VAR critics off the mark

The officiating team – the third team – in a football match are the most unbiased ones out there yet are always the most maligned.

No matter what decision is made they are going to have their critics. Sometimes it’s justified but often its not.

Criticism and personal attacks are an occupational hazard for the men and women with the whistles and flags. However, the row over the VAR has seen criticism of referees go to an unprecedented and ridiculously unfair level.

It must be pointed out that once again fans and commentators are pointing their fingers at the wrong people. The VAR system is designed to help referees make the correct technical decision.

The fact is in most cases, the VAR has done exactly that. The problem is, those on the other side of the fence don’t actually have a grasp of football laws nor of the scope of the VAR.

The only problem with the VAR system is that it leaves referees with less discretion to exercise common sense and game management techniques.

Once an incident is viewed on a monitor with countless replays, referees have no choice but to apply the letter of the law. After all, there are assessors watching what referees do, who will mark them on their knowledge of the laws and their ability to apply them especially after seeing it on replay.

Referees never used to have a second chance to see something and therefore had to make a decision on the spot in less than a second, using their intuition and instinct, two very important traits for a referee.

Game management is a very hard thing for a referee to do. It sometimes involves talking to a player to deal with a situation without necessarily applying the technical letter of the law. It was a method that worked for over a century.

However once a referee has seen something on replay, what choice does he/she have than to follow the rules as they are and apply them.

The VAR is not designed to get every decision right, he/she is there to correct clear and obvious errors. The VAR has no scope to change a referees decision in so called “grey areas”.

If there is a grey area then the referees decision or non decision on the field stands and the game goes on without VAR interference.

Referee Daniel Elder gives Osama Malik of the City a red card after a video review during the round eight A-League match between Melbourne City and Perth Glory at AAMI Park on November 24, 2017 in Melbourne, Australia. (Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images)

The VAR can intervene in four key “game changing” areas where there is a “clear” error: goals, penalties, direct red cards and mistaken identities.

Now bearing this in mind let’s examine four recent controversial incidents involving the VAR.

1) Melbourne City’s Osama Malik’s conceding a penalty and receiving a straight red card against Perth’s Jacob Italiano in November
Original decision was a goal kick. Upon use of the VAR, we can see Malik flew in recklessly with a studs up challenge that went straight into the thigh of Italiano while the ball was still technically in play.

Malik did not connect with the ball at all but took a fair bit of Italiano. Even though the ball was well and truly flying out it was still in play at the time of the challenge and it was clearly a foul. Therefore the penalty decision was 100 per cent correct.

Now, the next part. The referee after seeing the replay deemed it serious foul play which as per Law 12 of the FIFA Laws of the Game (LOTG) is a straight red. Let’s think about this, Malik flew in studs up and cleaned up the meatiest part of the leg (thankfully) meaning the pain and damage was kept to a minimum.

A few inches higher and Italiano might not be having children, a few inches lower and we are talking a busted knee or broken leg. The way Malik came flying in was excessive and the foul was pretty serious though fortunately the injury to Italiano kept to a minimum through sheer luck.

So as per the letter of the law it had to be a red card to Malik. The referee having seen this on replay has no choice but to apply the letter of the law or he gets in trouble. To achieve consistency referees need to apply the letter of the law.

For the sake of game management and a good game they need to apply common sense and discretion for the situation, two things that are taken away via the use of the VAR.

2) Western Sydney Wanderers’ Robbie Cornthwaite’s conceded penalty and second yellow card against Adelaide United in November
Baba Diawara’s shot at goal was heading toward the top right hand corner of the net. Along the way the ball struck Cornthwaite’s hand (while he was in the penalty area) which caused it to divert, with the pace taken of, into the grateful hands of Wanderers keeper Vedran Janjetovic.

If Cornthwaite had not handled the ball it would never have got to Janjetovic and there was a good chance it may have gone in. So in a nutshell, Cornthwaite’s handball was in the penalty area which means a penalty.

