Simon Hill has long been an avid critic of the VAR’s introduction into football. While I regard Hill as one of the best football commentators and pundits in this country, this has always been the one thing I’ve strongly disagreed with him on.
His latest article in The Daily Telegraph seemed to echo a lot of what I hear from people and read on Twitter – yet so much of it just seems stubborn and illogical.
Football ‘purists’ are unwilling to accept change and progression in the game. The same people that would complain on a weekly basis when referee’s got crucial decisions wrong.
The overarching thought I continuously come back to is that if we’re going to use this technology post-game to analyse how decisions were wrong, why would we not use it during the game to actually get the decisions right?
These were the parts of Simon’s article that stood out to me…
“Six VAR interventions, six correct decisions.”
Yes. Six interventions that otherwise would have been six officiating mistakes and six negative talking points.
“(collectively, the five A-League games were delayed by a total of 11 minutes and 39 seconds while waiting for the decisions)”
I wish the process was a bit quicker as well but there are a few things we should remember.
Firstly, the majority of this time was spent on just a couple of decisions that took extra time to analyse and judge properly, such as Dylan Fox’s handball against the Wanderers. Most other decisions were handled much quicker.
Secondly, the time that used to be wasted by players continuing to argue and protest with the referee after contentious decisions has effectively been eliminated because the players now know the VAR will check it. I’d wager this time saved would be close to the time taken for VAR to check decisions.
Thirdly, this time is less than what it was last season. It will be less next season, and less the season after that. The tech will get better and officials will get quicker as they become more proficient with it.
“Al Hassan Toure’s debut goal was overshadowed by the “is it, or isn’t it” tribulations, while Elvis Kamsoba’s exuberant celebrations were all for nothing, thanks to him being ruled offside by a quarter of a jockstrap.”
Toure’s debut goal wouldn’t have been a goal at all without the VAR considering the linesman flagged him offside.
If you asked the youngster whether he’d prefer a goal celebration slightly interrupted by a VAR check as opposed to his goal being incorrectly disallowed, I think we know which he’d choose.
Kamsoba’s celebrations were for nothing, yes. But what about the thousands of City fans that would have been left gutted once it was revealed the goal that lost them the derby was actually offside.
Quarter of a jockstrap, a full jockstrap or 50 jockstraps – offside is offside.
“Hawkeye technology, which has clearly done away with the mantra of “clear and obvious” error.”
This is probably the most frustrating aspect of the anti-VAR argument. ‘There should be some leeway – we shouldn’t be measuring by the centimetre’.
Offside is offside.
It is an objective rule, you either are or you aren’t. How does one define ‘clear and obvious’ when discussing an objective rule? How much leeway should strikers get?
Do you have to be a metre offside for it to be clear and obvious? What if you’re only 97cm offside – is that acceptable under the ‘clear and obvious’ mantra?
Just as the Hawkeye technology now makes it clear and obvious when the ball is 2cm over the goal-line or 20cm over, it also now makes it clear and obvious when someone is offside by any distance.
“…everyone understands human failing is part of life… Referees have never been given that sort of leeway”
You’re absolutely right, they haven’t been. Referees come under an enormous level of scrutiny and cop huge amounts of abuse for decisions made at break-neck speed. If people are going to spend hours breaking down individual moments with slow motion replays to analyse whether a decision was right or wrong, why shouldn’t refs have the right to take a couple minutes to do the same thing?
Sport is getting faster and more precise. The majority of other sports have introduced various technologies similar to VAR to assist referees in keeping up.
If we’re not going to give our refs the tools to make the best decision possible and combat the increasing scrutiny, how can we possibly expect young referees to want to develop into professionals?
“All were relegated to minor discussion points as VAR took centre stage.”
VAR is still new and as with any new element of the game, it will always garner a lot of attention in its early stages. But as we get used to VAR helping make decisions correct, it will cease to dominate discussion.
You know what didn’t dominate discussion from Round 1? Incorrect refereeing decisions.
“It took a full two minutes before Roy O’Donovan’s goal for Brisbane was declared legal.”
Again, this will get faster as the tech and refs get better. Would we rather Brisbane have been robbed of their last-minute equaliser? The linesman ruled him offside remember, same as Toure.
“They, understandably, want the right decisions more than anyone. Yet this is not the English Premier League where millions of dollars are at stake”
We continuously say we want the A-League to grow and become the best it can be. We compare it to the MLS, EPL, La Liga and other top leagues wishing it could be more like them. So if the best leagues in the world are utilising VAR, why would we not do the same?
