The frustrating modern day footballing reality that is VAR has changed the game significantly and permanently.
I am yet to locate a single fan who enjoys the drama and tension of the minutes spent waiting for an under-pressure VAR official to make a call.
When questionable incidents occur, decisions are either confirmed, overturned or the referee is beckoned to the sideline.
Then, off he or she trots to the hoots and hollers of supporters who are already convinced that a footballing injustice is about to be committed against their team.
At its worst, VAR is a farce. At its best, it is merely theatre that fuels passion. Sadly, its ability to consistently award justice is ad hoc.
Not a competition in the world has or will be spared its influence and the inevitable controversies that go along with the use of technology in sport. Whether it be Champions League, World Cup or humble A-League play, the technological microscope has erred frequently and will continue to do so.
July 7 saw the Copa America final experience the pointed influence of VAR, when a Christian Cueva cross hit the arm of Thiago Silva in the box, as he slid in to clear desperately.
The sphere stuck his trailing arm unintentionally and the subsequent penalty drew Peru level after the Brazilians had taken an early lead.
A VAR review confirmed the decision despite Silva having no chance of reacting and avoiding the contact.
It was an interesting decision, particularly considering the new wording and interpretation of the handball rule, implemented and enacted by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) on June 1.
In essence, emphasis on the deliberate use of the hand has been lessened and the rule tweaked in an attempt to solve the issue of unintentional contact.
Of course, any intentional contact will continue to be punished firmly, however, IFAB has laid out some new and rather interesting language to ‘clarify’ unintentional contact with the arm or hand.
That language was applied in the Copa America decision and in conjunction with the entire VAR system, will become a talking point in leagues all over the world this upcoming season.
Specifically, the VAR confirmation of the Silva’s handball infringement related to two dot points immersed in IFAB’s new wording and thinking.
The handball rule now states that a penalty will not be awarded if, after contact between ball and arm in the penalty area,
a) the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger.
b) a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body.
IFAB technical director David Elleray explained the thinking behind the changes in the following way.
“We’ve changed it to say the body has a certain silhouette,” said Elleray. “If the arms are extended beyond that silhouette then the body is being made unnaturally bigger, with the purpose of it being a bigger barrier to the opponent or the ball.
“Players should be allowed to have their arms by their side because it’s their natural silhouette.”
In effect, the VAR decided that Silva did indeed make his ‘natural silhouette’ bigger, thus making the hand to ball contact illegal.
After searching my house and peering into every mirror and glass sliding door for near on three hours on Monday morning, I was unable to locate my ‘natural silhouette’. In fact, I am not exactly sure what it is, to which point it extends and whether the position of the sun affects it.
Despite feeling somewhat bewildered by its true meaning and quizzical at its inclusion in the new rule, it is a term I plan to use with gay abandon among footballing friends.
Moussa Sissoko and Tottenham players speak to the referee after Sissoko was ruled to have handballed in the box in the UEFA Champions League final. (Photo by Tottenham Hotspur FC/Tottenham Hotspur FC via Getty Images)
The phrase and its application intends to discourage the positioning of the arms behind the back, as defenders attempt to become barriers between ball and goal; allowing them to leave their arms in a more natural position by their side.
However, it appears likely that the devil once again lies in the detail and the manner in which the new terminology is applied will be interesting to observe. Be prepared for painstaking analysis of players who have managed to remain within their ‘natural silhouette’ and others whose body position is deemed to have become unnatural.
As is the case with rule making, adding layers of interpretation and subjectivity merely clouds the waters further. Such a lack of clarity hampers the on-field official’s task and is then parlayed when VAR becomes involved.
Using such an imprecise and abstract phrase, potentially meaning different things to different people may prove a rod for IFAB’s back.
Or perhaps the new wording provides the much sought after solution to the issue of handballs in the penalty area and gives the VAR a rigid framework within which to work, leading to perfect decisions every time?
AussieIrishman
Guest
We'll have players kicking the ball at opponents' arms as Neil Kilkenny did for Perth Glory versus Melbourne Victory. Creating goal-scoring opportunities (called penalties) not having them denied by defenders.
jupiter53
Roar Pro
I completely agree. The problem is the use of slow motion. Surely an obvious error by the referee has to be obvious at normal speed. I like your protocol; it would keep the game flowing and leave the referee in charge.
