It’s been three years since FIFA decided to adopt the VAR system and use it in its competitions.
Ironically enough, the first-ever decision made using the VAR system - was wrong. During the 2016 Clubs World Cup match between Atletico Nacional and Kashima Antlers, the referee ignored a foul committed on a Kashima player inside the penalty box. After consulting the VAR, a penalty was awarded to the Japanese club. In the review, it is indeed evident that a foul has been committed on Kashima’s player, but what the referee didn’t see was that he was also in an offside position. The whole play should’ve been called off. Since that day, thousands of VAR-assisted decisions were made by football referees, but along with the progress, the hope of reducing the number of mistakes and making more accurate calls vanished quickly.
Of course, every sports fan prefers that the right calls are made, especially when wrong ones are made against their team. Therefore, the VAR system should’ve been football's savior, making the sport practically mistake-free, much like Tennis, American football and Basketball. But the reality is much more complicated, even if we ignore the disturbance to the flow of the match and our viewing experience (we will get back to it).
The VAR can’t adjust itself to today’s football rules. Unintentional hand-balls inside the box are awarded as penalties; Borderline offside calls are reversed despite the referee watching the replay. Similar events are called differently, sometimes during the same match. These are only some of the problems of using technology in football.
But, don't think that technology is the only one to blame – referees play a role in this too. The VAR system took away some of their confidence, so that they are afraid to make decisions during the match fearing they will have to witness their own mistakes and admit to them. It's much easier to let the VAR decide. We should also remember that sometimes there’s a difference between a live play and a replay, and both can affect the referee’s decision. Fouls on replay may appear more violent than they are in reality. As when the referees lose their room for judgment, feelings and 'touch' on the whistle, they slowly turn into robots with a growing dependency on VAR, and so the game changes, and not necessarily in a good way.
Let's address what is perhaps the biggest issue here, the viewing experience of the fans. While football is still mostly about winning, it also falls under the category of entertainment. People arrive at the stadium to express their emotions, vent frustrations, and only a true football fan knows the feeling of real joy when his team scores a goal, especially if it's a last minute game-winner. But what happens to those feelings when immediately after celebrating, everything stops, the referee runs to the monitor, and after three more minutes of consultation, he changes his decision and cancels the goal? Whether or not the decision is correct, our emotions are not natural anymore. Our joy is restrained and is put into constant doubt - and in my opinion, losing the spontaneity is just not worth it. It’s everything BUT the real football which we all grew up on.
The VAR gives us an illusion of justice, but we must remember it's just an illusion. Take, for example, the Premier League match between Liverpool and Manchester City on November 10th. The ball touched Trent Alexander-Arnold’s hand inside the box, and the VAR didn’t interrupt the play as it did at other times. While City's players were complaining, Liverpool scored in a counter-attack. Despite the presence of the VAR system, it was the wrong decision by VAR and the referee. It is evident that the system also changes players' behavior and expectations, focusing their attention on a potential video review rather than on the flow of the game. Also, many plays don't allow for a clear-cut decision even after the VAR check, leaving frustrated fans who demand absolute justice.
Let's look at some changes that can be made to make the VAR more relevant to today's game:
One suggestion calls for every team to get several appeals per match, similar to American Football, and just like in Tennis the appeal can only be made by the team's head coach. If the appeal was correct, he will get to keep his right to appeal again; if not, it will be revoked. This might direct the coaches' complaints to the duration of the match, and not the press conference following it.
Another suggested change would be to reduce the number of situations where VAR interrupts the flow of the game. Interfering in offside positions or fouls inside the box causes too much controversy and has a high potential for inaccuracies and frustration. Limiting the calls to whether the ball crossed the goal line, similar to the hawk-eye system, or interfering when a goal is scored illegitimately such as Diego Maradona's "hand of God" historic goal, might be useful.
Today’s football involves too much money to be affected by referee mistakes. It is also a very expensive experience. The fans should be able to come and enjoy the match, instead of getting an experience of short-lived, interrupted plays similar to American Football, lacking the natural flow of the game we are used to. There must be a balance between the need for just calls and a good flow to the game. No one promised us the VAR would be an immediate success, but if after three years so many people are raging against the machine, it means that the product is far from perfect. If the VAR is not going anywhere anytime soon – we must find a way to coexist with it without our enjoyment being compromised. A change to the VAR rules and protocol is crucially needed.