The first round of the A-League saw the return of VAR, which once again drew attention away from the football.
But it isn’t just the accuracy of the decisions that is questionable, but the process itself.
The problems with the process are twofold. Firstly, there’s the issue of technological limitations, which mean that subjective human interpretation will always be involved. And secondly, the fact the play continues during the decision-making process can create paradoxes.
Making offside calls with VAR is especially problematic.
Because both players and the ball are always moving it’s possible for movement to occur between frames that are captured by the camera. In fact, it’s entirely possible that Kosta Barbarouses was actually onside but that there simply wasn’t a frame recorded on camera to prove this.
Technological limitations will mean that subjective human interpretation will always be involved. There are always going to be controversies due to human fallibility or differing perspectives.
The bigger problem with the VAR process, however, is that play continues while decisions are under review by the VAR system.
(Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images)
Play shouldn’t continue while a decision is under review by VAR. Imagine, using Saturday’s game at Parramatta for example, if the Mariners had scored while the decision process was taking place and had their goal was overturned by an event that happened over three minutes beforehand.
Alternatively, what if the Wanderers had scored and the reverse scenario unfolded. They could have had their own goal chalked off and have had to have gone back to the penalty spot, which they could then have possibly ended up missing.
Or how about if the Mariners had scored an own goal during the VAR process only to have it overturned and then gone to a penalty for the Wanderers for the previous handball incident, which they then may or may not have ended up converting.
What happens if a player gets a red card, should that be overturned? It doesn’t make sense that a red card incident happened during the VAR process but that a goal didn’t.
Imagine if a Mariners player went in studs up on a Wanderers player causing a red card and an associated penalty, which they then scored, before being told to retake it for the previous incident for the handball. Should the red card and the goal both be overturned or just the goal? And again, what if the Wanderers end up missing the penalty after the goal is overturned.
You may think that some of my scenarios sound farcical and that they would never occur, but during a Bundesliga match between Mainz and Freiburg there was a bizarre case that actually did happen.
In the dying seconds of the first half, a player for Freiburg committed a handball in the penalty area but appeals by Mainz were dismissed by the referee who then blew the whistle for half time. After the players had left the pitch and gone to their dressing rooms, they had to be called back out again when the VAR reversed the initial decision made six minutes and 44 seconds earlier. Mainz then converted the penalty to go 1-0 up into the break rather than being level at 0-0.
Even if cases like this are rare or unlikely, they aren’t entirely impossible. But if you cap the amount of time that’s allowed for a VAR review to take place, then decisions will have to be made more quickly, potentially making them less accurate.
A quick goal could be scored in less than 30 seconds, so is that enough time for a considered review? Cue the complaints.
If there’s a VAR review then fans need to be kept in the loop about what’s going on, but that can be difficult and distracting if play is ongoing. So if there’s a VAR review underway, then play should stop until it is finished and time should be added on at the end of the half – the same as what happens when a player is down injured.
Waz
Roar Rookie
Agreed. The guy who introduced VAR to football says it may take a decade to get right, that’s an awful prospect. To me the whole thing wasn’t thought through well enough and the code kinda jumped in and made it up as it went along.
Tyke
Roar Rookie
You’re example is much better suited and is no doubt an inevitable scenario, and yes some people will complain no matter what and about anything, they should evaluate themselves. Personally I don’t care for the VAR, referees cop it because of replays in all televised sports, when you play on the weekends mistakes and missed calls happen all the time, you get on with it and nobody blames the ref for the end result. I would also like to point out, the howlers that happen in other sports are much more frustrating, in soccer it’s mostly 50/50, too close to calls, “was his toenail offside?”, “was his arm away from his body?”, and the players themselves know a single referees call doesn’t determine a game, they have 90+ minutes to win, fans like to make scapegoats. So as yesterday’s article says, football fans have themselves to blame for having VAR.
Waz
Roar Rookie
:thumbup:
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Just being provocative Waz.
Waz
Roar Rookie
It can’t be a “clear and obvious error” for that foul. It’s a subjective opinion by the referee as to whether the offence deserved a red or yellow sanction. Opinion can not be wrong, it’s subjective. And in the case, in this match the only person that knows what tollerance the game is being officiated too is the referee on the ground ... the person in Sydney in the VAR booth is not aware because s/he is not refereeing the game and a key concept of VAR is that it should NOT re-referee incidents.
Waz
Roar Rookie
It is not a redundant argument, it goes to the very heart of a key VAR issue. Let’s change the scenario then: It’s a corner, the attacking side sends the usual mob up to try and score from the corner. The ball comes in, ping pongs around a bit, but breaks to the defensive side who execute a swift counter attack and as they approach the half way line the breaking attackers now out number the defenders some of whom are well behind the ball from the corner. BUT there’s been a possible incident and VAR review. The author would have us believe the game should be stopped, killing the promising counter attack while the review takes place. Let’s say the review takes place and NO offence has been committed thus killing the counter attack and denying the possibility of a counter attack goal being scored for no reason. The author is guilty of something called “framing”. The question has been framed in such a way (WSW deserved a VAR Pen, Mariners might have scored but it would have to be ruled out, Controversy would follow etc etc) that the only correct answer must be to stop the game and do the review. In the narrow scenario the author presents that answer can be seen to be “correct”. But by broadening the possible scenarios, as I have tried to do, and reframing more possible scenarios, it’s possible to see the game would be stopped incorrectly and a promising attack denied for no good reason other than to check if there was an offence, even when there wasn’t. The whole deployment of VAR has been reactionary and as they fix one “problem” they create a new one. And the internet is such that people will complain just as loudly abut the new problem as they did the old one. The end result is a chaotic approach to deploying a system that has a material impact on the game.
Redondo
Roar Rookie
I’d have to go through them all again but from memory the only ‘clear and obvious’ error was the Adelaide goal called offside. I thought the sending off for the foul on Le Fondre was a clear and obvious error too - minimal contact. I’m not sure if the VAR ref can reverse decisions like that but they should.
Tyke
Roar Rookie
You’re argument is redundant, CCM may have scored as play continues, CCM would not score if play is stopped. Which is the lesser of two evils? There being no possibility of anyone scoring during the process? Or there being the potential for someone to score and have it taken away?
Fadida
Roar Rookie
Surely Nick you aren't seriously suggesting that WSW would have their goal cancelled out and replaced by a penalty for -WSW? The goal would stand, advantage would be played. So many VAR articles, despite 6/6 decisions being correct! One wonders the furore had it erred!
Waz
Roar Rookie
“Play shouldn’t continue while a decision is under review by VAR. Imagine, using Saturday’s game at Parramatta for example, if the Mariners had scored while the decision process was taking place and had their goal was overturned by an event that happened over three minutes beforehand“ What if Mariners HAD scored and the subsequent VAR review had instead shown no offence? In stopping the play for the review you are effectively denying Mariners that goal. The first step in making a VAR-world work (or indeed a non-VAR world) is for football fans to stop complaining and finding fault with everything - nothing is perfect.