Waz
Roar Rookie
As a coach who will have to do that I think it will be simple. “Natural silhouette” is just a replacement for “natural body position” which were already accustomed too and I personally can imagine what a natural silhouette looks like, it puts an end to defenders putting their hands behind their backs for a start. Most handball is not handball - it has to be deliberate and we need to accept that. It’s the baying of people who don’t understand the rules that’s causing the problem, not the rules.
Kannga2
Roar Rookie
Agree we have had many instances now around the world where refs deciding facts of the handball ..... where it is taking several minutes and using super slow motion for the ref to decide facts that happen in real time . If the ref needs 3 minutes to decide , then it’s not a handball imo Just play on . Every other sport , showed that video technology wasn’t perfecting decisions, so soccer should stayed away from video refs Technology, doesn’t always make things better
Kannga2
Roar Rookie
Hypothetically how do you explain to your defenders what to do when coaching your youngsters about the new hand ball rule Hey kids .,, No idea what this ref will penalise you for , but just accept it . I would prefer to try to understand the rule to explain to my players .
Midfielder
Roar Guru
Stuart plus Nem & Waz Off topic and a little gift for you… could make a great article in the future.. Its a very very very interesting article on viewing in the US … my guess is we are similar … this certainty highlights two things IMO one you must be broadcast in clubs, pubs, etc so Fox, Optus or even things like Bar TV are important and to be both streamed and on fixed broadcasting the articles looks at age groups and how they watch. https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2019/for-the-win-out-of-home-viewers-of-fall-sports-on-linear-tv-are-engaged/ First bit copied… lots more in the article including charts and stats…if interested in this kinda stuff… Younger consumers, typically Millennials, are always on the go—from visiting family to working out to connecting with colleagues at happy hour. While they live busy lifestyles, they also like to stay connected to what’s happening with their favorite sports teams. And that means these highly engaged viewers look for ways to stay connected to the latest scores and catch a game regardless of where they are. Across the many places to catch a game, restaurants, bars and someone else’s home are top destinations for fall sports viewing and social engagement.
Nemesis
Guest
Handball is not totally subjective. There is a black & white objective fact involved: did the ball touch the hand. Often from the ref's angle, it can't be noticed - eg the Henry incident, Maradona incident. But, from different camera angles it becomes obvious. But, you're right the law is not strict liability. There is a subjective element to the Law. And, that's why there will still be disputes. But, there won't be any disputes about whether the ball touched the part of the body that it is not allowed to touch.
Nemesis
Guest
My 3rd factor is probably part of the 2nd - VAR looks at the 4 cameras at normal speed. I reckon the slow motion causes the problems. In normal speed, handball can be purely accidental & impossible to avoid. But in slow motion it starts to look as if the defender had ample time to avoid contact, which is not true. In normal speed a trip is a trip. But in slow motion people start to suggest the person is accentuating the fall.
Fadida
Roar Rookie
Exactly, it's their "interpretation ". VAR needs to decide fact, not subjective opinion. May as well let refs abide by their first interpretation and keep the game moving
Fadida
Roar Rookie
I hate VAR. It kills the spontaneity of the goal celebration; there's always the lingering feeling the goal will be overruled. Offside is a matter of fact. It can be measured. Black and white. Hand ball is subjective. VAR has done nothing to improve decisions. There are just as many controversies around hand ball as ever, depending on personal interpretation of the rule. Ultimately we are seeing that even with the benefit of multiple replays, refs aren't getting enough decisions any more "right" than with the naked eye, at full speed, to make the delays worth it.
Voice of Reason
Roar Rookie
I agree with your analysis. Did you have 3 factors or there were just 2? I like the use of technology, as long as it is done quickly and well. This last year has been very frustrating (Spurs fan disclosure at this point) in terms of VAR and clarification is needed. The inconsistency of key decisions on handball in the penalty area (PSG v Man Utd, France v USA in WWC, Liverpool v Spurs in CL and probably lots of others) has not been good. Seems to generally work well for offside now. I like transparency to the crowd at the ground too.