Now the next part, if Diawara’s shot was an obvious goal, it should have been a straight red as per Law 12 in the LOTG (as a handball is not a proper football challenge).

However the referee Chris Beath was not 100 per cent sure the ball was going in therefore he correctly did not issue a red card, however at the very least there was a promising chance of it going in, therefore in reality Cornthwaite’s handball stopped a promising attack which is considered unsporting behaviour which is a yellow card as per Law 12 in the LOTG.

Cornthwaite was already on a yellow card and therefore the second yellow meant he had to be sent off. Once again the referee applied the laws of the game correctly yet he was very much maligned.

If it wasn’t for the VAR Beath may have exercised some discretion and for the sake of game management may have simply given Cornthwaite a stern talking too. But once the vision had been reviewed by him, Beath had no choice other than to apply the laws of the game.

3) Central Coast Mariners’ Wout Brama’s red card for his foul on Wanderers paymaker Roly Bonevacia last Saturday
Brama who had been involved with an ongoing battle with Bonevacia fouled Bonevacia with a scrape down his fellow Dutchman’s lower leg.

The ball was nowhere near where Brama’s studs up and dangerous challenge ended (on the back of Bonevacia’s calf). Brama was clearly not going for the ball but rather trying to go after the player.

The referee Alex King initially correctly blew a free kick and brandished a yellow card followed by a quick chat as is the norm in that situation. Enter the VAR who advised King that Brama’s challenge was nowhere near the ball and in all likelihood was not aimed at the ball.

It was serious as it was clearly studs up and could have caused injury. Having viewed the replay King had no choice but to deem the challenge serious foul play as per the LOTG and therefore he had no choice but to issue a red card.

4) Melbourne City’s Manny Muscat and Sydney FC’s Bobo
Manny Muscat had no cause for complaint after a blatant elbow to the head of Sydney FC’s Michael Zullo. Now a few minutes earlier, Bobo had clearly kicked out at Muscat in an off the ball incident.

VAR Strebre Delovski explained to the Fox Sports commentary team after the game it wasn’t clear how bad Bobo’s incident was.

He advised due to the uncertainty it was a “grey area” and thus he did not intervene. Once again the VAR got it right, it wasn’t a clear error from the referee as he had obviously not seen it but it also wasn’t clear how bad Bobo’s kick out was.

In all honesty Muscat made a meal of it and even commentator John Kosmina said he didn’t have a problem with that being let go. Now it was probably a yellow card for Bobo for unsporting conduct but remember the VAR has no scope to issue a yellow card, only a direct red.

Hence, this was part of the “grey area” that Delovski was talking about, which is why he couldn’t intervene as per the scope of the VAR. So once again the match officials got it all right but due to the misunderstanding of coaches, players and fans the referees unfairly got a pasting. Some may argue that Bobo’s was as bad as Brama’s but it wasn’t clear that it was, hence the VAR had no scope.

Now going forward the A league needs to fix this problem and make life easier for the referees. To do this, the scope of the VAR should be sightly changed and they should only be allowed to intervene for the following. goals, penalties, mistaken identity and off the ball “clear” incidents that the referee did not see.

There should be no scope for the VAR to change a referees mind when a referee sees an incident or foul and makes a decision on it based on his intuition and game management style.

This will still lead to controversy but since the referee nor the VAR get a chance to view replays and change a decision because they are now not authorised to do so, you can’t then blame either of them for not applying the letter of the law simply because they are not allowed to watch a replay of it and have time to think.

They can go back to using instinct which often serves referees well. Once a referee views an incident on replay he has no choice as has been said numerous times in this article so let’s not make him/her do so.

Overall the VAR works, its a good system that will get more right than wrong. But the current scope of it makes life impossible for referees and leaves them in a no win situation.

In each of the four examples provided above, if the referee did the opposite of what they actually did, they would have been criticised by the other coach and players and would probably have received a poor mark from refereeing assessors for not applying the LOTG as they are.

The third team is the best team so let’s make life fair for them again. Oh and everyone else needs to learn the rules!