horses!! 

Even when I was in the group we agreed that any unseen incident that was to result in a red card would be reviewed by the on field referee. The decision has already been conveyed to the ref, red card for violent conduct. However this is different to waving away a penalty and then being told there was contact. That's simply a misread that you can explain to a player. When you haven't seen something at all you want to be able to explain this to both the player you're sending off and those left on the field that you now have to work with. In this situation we agreed that the ref would watch it themselves, not to make a decision, but to be able to then confirm what happened having seen that themselves. Michael Oliver did this today and clearly you can see him gesture that the head was used by the Palace player. Had he not have reviewed it he would be explaining something that he actually had no idea what it looked like himself. This is not a change in policy, nor is it an FA v PGMOL stance, it has been policy all season but the fact is no unseen red cards have occurred yet this season and hence this was the first example of such. Maybe it will be the start of more reviews but this I do not believe was a sudden shift in policy by the governing body. 

Screens were initially planned to be used in the Premier League. It was used at Anfield by Craig Pawson in fact to award a penalty in the FA Cup trials. The problem was that that incident took over four minutes and the decision makers including Premier League themselves, the clubs, PGMOL and the media were concerned that this would remove the pace and passion of a Premier League game...slowing down a product which was loved globally for its pace was not an option. Therefore it was decided that in order to not take the pace out of the game the VAR would make the decisions on the clear and obvious errors. Obviously this season has seen a number of incidents which have taken a long time to make and so maybe the trial didn't quite work as they planned. This is a new system in England remember and each league and demographic of fans have different tolerance levels when it comes to accepting a slower pace. VAR is not a one size fits all when it comes to domestic leagues worldwide. 

To finish, I think it's working. Tottenham v Chelsea was a great example. A free kick given against an attacker that becomes a penalty. A match changing decision that a referee does not want to be driving back to Manchester in this case on their conscience. VAR allowed Anthony Taylor's team to come away ultimately with the correct decision on the day and that's what VAR was brought in for. We all agree it was not brought in to stop goals because a tiny part of a shoulder is in an offside position. Hopefully with a clearer definition of what can be considered 'assistant referees call' like the umpires call in cricket where it is too tight to really tell then this part of the controversy can be removed. 

This is brand new for the referees as well remember. Yes they have trained and practiced for this for some years now but nothing can prepare you on the fields of St George's Park for the cauldron or pressure of a Premier League match day. Same as a penalty shoot out in the World Cup, it doesn't matter how many hundreds you take and score in training you are ultimately defined by the one you take on the world stage and you can never properly prepare for that. Referees have never worked this way before. Their whole muscle memory has developed over thousands of games without VAR and now we are asking them to work with something completely new to their makeup. Imagine being told tomorrow that the U.K. now drives on the other side of the road. In fact everyone can go out and have many hours of practice doing so with no cars on the road. You'd get used to it, the wheel on the other side would become more comfortable and you'd feel confident...then one day without building up to it with a few cars to practice with, now consider you are thrown into rush hour on a road in New Delhi. Same job, now there's pressure and other influences. You are no worse a driver but accidents will happen because this is something you haven't experienced before. That is how VAR will have felt in the first six months to the referees in a nutshell, personally I think they've coped bloody well so far!! 

So let's see what happens for the rest of the season. Hopefully I can write a piece that says controversy decreased, offsides were ironed out and its gradually becoming part of the game. 

Next season I'd like to see the stadium experience improve for fans. Have the process on the screen like in rugby or on a VAR app for fans to watch and listen to in the ground as it's happening. Broadcast the audio conversation on tv at home between referee and VAR. Of course fans will still disagree but what that will do is create a logical understanding of the outcome and the thought process that reached it rather than suddenly saying penalty on a screen. 

My opinion is that barring the tight offsides which is out of the referees hands, Neil Swarbrick and his team have actually made a really positive start. I've defended PGMOL and the VAR implementation all season and tried to explain the intricacies of it being so much more than a five second glance. It's tough I assure you...but it's here to stay.