We helped lead the world with the introduction of VAR, let’s continue to lead the world in its development!
“Perhaps I’m in a minority, but I grew up admiring the skills of footballers, and enjoying great goals, not the forensic investigation of footage by officials.”
I admire the skills and great goals as much as anyone. But surely an element of a great goal is that it’s scored within the laws of the game. If a player catches the ball 30 yards out, rolls it in front of him and smashes it top corner, is it still a great goal?
VAR isn’t perfect – it can be improved. For instance, making the process more transparent and keeping crowds and TV viewers in the loop.
But instead of burying our heads in the sand and continuing to grumble about ‘the good old days’, why don’t we accept that our wonderful game is constantly evolving and this is just the latest element of its progression? Imagine if the NRL suddenly did away with the video ref or cricket suddenly did away with the third umpire.
Let’s work with administrators and officials to improve VAR and work towards a system that eventually feels like a natural part of the game.
Kasey
Roar Pro
The problem I have with VAR is that it’s supposed to be for clear and obvious errors. If The ball brushes an arm in the penalty box and the VAR has to spend a full minute trying to find the ‘smoking gun’ shot was it really a clear and obvious miss from the referee in the middle? I don’t think so. Not only that, but our game is supposed to be a fluid flowing game (except in Italian 1980s football!) . We’re not stop-start like other sports. VAR as demonstrated this season has fundamentally altered the fabric of the game. its feel, its vibe. For that reason I don’t like it. I’m happy to have mistakes. Where there’s a human in the decision-making loop, mistakes will be made. in football as in life. That’s why our game is such a great metaphor for life, its part of why people get so passionate about it
c
Roar Rookie
"this pursuit of perfection is ruining the spectacle of football" - sums it up well get rid of it
Buddy
Roar Rookie
I don’t disagree with your assertion overall but when you see a penalty given in a game around 3-4 minutes after an incident, it doesn’t feel right. When your team goes on to score a penalty and subsequently win the game it doesn’t feel good, nor does it feel right.
Redondo
Roar Rookie
An old silent pond... A frog jumps into the pond, splash! Silence again.
oldpsyco
Guest
Take your meds mate! Its Sport, you know a GAME NOT Life & Death. Get over yourself!
RbbAnonymous
Roar Rookie
Regardless.............VAR has not improved football for the better. Even with VAR it has not illiminated the subjective nature of making football decisions. Even when you think a decision is 100% correct chances are it isn't. A lot of football supporters want to see it gone from our game because quite frankly this pursuit of perfection is ruining the spectacle of football. You may have lamented the fact that pre-VAR everyone would complain about a referee decision, however, the discussion has similarly turned the discussion on VAR, which is even worse. Congratulations the VAR is getting decisions right but at the same time is ruining football.
At work
Roar Rookie
I also completely disagree with the statement “The same people that would complain on a weekly basis when referee’s got crucial decisions wrong.”. I’ll complain until the cows come home about VAR, but I have always firmly believed that you make your own luck and whether you win or lose is on you (the team), not a decision made by the ref.
Fadida
Roar Rookie
Angela Lansbury could get a confession by the time VAR makes up it's mind
marron
Guest
"The same people that would complain on a weekly basis when referee’s got crucial decisions wrong." Sick of reading this. It's based on zero evidence - or at least, none is being presented. I hate VAR, and never complained about referees getting crucial decisions wrong. The assistant referees were in the best position to see offsides and make the call, the ref either saw the handball or didn't - and when cameras showed something missed, it might have been missed, but that does not mean that the result was incorrect, because what was correct was defined by the referee and that was final. I accepted that. It's possible I was alone in that, but I still don't see any evidence that the people complaining about the refs are the people complaining about VAR as well. Others have summed up a lot of what I think already on VAR, but, I would just like to stress, I think they have the balance wrong. If it HAS to be used, then it needs to be a check, and not the first point of call, and that check needs to be done quickly - if it takes longer than 30 seconds then it CANNOT be clear and obvious. ALL decisions should be left up those on pitch, with VAR used only as a confirmation. At the moment Assistant Refs are leaving their flags down because they know VAR will check it - supposedly with a degree of accuracy, although that is debateable, and yes that is important - it should be the other way around; they should be calling it as they see it, as normal; and VAR should just be a checking, and only if it has resulted in a goal (i.e., if the AR calls offside, and the whistle has been blown, and the free kick taken, just let it go). On top of that, with offside, if VAR is going to be used, then the law itself needs to be changed to give more leeway to the attacker. Less goals would be ruled out then, I think.
