As Dominik Szoboszlai walked down the tunnel after receiving a red card for denying a goal-scoring opportunity, he probably realized that he had just become a victim of yet another Video Assistant Referee (VAR) controversy. Meanwhile, referee Craig Pawson announced his decision to overturn the on-field decision of a goal and instead give a red card to Szoboszlai and a free kick to Manchester City. In that moment, all Pawson should have been thankful for was that this decision did not affect the result that the match was headed toward. It just meant that on Feb. 8, City beat Liverpool by two goals rather than three in the English Premier League for the first time at Anfield (Liverpool’s home stadium) since 2003. VAR’s pesky interventions in this crucial encounter between two English giants in the final few months of the Premier League’s season add to the enormous list of controversies that have built up over the season.
I think we have had enough time to figure out that VAR has, unfortunately, not been the ultimate authority for neutrality and accurate decisions that it promised to be when it was first introduced. While many can argue that in this instance, VAR was correct due to the fact that when a team plays advantage, the result of a play cannot be counted if the team committed a foul after playing the advantage. In this case, I agree that it was probably more a shortcoming of the rules rather than VAR itself. However, without a VAR intervention that took the game beyond 90 plus 13 minutes of stoppage time, a decision that would allow the goal to stand seemed like an acceptable one since the foul that Erling Haaland and Szoboszlai committed on each other would cancel out. Honestly, I think the decision to just award Manchester City a goal would have probably caused less controversy.
VAR’s letdown appears to be a unique problem associated with soccer. In fact, other sports have greatly benefited from such advances with tennis introducing the Hawk-Eye line calling system, rugby adding the Television Match Official and cricket welcoming the Decision Review System (DRS) in attempts to help these sports make more accurate and impartial decisions.
With this in mind, I highlight three main issues that are part of the reason for VAR’s controversial status and offer potential changes that could rebrand it, presenting it as a reliable tool that promotes impartiality instead of dominating headlines for the wrong reasons.
The first problem is that it is too slow. In a fast-paced game such as soccer, stoppages for VAR stick out like a sore thumb. Unlike sports such as tennis, which have natural pauses after each point, soccer can go on continuously for 45 minutes, so these breaks can ruin the flow and momentum of the game. Statistics from earlier in this season show that an average of 45 minutes and 35 seconds in every game in the Premier League was lost to stoppages. While this is obviously not entirely a result of VAR, it is safe to assume that VAR stoppages are responsible for a significant fraction of it. However, progress with semi-automated offsides and goal-line technology has helped speed up the “checks” while ruling out any subjectivity in these matters.
The second issue is that VAR is used too often. It is supposed to be used only when there are clear and obvious errors—for example, if there is a clear handball in the penalty box that the on-field referee missed. However, there is often confusion over what constitutes a clear and obvious error. Nonetheless, I think there are some ways to navigate this. One high-potential idea is to introduce the concept of “challenges” that has become commonplace in other team and individual sports. It would mean that each team would be given a certain number of predetermined challenges per half or game. The disruption these challenges would cause would not look very different from what the current stoppages look like. Additionally, it could actually reduce the number of stoppages because the team will only challenge when they genuinely believe an incorrect decision was made, rather than VAR checks for every sketchy goal-scoring-related opportunity. In this system, there could be a problem of running out of challenges, but that is also a problem other sports face and have learned to circumvent. If anything, this would force teams to value their challenges more and maybe even save them for the later part of their game. This would also mean that referees have to stay attentive and accountable and cannot expect VAR to proofread every decision they make. The only thing to consider here is how good players will be at recognizing fouls. In soccer, players are so used to adding dramatic theatrics to get the referee’s attention to try and convince them to call in their favor. However, I do have faith that, come the time to challenge a decision, players will be able to accurately recognize when an appeal is empty and worthless and when it is not. An example of this can be seen in cricket. The Leg Before Wicket (LBW) appeals by players and decisions made by umpires are similar in theme to soccer player theatrics and refereeing decisions. However, since the introduction of the DRS, which is the LBW challenging system, teams have grown wiser in their decision-making on whether to take a review or not. While they may appeal anything and everything, when it comes to deciding to take a review or not, teams have exercised significantly good decision-making.
Lastly, there is a very low margin for error, which is one of the primary reasons why VAR was so optimistically welcomed into the soccer world. A bad decision could cost the team a goal or a red card, and this could jeopardize their ability to win a match. However, it seems there needs to be an official way to recognize the element of human judgment in these VAR calls, which is the root cause of most of the controversy. To call on cricket again as an example, it has the “umpire’s call,” which is a call that essentially says that the system is not precise enough to predict the outcome, so it chooses to stay with the decision made by the on-field umpire. While there could be shortcomings of that in soccer due to the low margin of error, I think it could be a handy tool if introduced, as there are often times in soccer games where the decisions are too tight to call and overturn. A “referee’s call” could shift scrutiny away from VAR and let it pass as a moment of on-field referee judgment. While one could argue this is technically the current logic of VAR, it is not followed often enough. VAR officials need to be more willing to give the on-field referee the benefit of the doubt, and as fans of the game, so do we.
VAR—the reason for why a soccer referee’s job is becoming an unattractive profession—has caused countless incidents that have cast the system in a bad light, angering fans and making one always check whether it is safe to enjoy themselves while watching their team’s successes. However, it also comes with its positive moments. Professional Game Match Officials Limited estimates that over 200 incorrect decisions are made without the use of VAR. While it cannot fix all problems, it seems to be able to take care of at least a few.