Waz
Roar Rookie
Unlike journalists and your average football fan (me) Referees do undergo intensive training that does include detailed examples, case studies, and visual guides on implementing the law. What we all have to remember is it is the referees interpretation of the law that matters; if s/he thinks it’s handball then it is handball - what the rest of us think is irrelevant. The sooner we all accept that and not take our debates too seriously the better off we will be.
Stuart Thomas
Expert
Intentionally handball in the box = penalty? Unintentional handball in the box = yellow card + free kick? Or just the free? Or just the yellow?
Stuart Thomas
Expert
I can't see how the adoption of the abstract 'natural silhouette' makes a referee's job easier. Expecting an official to include that into their thought process, when it's actually meaning and dimensions could be debated seems problematic. At least they could have released a diagram of a faceless and shadowy figure to indicate exactly what the 'natural silhouette' is. A West Ham player would have been happy to model for it. Just so we can all understand what it is. Strangely, the phrase is not written into the actual new wording of Law 12. It appears to be more of a guiding principle. Good luck when they try to get every referee on the planet on the same page when it comes to their understanding of such an abstract term.
Stuart Thomas
Expert
I like this approach and completely agree in regards to the speed of the vision being vital to the decision. Where I am coming from here is the application of the abstract phrase merely adding another layer of confusion to the task of officiating. I'm not sure how much rugby league you sneak a look at but the powers at be keep adding layer after layer of terminology some years back. Now a tackle can be a 'surrender' tackle, a 'dominant tackle' or the ball carrier can be milking. All they did was confuse the issue. Define the tackle, not three or four different kinds of tackle. I remember when I was doing my training with the PGA some years back and in the rules module, we were taught to read, re-read and then re-read again the definitions at the start of the rule book. It actually works. Knowing the precise terms of reference in any situation makes the application of rules so much more simple. Introducing the 'natural silhouette' will potentially add more grey as it demands interpretation. Football and VAR can work. Russia proved that during the World Cup and their black, white and brisk approach worked well in the main. #VARIN
Nemesis
Guest
True enough, but in Football the Laws clearly state: Law 5 1. The authority of the referee Each match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match. So, even though we have VAR. The VAR has no authority. The Ref doesn't have to listen to VAR. The ref can do what he/she wants.
oldpsyco
Guest
I see no problem with people who once called for video replays, now calling for their removal. Thee is nothing wrong with admitting you made a mistake. And VAR is a mistake! An Obvious Error in itself!
oldpsyco
Guest
Sounds good just one change; Remove clause C. If he is not sure then the error is NOT obvious!
Kannga2
Roar Rookie
Debate is good and soccer , like profession sports everywhere need an audience talking about the game and paying to watch . No rule would ever get changed if people didn’t debate its merits.
Nemesis
Guest
Before VAR football coaches, players, columnists, bloggers & fans would complain about how ridiculous it was not to have video replays to overturn obvious incidents that were being missed by referees, but were visible to the person with access to a replay. The howls of "it's a bad look for the game" with references to how video replays were part of all other sports: cricket, tennis, gridiron, NRL, AFL, etc. Some of us at the time shrugged our shoulders and said, if you've ever played the game or been a referee, you'd know that you can't see everything. That's just football. But, the complainers got their way & VAR was introduced. Now, the complainers want VAR removed. They want to go back to the original system &, presumably, being able to complain about refs missing obvious incidents that impact the result of a game. I think VAR would work extremely well if - and, only if - obvious error is measured by 3 factors: 1) the error must be able to be seen at normal speed - i.e. not slow motion replay. If it needs slow motion replay, it's not an obvious error 2) the error must be seen with just one replay (at normal speed) from the various camera angles. So, let's assume there are 4 cameras angles. 1) VAR will look at Camera 1, then 2, then 3, then 4. All at normal speed. 2) VAR decision will be made within 30 seconds. 3) VAR tells the ref: a) there is no error; or b) I think there is an obvious error; or c) I'm not sure, you can look Decision over within 30-45 seconds. Which is about the time Redmayne & Reddy take for a goal kick if their team is winning. Probably 2 minutes if the ref wants to look at one replay from each of the 4 camera angles in normal speed.