Stevo
Roar Rookie
Whenever there is an element of human subjectivity Involved then the decision will be in the eye of the beholder. I’m OK with VAR if it’s simply used to determine whether the ball crossed a line or not. Tennis uses it this was, cricket goes further and uses an algorithm to determine if the ball would have hit the wicket in cases of leg-before-wicket. In both these cases we are presented with a computer aided interpretation, not the real thing. We could go on discussing this till the cows come home :silly:
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Currently, it's so slow they could take statements from the witnesses before making a decision.
Fadida
Roar Rookie
The time frame is key. Once you introduce Miami CSI you are looking too far
Fadida
Roar Rookie
I agree Waz. I'd rather VAR be gone (though it would allow the likes of Sydney and Victory to get the lion share of decisions in their favour, as is tradition). Unfortunately VAR is here to stay so now it's a case of making it work as best it can. Football is full of subjective decisions, not black and white, so it won't be perfect
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Yep. The focus is warped - the VAR should only be used to ensure there are no obviously wrong decisions, and that's all. And it should happen as close to real-time as possible. If it takes more than 30 seconds to throw doubt on a decision then there isn't enough doubt to overturn the decision.
Muz
Guest
This is a fantastic post. I would add that the instance of the 'pass', as it where, is not a distinct moment in time. When does the 'pass' actually occur so as to adjudge the offside. In reality the foot touches the ball, the ball compresses, the foot sinks into the ball, the ball expands, the foot is moving with the compressing and then expanding ball and the ball then leaves the foot. All of this would happen over multiple frames of the video footage. If the frame shot is stopped at a particular point and don't forget we're adjudging offsides in millimetre now, how do you determine when exactly the 'pass' was made. That's right, you can't. The whole thing is a joke. With regards to the OP the issue is not whether the VAR is 100% correct or not, the issue is how the EXPERIENCE of football is being wrecked. Ask yourself this question, do you really want football to look like the NFL? Because if we're really interested in getting every single decision correct then let's have 6 referees on the ground like they do in the NFL and review absolutely every decision. Clearly a ridiculous situation.
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Which is kind of my point - how much contact does the passer have to make with the ball before they are deemed to have 'touched' it. Is it a bootlace touch, or the boot itself, or is it when there is a clear impact bend on the ball? Is it the ref's call or does the software judge that contact? Who knows. Short of reading the specs for the software and the instructions to the ref nobody knows. In fact, I'd love to read the software specs - I'm guessing a lot of statistical hypothesising happens in the software processing - and that's just another form of subjectivity. The vendors of this software have a vested interest in presenting things as 'fact' that are simply not 'fact'.
Waz
Roar Rookie
photons don’t matter !! I’ll get my own coat.
Stevo
Roar Rookie
I was going OK until you said "It’s not clear how many photons wide that gap must be"
Redondo
Roar Rookie
‘Just as the Hawkeye technology now makes it clear and obvious when the ball is 2cm over the goal-line or 20cm over, it also now makes it clear and obvious when someone is offside by any distance.’ That is unbelievably naive. These are 2 very different things. For goal-line decisions, the technology is relatively uncomplicated. Deciding if the ball has crossed the goal-line comes down to a single frame in which you compare the ball’s position against a stationary line. That’s it. Offsides are far more complicated - the passer is moving, the ball is moving, the attacker is moving and the last defender is moving. Critically, the cameras only record all that movement as still shots taken once every .02 seconds (it might be less but nobody is saying). The single frame selected to prove offside is just the first frame that seems to show the passer touching the ball. They might have actually touched the ball a fraction of a second before, but between two frames captured by the camera. So, the VAR ref has just two frames to go on - a frame where there is daylight between the passer and the ball and a frame where there is none. It’s not clear how many photons wide that gap must be but I guess the VAR ref makes that call. That’s subjective judgement one. If he then bases the offside call on the second photon-free-gap frame he is making a second subjective judgement that the receiver and last defender could have not moved sufficiently between the two frames to account for any millimetres the attacker is ‘offside’ in the second frame. This decision is not objective: it depends on technology with unspecified margins of error and judgement calls about things the VAR ref and the ref can’t see but have to imagine. The only fair way to use such technology would be to base offside decisions on the positions of the attacking receiver and last defender in the last frame before the passer contacted the ball. That is still a little subjective but at least gives the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team and would eliminate the repeated and falsely objective millimetre level decisions that are blighting the game.
chris
Guest
Waz - totally agree. The impacts on crowd emotions has been way too pronounced as we wait...and wait for a decision.